🔵 By Matthew Boivin. Photo by lauragrafie.
Laura and I were having a conversation about morals, the concept of right and wrong spanned halfway across the globe. Do her German morals differ greatly from my American standards? Do the morals I gained during 26 years as an incarcerated man diverge greatly from her morals attained in the same span as a free woman? For me, the answer to those questions could only come through my pen: the single place I go to find the truth. Morality itself can be defined as “conforming to a standard of right behavior”, at least according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. That dictionary goes on to provide virtue in the definition of morality. Following virtue leads to a link between morality, virtue and goodness as synonyms. The Goodness word study in the Random-House-Roget’s Thesaurus explains that “morality implies conformity to the recognized standards of right conduct”, and that goodness, morality, and virtue “refer to qualities of character or conduct that entitle the possession to approval and esteem.” When I found the word moral, the same dictionary provided two bland definitions. The first defined moral as “of or relating to principles of right and wrong”, but the second definition added a deeper twist. The second definition stated simple enough: “conforming to a standard of right behavior.” Then it added, “also: capable of right and wrong action.” Are we not all “capable of right and wrong action?”
As I dug deeper into understanding morals, I found more and more to unpack. The final definitions provided the context I searched for. My handy dictionary defines right many different ways, but the appropriate definition here is “qualities that constitute what is correct, just, proper, or honorable.” Flipping to wrong, I found “an injurious, unfair, or unjust act.” these definitions were useful, but I have the tendency to make up my own mind. My own definition of moral is a character trait that guides my decisions in any given event. Morality then becomes the manner in which I carry myself according to what I consider to be my morals. Right, in my definition, is an action that causes no harm to another. The basic tenet of my moral character then becomes much easier to explain: “Strive to become the best Matthew I can be without harming others.” That tenet is supported by only one other. “No matter what hardship I face, I must bear that suffering without sacrificing the first tenet.” After all, bearing a hardship nobly serves to reinforce my growth. Bearing that hardship without harming another, tough, is perhaps the very definition of noble. That being said, I have very few morals.
My mind screams at me now after that statement. “How can you call yourself a moral man,” it taunts. “You admit to have very few morals.” I consider myself a moral man because those few morals are based on a respect borne out of a glimpse into the heart of divinity from within the depths of depravity. Being laughed at and ridiculed for my morals is no new thing to me, though. I certainly don’t conform to this prison society, and, after a young adults’ lifespan locked away, I really have very little idea what “free society” may be. I was certainly ill-equipped to function when I was a free man pre 1996 – my reference then comes from prison. In reality, my morality developed from being a non-conformist. Prison raised me, and fighting against prison raised my morality. “Capable of right and wrong action” in a very literal sense, indeed. That raises another question: Am I, by definition, a separatist? I consider myself a Stoic in many ways. Not necessarily the modern definition of suffering without complaining or not affected by passion, but more a sense of following my true nature to its logical conclusion. A seat of ancient Stoics believed, “What each thing is when its growth is complete, that we declare to be the nature of each thing.” A corn stalk grows to produce cans of corn. That corn is, in turn, consumed by man and animal alike. The nature of a cornstalk, then, is not to produce corn, but to sustain life. Man, then must act according to his nature. Therein lies the center of all the world’s problems: the misconception of man’s nature. The powerful may say, “It is my nature to gain more power.” The weak may say, “It is my nature to be a victim”. A soldier may say, “It is my nature to make war.” while a pacifist may say, “It is my nature to avoid conflict.” This is untrue. Take away the money, government structures and other trappings of society, and all that remains is a man. The so-called “power” only comes from other people’s fear of taking responsibility for their own lives. A formerly “weak” man who takes responsibility for his own life becomes powerful beyond measure. A powerful man on a desert island is just a man. Place the soldier on a separate isle with no enemies against which to wage war, and there is only an angry man bent on self-destruction.
Man’s nature, then, in its very purest essence is thought – our ability to reason. So far as we know, man alone of all animals, has the ability to reason: to take a photograph that captures beauty, or to write a poem that inspired images, or to sing a song that draws feelings of joy or sadness from those hearing it. Strip man of all the pomp and circumstance, and all that remains is our ability to reason. In a phenomenon singular to man, combine the male and female reasoning minds and the result is a near-perfect union somehow greater than the sum of its parts – a spiritual convergence that, ironically, defies reason. The perfection of reason is virtue. A virtuous man must be a reasoning man. As virtue and morality are synonymous, a life lived in accordance to man’s nature is a life lived in accordance to the highest perfection man can attain. Morality can then be said to be the ideal to which man must strive. I disagree. The highest perfection to which man can attain is that near-perfect union with a soulmate. Love, then, must be the highest perfection of man. Every word to this point has led me to the most important of my moral values: love. Not the clingy, hungry, self-serving love that constitutes relationships these days, where love can be given only to those near you or according to a specific set of rules and obligations. I speak of the love that sees a horse as a living, breathing, feeling animal, itself capable of loving according to the nature of a horse. I speak of the love that sees a corn stalk as a source of life that, in its way, according to its nature, gives of itself so others may carry on. I speak of love between a man and woman in which the two become complete in each other yet remain two individual parts that may be just fine apart, but when they come together, each is better than before. That deep, abiding, unconditional love is the highest perfection – dirty spots, cracked dishes, and all. I declare love to be the highest perfection and the most important o fall moral virtues. Though my morals may be few, love is just one.
