How are humans intrinsically moral beings?

What I mean by that is twofold: First, we all have an innate sense of right and wrong. That is, we recognize that some actions are right and others are wrong. Now, there may be differences of opinion about which actions are right or wrong, but everyone accepts that such categories exist — that certain actions are acceptable and others unacceptable.

This is what makes human society functional. Even someone who is a criminal — not just any criminal, say a contract killer — has some sense of honor or reputation. For example, if a contract killer takes money to kill someone, he feels obligated to follow through. We may question, “What kind of morality is that? They don’t value life!” But they do value a certain principle: “If I take money, I must do what I’ve been hired to do.”

This shows that a sense of right and wrong — however distorted — exists in all people. For example, someone might steal money from their workplace, manipulating systems to enrich themselves. When asked, they may justify it by saying, “My child is sick. My family is in trouble. I need this for their future.”

Now, there can be objective standards to evaluate whether their moral reasoning is sound. Typically, when we do something we ourselves believe is wrong, we can’t live with it for long. That’s because we have a conscience — an internal guide that tells us what is right and what is wrong.

We also have willpower — our capacity to act according to our conscience. When our conscience tells us something is right, willpower helps us to do it; when it tells us something is wrong, willpower helps us resist it. But conscience and willpower don’t always work in tandem. Often, we know the right thing to do but struggle to actually do it.

So how do we navigate this struggle? One way is by strengthening our willpower through inner purification. Another way is by changing our conscience — or more precisely, by altering the hierarchy of our values. This shift can happen consciously or unconsciously.

Take the example of Yudhishthira in the Mahabharata. He is known as Dharmaraj, the embodiment of virtue. Yet even he initially adheres to the value of unquestioning obedience to elders. He participates in the gambling match not because he is addicted to gambling, but because his elder — a surrogate father figure — asks him to do so.

But after the disastrous consequences — the exploitation of his brothers and the abuse of Draupadi — and after Dhritarashtra refuses to return their kingdom, Yudhishthira begins to reassess. Dhritarashtra sends a message saying, “You are householders and should now go to the forest; don’t seek a kingdom.” But Yudhishthira does not simply accept this as final. He responds that they still have duties to fulfill — to their ancestors, to their dynasty — and for that, they need a kingdom.

This shows a shift: He still values obedience, but he now realizes that other values must be considered too. We don’t all live by the same hierarchy of values. For one person, truthfulness may be supreme; for another, compassion or family protection may take precedence.

Truthfulness and honesty are often thought to be the same, but they differ slightly. Suppose someone is committed to integrity at work, but a crisis arises — their family is endangered. They may then choose to prioritize family protection over strict adherence to honesty. It’s not something they’d normally do, but the situation demands it.

This illustrates that we don’t just have values — we have a hierarchy of values. At the beginning of the Gita, Arjuna is torn between conflicting values. As I wrote in a recent Gita Daily article, Arjuna faced three levels of tension: emotional, ethical, and existential.

The ethical tension was between Kula Dharma — his duty to protect his family — and Kshatriya Dharma — his duty to punish aggressors. What happens when those aggressors are his own kin? Which dharma should he follow?

So when someone seems immoral, it’s not always because they lack morality. It could be that their value hierarchy is skewed. For example, one person may say, “Better to die than speak a lie,” placing truth above life. Another may say, “I’ll lie if I must — if I survive, I can make amends later,” placing life above truth.

In essence, we don’t just need values — we need to order them correctly. According to the Bhagavad-gita, the highest value is devotion — the mood of wholeheartedly serving the Supreme. As Krishna says:

“Sarva-dharmān parityajya māṁ ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja”
(Abandon all other dharmas and surrender unto Me alone.)

This verse teaches that all values should ultimately be subordinated to devotion — to the desire to serve the Lord with full surrender.

So yes, everyone is moral in the sense that no one can live indefinitely with a guilty conscience. But to reduce inner conflict, people often realign their value systems. They adjust their values to match their actions, rather than adjusting their actions to match their values.

Thus, when I say we are “intrinsically moral,” I mean that we all accept the categories of right and wrong. However, the contents of those categories — what actions we consider right or wrong — vary from person to person and can even change over time in the same person.

To determine what truly belongs in the categories of right and wrong, we need not only values but a hierarchy of values. And when people prioritize different values differently, that’s how we arrive at different moral conclusions.