Morality in Karate?

Blog Article/Post Caveat (Read First Please: Click the Link)

In my many years of study toward a better understanding of my marital arts and karate I have come to the tentative (because things are in a constant state of flux) belief that many of the more esoteric aspects not being defined to a mutual understanding and acceptance are left to the individual whereas that understanding is of questionable nature due to the human frailties of perceptions, distinctions and beliefs, etc.

Lets take the belief or ideology of, “Morality.” We all assume we understand it but do we truly understand it and does it actually fit the criteria of a first principle that transcends individuals and ideologies and cultural social influences but rather sits underneath them all providing support? 

Generally speaking morality is defined as, “Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior; a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society.”

“Morality (from the Latin moralis ‘manner, character, proper behavior’) is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are distinguished as proper and those that are improper. Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion, or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal. Morality may also be specifically synonymous with ‘goodness’ or ‘rightness’.”

I have a feeling that we all can accept that the two quotes give a good basic academic presentation of what one in our society would consider a basic meaning of morality. So, if that were true then why does it diverge, often drastically, when it is asked of individuals and groups?

In karate and martial arts the term morality is often coupled with philosophy so I asked myself if this were appropriate and good enough and the following is my tentative understanding.

Moral Philosophy: A branch of philosophy concerned with ethics. Ethics being defined as, “Moral principles that govern a person's behavior or the conducting of an activity (the moral correctness of specified conduct); the branch of knowledge that deals with moral principles. Now we have to add in moral principles because it may or may not relate directly to morality or moral philosophies.” 

“Ethics (also known as moral philosophy) is the branch of philosophy which addresses questions of morality. The word ‘ethics’ is ‘commonly used interchangeably with 'morality,' and sometimes it is used more narrowly to mean the moral principles of a particular tradition, group, or individual’.”

“Moral principles are driven by the principles of right and wrong that are accepted by an individual or a social group; a rule or standard especially of good behavior; the principle that conduct should be moral; (rule of personal conduct; the moral principle that behavior should be determined by duty).”

It is also of the belief that human morality is not innate nor gene driven but derived from influences one encounters from the moment of conception, i.e., if you believe that external stimuli the mother experiences is also experienced to a degree while in the womb, or birth from the environment, etc. As we develop and evolve, in that evolve meaning what we learn and absorb and understand each moment of life experience, we change accordingly and some where in all that stimulus we learn, develop, become aware of and follow our own moral beliefs, philosophies and understandings of morality. 

There is another theory and belief supported to a degree with research that can be read at the following reference, i.e., “Why Conservatives Can’t Understand Liberals and Vice Versa.” The article is about a set of political views but the underlying information of morality drives the article and that is the focus of the reference to this article. 

I provide a quote of the five primary categories of moral foundation in humans for emphasis:

1. Care/harm: This foundation is related to our long evolution as mammals with attachment systems and an ability to feel (and dislike) the pain of others. It underlies virtues of kindness, gentleness, and nurturance.
2. Fairness/reciprocity: This foundation is related to the evolutionary process of reciprocal altruism. It generates ideas of justice, rights, and autonomy. [Note: In our original conception, Fairness included concerns about equality, which are more strongly endorsed by political liberals. However, as we reformulated the theory in 2011 based on new data, we emphasize proportionality, which is endorsed by everyone, but is more strongly endorsed by conservatives]
3. Loyalty/betrayal: This foundation is related to our long history as tribal creatures able to form shifting coalitions. It underlies virtues of patriotism and self-sacrifice for the group. It is active anytime people feel that it's "one for all, and all for one."
4. Authority/subversion: This foundation was shaped by our long primate history of hierarchical social interactions. It underlies virtues of leadership and follower-ship, including deference to legitimate authority and respect for traditions.
5. Sanctity/degradation: This foundation was shaped by the psychology of disgust and contamination. It underlies religious notions of striving to live in an elevated, less carnal, more noble way. It underlies the widespread idea that the body is a temple which can be desecrated by immoral activities and contaminants (an idea not unique to religious traditions). 

