At what point is the boundary of morality crossed? We ultimately are born alone and die alone, but consecutively are taught that we ought to dedicate a significant portion of our lives to the support and happiness of our loved ones. The intricacies of our obligations weave through a mass of gray fuzz that should leave a complex perplexity for any thoughtful personality to puzzle throughout their lives until they have reached the point at which they no longer care. Can we rightfully breach moral contracts in the pursuit of our own psychological happiness? Is it right to say that we owe this to ourselves, and as a result label ourselves as blameless? Guilt is nature’s inescapable punishment for situations such as these. However, it seems as if there reaches a point at which one becomes so deeply entangled in the ruse to bleach one’s shame into purity that eventually indifference takes its place, in its stead preceding the accompanying emotional baggage. A clean conscience is always the first to disappear; sacrificed a plethora of ways as a result of the countless ways in which one can mess up. Subsequently, through a variation of evolutionary survival of the fittest, once one comes to the realization that honor and virtue are things that can be compromised, freedom is able to be enjoyed once again. Thus is the complete and simple solution to cure oneself from the ailment of stigma and remorse: apathy.
This series of digressions ultimately paves the way to the original paradox of this passage. Is losing your morality to indifference an equitable exchange for the beautifully pure and animalistic joys that are often unattainable with domestication and stability?
A Mango a Day 
If honor and virtue are compromised then is one really free or is one enslaved by vice? It’s important to see how the absolute moral law is freeing because of how it exists not to minimize, but to maximize human happiness; and therefore it is maximally loving and compassionate, like labels, or roadmaps. You’re not happy if you eat poison or drive off a cliff. But what about guilt? Removing moral absolutes does remove the sense of guilt, and this sense obviously does not make you happy in the short run. But guilt, like physical pain, may be necessary to avoid greater unhappiness in the long run, if it is realistic, that is, in tune with reality and not pathological. So the question is, does reality include objective moral laws? If it does not, guilt is an experience as pointless as paranoia. But if it does, it is as proper as pain, and for a similar reason: to prevent harm. Guilt is a warning in the soul, analogous to pain as a warning in the body.
LikeLike
Dear Ellen,
I completely agree that moral law can be freeing to the conscience and soul. Interestingly, though, I have noticed that often times it is fulfilling and arguable healthy for the mind to experience the feeling of wrongdoing. There is something beautiful about willingly putting ones own purity at risk, with the understanding of unknown consequences. I believe that it strengthens and helps teach us about ourselves, whether it be for better or worse.
An interesting subject to consider
LikeLike