As we look forward to the April issue of the Palmetto & Pine newspaper, perhaps we ought to take a little time to analyze, assess, and critique the March-issue content. More specifically, the editorial "Drawing the line on where we stand," published by Amy Ch. (full name omitted due to privacy concerns)
The format of this analysis is simple. I'll list and embolden a quote from the article, with my own analysis following.
"As individuals' morals change, so do the moral values shared among a culture or other community."
The idea of individual morality is referred to as moral relativism/subjectivism. In its core is the idea of morality being regional (i.e. one cannot make a global classification of something as right and wrong, rather, "right" and "wrong" are relative to the society/culture that we're discussing), in contrast to constituting universal. Proponents of this theory often point to the wide discrepancy among what is considered socially-appropriate behavior in a multitude of nations within our global community. Surely, civic expectations in Saudi Arabia are different than those of the United States. While the United States citizens bask in the glory of our First Amendment, Chinese citizens are seldom awarded the same level of constitutional protections.
Indeed, the idea of moral relativism has permeated throughout our society, causing an alarming up stir in the world community. This article is a clear corroboration of what I am talking about. Allow me to quote:
"Members of Congress have taken the step of criticizing various IT companies for their international policies. This includes Google and Microsoft, for what they call 'bowing to Beijing' and 'putting profits before American principles of free speech'."
The article is a reference to American companies and corporations as Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo entering the Chinese marketplace, which significantly curbs what many Americans would consider inalienable rights. Keyword searches as "freedom" and "revolution," are filtered, in the people's own interest of course, as argued by the Chinese government.
Critics of the theory, on the other hand, effectively argue and urge for an acceptance for a global code of ethics and rights interpretations. In other words, regardless of whether you're in the United States or a warring tribal region in the Africa Union, killing is a moral violation, independent of its social acceptance. Indisputably, this has and still does cause conflict, especially within regions that continue to allege that the rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are purely western innovations that cannot be forced onto other nations. It is ironic, however, that the very same nations that contend such contentions are the very same ones accused of mass genocide against their own citizens. (Sudan comes to mind) Oxymoron, anyone?
Going back to the article, Amy seems to be a moral subjectivist. Nothing wrong with that, though it seems as if she is under the assumption that morals change. A key distinction needs to be made: Do the morals change or does our perception of what morals really are change? In fact, the editorial subtitle is the perfect example of what I am trying to convey:
"America needs to define morals and not waver when it comes down to it."
The idea of "defining morals" seems absurd to me. It is the same excuse that countries such as Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and even the Third Reich have used and still use to endorse systematic elimination of the nation's own citizens. America cannot define morals as it sees fit, just as Sudan cannot do so.
---------------------------------------------------
"...the American people need to define their morals and create a public opinion that can be tolerated by all who live here. A free country means the right to choose to do right of wrong...and to create individualistic principles to live by, opinions and preferences."
So, let me get this straight. We're supposed to be a nation that wants to promote "individualistic principles," but yet we need to "define morals and create a public opinion"? Since when has public opinion been associated with morality? In the early 1800s, the public opinion was that slavery was a benign institution. In the early 1900s, the general public consensus was that Chinese immigrants should be barred from crossing the U.S. borders.
A key and fundamental argument that Amy is failing to address is that a collective public opinion does not justify the morality of an action. The "American people" do not have the right to define wanton morals at their own whim. The plethora of the Gallup and USA polling surveys are useless in this debate: we need to be looking at the moral implications of homosexual marriages, not determine our policy based on consensus.
In conclusion, the message that the editorial sends across is questionable at its best. First, we're urged to embrace our democratic principles, and then, a paragraph later, we somehow have a duty to "define morals." Is it even possible to define morals? Does majority consensus justify morality? The article fails to address either inquiry.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Gah. A global code, defining morals, and creating a public opinion? Why? Morality is not something that can be determined by the public opinion. There is no set "moral code" that can be deciphered by the public opinion, especially the United States considering the diversity of its culture. All of the arguments within this editorial of Amy, aggravate me.
Like meridith said we as the public can not define what is moral. Our cultures are diverse. But what I wanted to focus on is that you said somethings are a definite no-no like killing. You can argue that killing can be moral and infact encouraged by tribal people. I remember watching T.V. and hearing about how a missionary went to a uncivilized tribe and was eaten by several cannibals there. Im saying it is not moral, but like you said it should not be upto one nations or culture to define what is moral. What gives the nation any right to stop a cultural practice? Just because it features killing. Prime example, is when the british colonized India, they stopped the tradition of burning the husbands body and the wife's willingness to die in the burning.
Though what i do find interesting, is how like you said google has filtered out words suchs as freedom, democracy, etc. to the chinese public. I cannot see how this is related to morals. But, what i am thinking is that the reason behind this is not to bring the morals of america into china. Freedom may be part of the morals in which the chinese goverment does not want.
Nobody will ever trully be able to find an absolute moral code, because no such thing exists...instead, one's perception of morality depends on your culture and upbringing, since you are taught from a young age what is considered morally wrong and what is morally right... in every culture, you will find some variation of their perception of morality, whether it's regarding the action of lieing, or the action of killing somebody. Due to this, a moral code does not and probably will not ever exist
Post a Comment