Moral, concerned of right or wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character. Impulse, a sudden strong impulse unreflective urge or desire to act. To the bare eye, the reading of both definitions, understandably, would cause one to question the correlation and realitivity of both seemingly completely opposite raesonings within the human brain. Although very different in terms of defenition, impulses and morals play
Morals are drilled into our heads from a young age, let the ederly take your seat on the bus, say please and thank you, always, respect adults, allowing our conscious mind to take the wheel as we progress (Pinker). Our minds create these illusions that if we were to follow a strict guideline of morals our imoulsivity would be more out of pure goodness, instead of reactive reflexes (Frijda, Ridderinkhof, Rietveld). Pressumably, our minds create these guidelines based on stories we are told of the more saintly versus the complete opposite of a saint (Pinker).
Most times, morality is like a light switch in the responsive parts of our human psychology. We see something that does not neccisarily appeal to our ever developing moral foundations, and the flip we subconciously have made through our progression of being told what is good and what is not, is ultimately flipped to ‘on’ creating invoktion and a more impulsive reflex toawrads said situation (Pinker). While possibly a more morally appeasing situation is to occur in front of our conscious brain, we, as humans, are more likely to have our impulse control switched to ‘off’ (Pinker). This allows for a more regulated and thought out response in our psychology (Powell).
Moraality is a realitively new study of the five W’s (who, what, when, where and why) which questions the control responses our minds have that make us decide, either consciously or subconsciously, between right and wrong (Powell). Universal truths such as: do not cheat and do not steal, are more widely recognized in our subconscious, but if some one person was to break a universal moral, most others would call for punishment against said person, which puts into question more subjective morals. Law, or punishment, do not always follow in direct suit to morals (Powell). For example, if a woman was to jay-walk in front of a cop and triedin front of jurists who viewed jay-walking as a punishable crime and took into account the fact the woman “might have seen the cop”and take it as disrespect toawrds authority, more than likely the woman would be charged based strictly off of those jurists views on morals.
On the other hand,if that same woman was tried in front of jurists who did not see how jay-walking is a severe enough crime for punishment and the jurists took the woman as just a person trying to get somewhere, more than likely the punishment would become null and void. The moralization procieved through the eyes of the law is not neccisarily predetermined by universal truths, but more of objective morals (Powell). If the said woman was to somehow anger the jurists or the judge present, this is where human impulsivity takes control possibly creating a harsges judgement. Morals are usually thrown out of the window when emotions such as anger are present (Frijda, Ridderinkhof, Rietveld).