For me, as a side note, I find it difficult to believe that we somehow have gene’s or instincts carried down through the generations that say we will naturally to care about others except maybe toward the learned primal conditioned ability to form into groups for survival where that survival depends on cooperation, etc. I can see that over time, as to group dynamics of survival, humans learned how to care and protect and secure one another. That would be passed along from generation to generation but I don’t believe, so far, that we have gene’s or instincts (instincts of this level would hinder evolution and survival as current theories and research would indicate) that we trigger somehow when we reach a certain stage of development, etc.

This goes to say the same as to the other four categories where I can see and perceive that all five come from the developed need of humans to band together for mutual benefit and these traits or principles were learned quickly to survive. 

The issue with morality in the dojo and in the application of martial arts and karate toward a socially and individual safety and security model called self-fense is that, “The human inclination is to believe in one’s own understanding of morality, and many people will live their entire lives without seriously attempting to understand their ideological counterparts.”

Here is where the divide come into play and individual dojo, like individual human collectives called social groups, come together in small groups to achieve a balanced and mutual beneficial survival and safe/secure group. This is why, I believe, we have such diverse differences in things like morality, philosophies and beliefs, humans were not meant to exist, survive and evolve in such large diverse collectives inherent in modern societies. Ergo, why martial arts and karate communities tend to exist in small groups often symbolized as unique due to the naming of its system or style regardless of the fundamental (first) principles and methodologies that exist regardless of style or system or dojo affiliations, beliefs or symbolized naming, etc. 

This therefore begs the question, “What is your moral code to the belief, understanding and application of martial arts and karate?” I ask, because even in the sport oriented practices of martial arts and karate a moral heart is required if it is to be applied in a manner conducive to its evolution along side that of the human species. 

Like many group dynamics starting from the family unit to the neighborhood, city, county, state and country we find that, “Even many intelligent and reasonable people, after all, will have a difficult time agreeing on anything if they view the moral underpinnings of society through vastly divergent lenses.”

That adds thoughts of, “Can such a diverse and divergent understanding and belief of a moral fortitude contribute to a larger group dynamic such as the larger country group lead to a moral existence without the more egregious conflict and violence of such things? Are humans, due to their very nature (what ever that may mean) able to coexist in such lager confines with such diverse peoples along with the natural friction between each that tends to lead to conflict and violence?” 

It comes to my mind that this is why martial arts and karate leans heavily toward styles and dojo entities because those tend to be in sizes that are more conducive to human group dynamics of a more positive, safe, secure and morally defined groups. 

In the end, moral turpitude is something that results when groups fail to live by and survive under a sense of justice, honesty, or good morals but end up in a state of moral turpitude, i.e., “An inherent quality of baseness, vileness, or depravity (the extremes of turpitude) with respect to one’s duty to others and to the group and to society.” We see this example in the best of cases microcosmically represented in dojo membership and members. 

Thinking of this from a stricter marital karate perspective where one assimilates a code much like the Bushido Code of Japan, the modern one since the ancient one really didn’t exist, where I personally see each of the seven virtues is what many would believe and assume are the very principles underlying a moral right of a martial artist and karate-ka. Take a look, don’t these eight virtues fit into the above definition, basic, of a morality toward the practice and application of martial arts and karate as well as life in general?

One of good moral fortitude is a person of courage with a strong sense of benevolence/mercy who is polite, honest and deals with the group and others with sincerity, honor, character and self-control. A person of considerable loyalty to self, dojo, dojo-mates and others. This seems to support a moral code that drives a person and groups morality in the dojo as well as in life. Without such a moral code it is too easy to have such aggression driven physical and mental and wholehearted use and applications to go down the deep and dark hole of morally questionable actions and deeds. 

Bibliography (Click the link)