Morality - Is it relative? (Part One)
Why is stealing a non-expensive pen not as bad as stealing an expensive one? Why is stealing a car not as bad as killing a person? Which would make you feel more guilty - driving past a crying child, or ignoring a drowning one? Do we as people have standards for morality? It's truly hard to say. Why is it hard to say though when all of us can judge which is the worse scenario; which is the worst offence. Mainly because "all of us" that are reading this have grown up in a country that has been influenced by Western culture. We believe it is wrong to kill and eat people - "I'm eat-able too, only that's called cannibalism and is frowned upon in many cultures" (Johnny Depp, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory). Notice he said "many" and not all, implying that there are some cultures which do not frown upon this act. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Johnny Depp has all the answers, but this statement is quite true - although its "truth" is quickly dying out, mainly due, again, to western influence. But one can definitively say that before the 20th century, many tribes throughout the world - including tribes found in the Philippines - considered cannibalism an act which was by no means "evil", rather it was revered and celebrated. However, just because these tribes did not consider killing at eating people from other tribes as wrong, they were by no means without a sense of right and wrong - stealing property from a neighbor, or even killing someone within the same tribe was an offence and each crime had it's own appropriate punishment, decided on by the codes set up by their ancestors and current tribal leaders.
What conclusion can we draw from this? That human beings as one race have the idea of right and wrong inbred in them from birth, but these standards and values can and do differ from people group to people group (culture to culture). There are no absolute morality standards that we can label the human race as obtaining. Currently this does not exist, although I do believe, as the world becomes more connected - through Television, Internet, phones etc - that a basic standard for morality will also become adopted. Is this a good thing?
What conclusion can we draw from this? That human beings as one race have the idea of right and wrong inbred in them from birth, but these standards and values can and do differ from people group to people group (culture to culture). There are no absolute morality standards that we can label the human race as obtaining. Currently this does not exist, although I do believe, as the world becomes more connected - through Television, Internet, phones etc - that a basic standard for morality will also become adopted. Is this a good thing?
posted by Joy at
2:54 PM
3 Comments:
"...As the world becomes more connected [...] a basic standard for morality will also become adopted."
Where do you get this from? When have humans ever agreed with each other about anything? If people that live side by side can't agree to not murder each other, if various groups within the same religion can't even agree, what makes you think that any amount of communication will suddenly make us get along and follow one moral guideline?
Do we live on the same planet?
And how does one get from ambiguosity in morality to the origin of morality, and subsequently from there to the eventual amalgamation of all morality? When you read this back to yourself, does it actually make any sense?
By
Andrew L., at Tuesday, May 15, 2007
It was kind of hard to understand your post, so I took the liberty of editing it for any other little Asian boys who might not get it.
Why is stealing a cheap pen any worse than stealing an expensive one? Why is stealing a car any worse than killing a person? Which would make you feel guiltier: driving past a crying child or ignoring a drowning one? Do people have standards for morality? It’s hard to say. But why is it hard to say whether we have standards for morality when all of us can judge which of the previous scenarios and offenses were the worst? Because most of us reading this have grown up in a country been influenced by western culture, we believe it is wrong to kill and eat people. “I’m eatable too: only that’s called cannibalism and is frown upon in many cultures.” (Johnny Depp, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory). Notice that he said “many cultures,” not all of them, implying that there are cultures that do not frown upon this act. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying Johnny Depp (or would it be Tim Burton?) has all the answers, but this statement is true, though it might not be due to increasing western influence. Still, one can definitely say that before the 20th century, tribes throughout the world, including tribes found in the Philippines, considered cannibalism to be an act that was revered and celebrated. But just because these tribes did not consider killing and eating people from other tribes wrong, they were not without a sense of right and wrong. They considered stealing property from a neighbor and killing someone within the same tribe as an offence, and each crime had its appropriate punishment that was decided on by codes set up by their ancestor and tribal leaders.
What conclusion can we draw from this? The one that human beings as one race the have the idea of right and wrong imbedded in them from birth, but these standards and values differ from people to people. There are no absolute moral standards that we can say the human race has obtained. It simply doesn’t exist, though I believe that as the world becomes connected through television, Internet, phones, etc, that a standard for morality will also come into being. Will this be a good thing?
By
Anonymous, at Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Andrew: do you not believe that our world is becoming more and more connected, and with this connection, the adoption of certain beliefs? I thought I illustrated this point with cannibalism. All countries in the world believe it is wrong to murder someone - anyone, regardless of what "tribe" they're from; this was not always the case, as stated in the post. I could go on with several more cases of western morality affecting the entire world, but it would just become redundant.
Gerry: feel free to mess around with grammatical errors, but leave the message alone.
You changed my sentence to:
"...but this statement is true, though it might not be due to increasing western influence."
When it was meant to read:
"but this statement is quite true - although its 'truth' is quickly dying out, mainly due, again, to western influence."
Cannibalism is dying out DUE to the westernization of the world, not despite it as you said in your version of my post.
By
Joy, at Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Post a Comment
<< Home