I consider honesty as another of my moral virtues. Because I love others, I speak the truth, and because I love myself, I face the truth. Truth has the tendency to be viewed as ugly, largely due to our own fear of acknowledging that truth. That fear usually stems from what we consider a threat to our fragile ego. If, for instance, I believed all my life that I was unlovable (which was a reality for a time), and was suddenly confronted with the fact that I did, indeed, deserve love, what would I choose? Would I fight love, clinging to my belief, or would I choose to abandon my belief in favor of love? That hearkens back to moral as capable of right or wrong action: would it be immoral to adhere to my mistaken belief? In addition to love and truth as moral virtues, I consider myself loyal. Loyalty and its cousin dependability essentially stem from love. Standing up for my beliefs, my friends, or my own actions all spring from the root of loving another, being passionate about an ideal. In my mind, if my friend needs my support, it is my joy to help, each and every time the need is true. That statement leads me full circle to the “qualities of character or conduct that entitle the possessor to approval and esteem.” Loyalty and dependability, honesty and love are really the only morals I hold. To me, everything else flows from this basic foundation. Acting in truth and love while remaining loyal to that which I hold dear will guide all my actions to be “right” actions. The only thing that changes is the context of the action – the “approval and esteem” of it all. My prison co-workers were giving another man a hard time saying, “We know you ain’t gonna break a rule”, in a teasing tone. They meant it seriously and as an insult, though. The same has been said of me and for that follow the rules stance, I’ve been called weak, scary, fake, and the police. Prison society denigrates me for doing what it takes to go home, for giving my best effort at work even though I earn no wages. Being called a “top hand” and “role model inmate” are insults worthy of neither approval nor esteem. To prison society, I am absolutely wrong. To me, though, I am absolutely right. Written another way, to prison, I am an immoral man. Only in the context of an inclusive, peace loving society do I become a moral man. I also consider myself to be “pro-life”. I believe every life has the right to exist. To remain loyal to the truth, that means I must not only be anti-abortion, I must also be anti-death penalty. It also means I cannot cause harm to the women seeking abortions or those providing them. That’s a tough distinction to make. I cannot factually speak of other states, but Arkansas has one of the strictest abortion laws in the United States. Arkansas also fast-tracked the executions of a group of death row inmates to avoid the expiration date on its lethal injection drug. I am in the tiny minority that has trouble reconciling that contradiction.
Recently, I was faced with reconciling the pro-life contradiction on a much more personal level. While vaccinating the yearling heifers, one panicked after being trapped in the head chute to receive her shots. Poor thing thrashed about so hard trying to free her head from between the steel doors, that her leg became trapped under the side. She twisted so hard that she actually snapped her spine, leaving her hindquarters paralyzed. We dragged her out of the chute to finish the others calves hoping it was simply inflamed. But at the end of the day, her back was broken. Therein lies the dilemma. She will undoubtedly die. Do we kill her or let her die? The supervisor made the decision and three days later, she died of dehydration. Basically, we starved her to death. Moral or immoral? In a similar situation, we had a 10-year old cow penned at the office with a possible blood disorder transmitted by flied that causes rapid weight loss, nervous tremors, dehydration, and eventual death. The disease progressed until she collapsed and was unable to stand on her own. She will undoubtedly die. Do we kill her or let her die?
The other supervisor made the decision, and I slit her throat. She died in minutes. Basically, I killed her. Moral or immoral? In both scenarios, the animal was surely dying, they both stayed the same outcome – death. On one hand, an otherwise healthy calf languished for three days suffering for water until she died. On the other hand, a sick animal was given a swift end. The only difference was the amount of suffering for the animal. I felt more distraught having to let the calf suffer than I did putting the cow down to end her suffering. Moral or immoral? My pro-life, do no harm stance found a swift death the morally correct answer. It can be argued raising cattle for slaughter is itself immoral. It can be argued I acted immorally in either situation. The truth remains that when faced with a moral question, my actions were guided by love and compassion in one instance and cruelty in the other. The only distinction between which action was the moral one lies within each person’s own concept of morality. What each society considers to be moral changes over time. At one point, public whippings were an acceptable form of punishment now considered morally reprehensible. Morals change as societal norms change, but one thing remains true: man’s greatness does not come from the trappings of society. Man’s true greatness lies in an honest purpose in life based on a fair and rational estimate of her/his self. That estimation must be wrought with an unflinching self-examination and loyalty to that which I know to be right, regardless of what others may think or say; regardless of what they may or may not do; and, above all, regardless of whether they act or think the way I act and think. All in all, I fully believe I am a moral man capable of functioning without trouble in free society.
My morality is guided by truth, loyalty, and love. The rest falls into place according to those precepts. The values I hold dear life gratitude, hard work, dependability, empathy, and individuality all serve to support those moral edicts. I started this essay questioning whether my morals would somehow diverge from Laura’s. Unfortunately, I lack the information I need to answer those questions truthfully.