Who or what dictates morality? This has been debated incessantly for ages by many greater than I.One side usually says religion. The other says it’s innate in our human consciousness.The simplest answer: the moral majority. I’m not terribly interested in where morality comes from, but I am quite skeptical as to what is actually considered moral. Sure, we can mostly agree murder is bad — unless it’s against those we call “evil”. Stealing is usually bad — unless it benefits the majority. Slavery used to be good, though thankfully it is no longer. Polygamy — well let’s just be thankful our society doesn’t take the Bible too literally. These, like countless others, stand as examples of the ever-changing face of morality.Simply put, absolute morality — meaning morality incapable of alteration or deviation — doesn’t really exist. What my ancestors called moral is not what current social norms accept. Slavery and segregation are recognized as evil now, but they weren’t condemned that long ago. Genocide is now considered wrong, but venture to Bronze Age Palestine and see how the Amalekites turned out. Homosexuality and abortion are considered evil by majority at the moment — but I cannot say how history will resolve these diverse conflicts of interests.So what can stand as the governing factor of all that is moral? Can anything be considered beyond question?I propose there may be something that can take on this challenge. The ancient Egyptians deified it as the goddess Ma’at. Several ancient Greek Philosophers mentioned it. The Buddha, His Holiness the Dalai Lama, Baha’u’llah, Jesus of Nazareth, Confucius, the Hindu sacred texts of the Mahabharata and Bhagavad Gita, Muhammad (PBUH), several key tenants of Jainism, Rabbi Hillel, Sikh Guru Sahib, the Tao Te Ching and John F. Kennedy all make mention of it. It’s the golden rule, and it shows up in cultures across the world. If you wouldn’t want it to be done to you, then don’t do it to another. So simple — and yet so often ignored. Granted, to call this the supreme dictator — the metaphorical Kim Jong-il — of morality is a bit of a stretch. But how might things change if this timeless principle was employed as the sole dictator of morality?For starters, compassion might begin to define morality. Imagine it: The “pious” could have a drink in public and not fear being ostracized as immoral. I could drop a well placed f-bomb in a conversation about the divine and not be written off as a lunatic — as we all know that the Judeo-Christian God despises Germanic words meaning “to strike.” More importantly, the relative and modern definitions of morality in our culture could finally take a backseat to compassion. The negatives of this: not everyone wants to be treated the same. The platinum rules of Kant and Nietzsche address this, stating people should act toward others as others would like to be treated. Bottom line: Some sort of metallic moral guiding principle is needed in place of the delusions of absolute morality of which we are often convinced. What is this compassion? It’s not solely a God thing — it’s a very human thing, and we need to embrace and incorporate it if we ever want to elevate ourselves from the survivalist tribal mentality of “might is right.” Love thy neighbor. Teach me Torah while I stand on one leg. For God’s sake, someone show some damned compassion, and let’s see where this goes. Andrew Robertson is a 23-year-old religious studies senior from Baton Rouge. Follow him on Twitter @ TDR_arobertson.—-Contact Andrew Robertson at [email protected]