In this world there are two types of people.
We come into this world not knowing what is acceptable and what is not. We don't know that it's not okay to poop our pants in front of everyone, or cough in somebodies face. But as we grow older this is the kind of stuff we need to learn in order to get along.
We start by relying on external measures. When mom or dad is angry with us, we know we have done something unacceptable. We learn over time to do less things that make mom and dad (and other people) angry with us, and do things that make them happy.
To an extent.
The limitation to this method is that we only base our actions on what is immediately reacted upon by others. We place ourselves at their mercy and disempower ourselves. But worst of all, we ignore the results of our actions that have far reaching effects.
People who think like this I call "can" people. They are mostly concerned with what other people think of them, and act on stuff they think they can "get away" with.
People like this are dependent on external rules for their morality. With social and explicit systems, such as laws and the threat of social rejection, people in the extreme end of this spectrum will simply act on their own gratifications, and only consider their immediate situation.
Most people, while not as extreme as the example above, fall into this category.
It is why so many of us around the world feel so much pressure to follow the majority. We are concerned with the external values presented around us because we feel weak to fight popular opinion. The idea of creating a more moral society for someone with this viewpoint is to create an external system of behaviors that cannot be corrupted.
The modern system of morality that focuses on behavior morality has encouraged this view.
External measures can never be incorruptible, nor are they the only method used to evaluate the morality of our actions.
As we develop an understanding of social norms, we start to develop the capacity to critically analyse these norms. We can pattern match our moral rules to outcomes in the world and use wisdom to refine our morality.
This creates an internal sense of morality that belongs to the group I call "should" people. Should people are focused more on developing character than on behavior. They ask themselves, "should I do this" before they act. They refer to their internal sense of morality before they act on something.
While in reality most people will fall on a spectrum between can people and should people, it is my experience that very view people sit firmly in the should category, at least in the time I have been alive.
We like to focus on what is easily measurable and so we like behavior modification. But not all aspects of life are easily measurable, including very important things like respect, happiness, and honor.
An extremist "can" person is morally bankrupt, only concerned with what benefits themselves, and mostly in the short run. We are encouraging this attitude when we ignore the importance of developing moral character.
An extremist "should" person can be as harmful, considering their moral feelings superior to all others and can sometimes be destructive to others. They are often concerned with the long run benefits to themselves and others at the expense of the now. We moved away from an old system of this, where a person of honor was considered incapable of doing harm, and would have a leniency in the law that allowed at the extreme abuses of authority to occur.
We need both external and internal measures to define our morality. It is important to consider the groups values, especially in the short term or we may bring harm to others. But long term, it is important for us to build character, a sense of what is beneficial and what is harmful. And to strengthen our desire to act in beneficial ways, and weaken our desire to act in harmful ways.
