We are all different people in the world with different backgrounds and different moral compasses. An example of this is that some people believe in the death penalty, while others don't because it is immoral to them. Morality, in this example, is subjective. Do you believe in the death penalty because it means that a criminal is put away forever, or are you against it because you believe no person should have the power over another to be killed? Depending on what side you are on, you believe your side is the moral one. However, if the grand scheme of things, we are all supposed to be equal, so why is one person's morality worth less than another's?
I raise this question up because, in society, the West's view of morality seems to be the leading one. And why is that? Who chose to let these people dictate what is right and what is wrong? Is it wrong to sacrifice another human being to the gods? Our western views and moral compass tell us no, yet what gives us the right to tell those people to stop sacrificing people? I believe that we are all equal, just different with different views. Bringing in morality causes that balance of equality to shift.
With more knowledge of the other (or just other people), we may not agree with their ideals, but we do not have the moral high ground to make the other lesser or wrong. You may argue that with more knowledge of different cultures, you could then prove that yours (or another), is the most morally correct one. However, that is not true, because once again, you are making one people have a high ground over others. We are not able at this stage able to look at other cultures and not think of their morals one way or another. Yet with more knowledge, you should at least be able to see that there are different cultures out there and that they are all as equal as your own.
We can all be equal and different. While I may not agree with Nazi killings and believe that they are immoral, I am being subjective based on my own moral code. Equality doesn't mean you have to match their moral code.
- Eli
I think in the west, we tend to really put a stress on the importance of individuality, especially in modern day society. We protect the rights of the members of the LGBTQ community because our society is teaching us to be accommodating and respectful of their different individual life choices and choice to express love and affections in ways that the societal norms (religiously rooted) reject. In cultures where the societal norm is paramount, then many people can care less about an individuals feelings because they are looking at the collectivistic view of the situation. I do not believe that one society has the right to dictate what is right or wrong. I believe that across the board as members of the human race we should be working towards and for the well-being of each other. Unfortunately, this isn't always the case.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your point about the US, it is very individualistic, and I do believe it is good it is doing that. My view was on the extreme, going forth with extreme equality/acceptance.
DeleteI definitely agree that morality means something different to everyone and so we can't really argue that one morality is better than another. Do you think that by framing ideas as empirical claims it would help us achieve more of an understanding of other cultures and ideas? Personally I think it would at least help us at least have more of those conversations, but I want to hear your thoughts!
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure, but I think using people's perspectives would open people up more. There is proof that it is easier to relate using individual people as examples, so I think your idea is correct. I would also like to have this conversation!
DeleteHello Eli,
ReplyDeleteI found it interesting in how you opened up the blog with the issue of the death penalty. You are correct, there are numerous sensitive topics in this country that there is no correct one. As you mentioned, "you [the person] believe your [their] side is the moral one." I agree with this statement. I feel that people now days are becoming closed minded, however, in other ways, they are also more liberal than past generation. In this society--that of the American one--there are those who believe that it is their way or the high way. I think that everyone should become open-minded and learn to accept. However, is it not that the morality of a person derives from both the parents and the community? In other words, as it was once mentioned in class, since a community consists of residents whom share similar opinions, does this not signifies that there is a fixed norm? What I am trying to get at here is how can we, a society within another society, expand the views of those who refuse to expose themselves to diversity?
-avq
You put forth an interesting question. I am not sure yet how to fix people's views to make them more diverse, but I do know that one way would be to expose them to new cultures. I guess a fixed norm comes into place when you don't experience new things. However, I do not know how to properly answer your question.
Delete"Equality doesn't mean you have to match moral code." Not going to lie Eli, for some reason this speaks volumes to me. As an American, I realize our tendency to try to impose our values on every single situation. My question would be, How do you think we can combat our inclination to try to force our supposed cultural "superiority" on the culture of other people?
ReplyDeleteOne way I think that could combat forcing our culture, would be to experience other people's. However, that could also backfire, as that could also make people more certain of their superiority. There is a strange relationship in this idea, and there is no way we could fully stop forcing people to be one way unless we are all the SAME way. Also, being pessimistic and putting forth anothor question, IS it possible to stop forcing people to be your way?
Delete