INSTINCT, REASON, AND FULFILLMENT

Who gets to decide what is right and what is wrong?

You and I do.

We, as human beings, have been given free will.

But by whom?

Our discussion of this issue must begin with what source we believe imputes that free will. If we believe it is God, or our Higher Power, or Universal Energy, then we need to know by what measures we are constrained. What are the rules or guidelines - what is the system under which we humans are designed to operate?

We call this system “natural law.” It provides a framework within which we can move from day to day, making decisions which neither infringe upon each other nor on the rest of creation amongst which we live.

We are given reason. We are given conscience. These separate us from animals, who operate by instinct. Reason is meant to guide and direct our conscience. And conscience puts a mark of “right or wrong” on any given behavior.  Absent reason and conscience, we can slide into behavior defined under natural law as “wrong,” because we redefine it as “right.”

So there are the rules. From these come the great discussions of the philosophers and great thinkers down through the ages. They vary in opinion according to cultural influence. They generally define ethical theory as the basis of morality. Some turn to knowledge, rather than any named Higher Power, as the basis of ethical theory. Yet ironically they are essentially united in conclusion that accordance with the natural law promotes unity and peace, whereas discordance promotes chaos.

We are given reason. We are given conscience. These separate us from animals, who operate by instinct. Reason is meant to guide and direct our conscience. And conscience puts a mark of “right or wrong” on any given behavior. Absent reason and conscience, we can slide into behavior defined under natural law as “wrong,” because we redefine it as “right.”

Pope John Paul spoke of moral relevancy as a misuse of reason to refute the natural law and its moral code in order to validate behavior which is outside the acceptable norm.

Thomas Merton approached moral conflict this way:

“We are not meant to resolve all contradictions but to live with them and rise above them and see them in the light of exterior and objective values which make them trivial by comparison.”

And by what light did he think we would unravel these contradictions? The light of conscience.

“Conscience is the light by which we interpret the will of God in our own lives.”

-Thomas Merton, No Man is an Island

The title of Merton’s work on the issue of conscience is, not coincidentally, No Man is an Island. I believe that the point of guidelines to free will is to contain each of us so that we do not act as if no one else is affected by what we do. Our actions have consequences. Redefining morality to suit our situational convenience may seem easily excusable by some as a “live and let live” undertaking. But what of the other(s) whom your actions affect?

Silence and solitude promotes the deep inner examination we call discernment. We can examine our lives, and more specifically our behaviors and actions, and assess how we affect the world around us. This reflective analysis can cause us to redirect our own behavior incrementally, with an eye toward keeping our moral compass intact and following its direction.

And isn’t that how we find and steer toward our true purpose of finding fulfillment? When we act in a misguided way, isn’t that self-correction our natural attempt to get back on course to dignify what we stand for?

In our zeal to make our inner journey a time of personal revelation and growth, let’s not forget that we are inexorably interconnected with everything and everyone around us. We are each participants in a broader reality, and we must choose each day to find wisdom to guide us. Our journey is therefore meant as one taking us “inside out,” to better ourselves in order to better the life we live amongst those we encounter.

It seems we get to decide. Each of us gets to exercise free will, to perform an examination of conscience, using reason, to direct our day to day behavior. And by extension, each of us gets to refute natural law and challenge the definitions of “right and wrong” which natural law would suggest.

If we mindfully approach each moment of discernment, our best selves will show up to each encounter.  Chade-Meng Tan, Google’s Former Chief Happiness Officer/Jolly Good Fellow, is helping to bring birth to a mindfulness revolution.  He suggests one mindful moment allows you to “reliably find a space between stimulus and response...and choose a response. And you get choice, freedom, and power from this one simple practice.”

So the next time you are faced with a decision which questions your base values, take a breath.  It might be the beginning of a more fulfilled life, one decision at a time.