If a man stole all of your belongings and you find him is it right to then take all of his belongings as well? When there are no technical rules what becomes correct? Where is the line drawn? If there is no longer any food in the world, is it acceptable to eat people? How does society, or a lack thereof, shape one’s understanding of what is right and wrong?
In our society we seem to have decided what is right and wrong. Is it right for some people to spend hundreds of dollars on a single meal while others die of hunger? In The Road Cormac McCarthy strips down everything which has been created by society to reveal, at its finest and worst, human nature. Throughout the book, the nameless main characters refer to each other as “the good guys.” They don’t eat people. They do things which may not be considered right in our society today, however the reader views them as the most moral in the story. Other characters have turned to cannibalism, forming gangs, and taking slaves.
When there is no longer society it is up to the individual human being to decide what is right and wrong.
In America prostitution is frowned up and illegal. In Japan it is largely accepted and illegal. Sometimes what the government says is illegal is still acceptable. So what makes society in general decide if something is wrong? The Dave Matthews Band has a song which states “Funny the way it is, if you think about it. One kid walks ten miles to school and another’s dropping out. Funny the way it is, not right or wrong.” Maybe sometimes the things that we cannot control are not right or wrong but simply are. Is watching a crime happen and not doing anything about it as bad as committing the crime? Is not doing a good deed as bad as doing a bad deed?
In Government we are learning about the different types of democracy and how there is no perfect way to have a society. There is no perfect way to agree on what is right and wrong then. Maybe anything is justifiable if the situation is right. It may be up an individual to decide what is right or wrong with the opinion of society or without it. Maybe we should all try to be the one moral “good guy” in our society and do things that we see as right even if doing the opposite is not punishable?
Hi Caroline--
ReplyDeleteYou certainly ask several probing questions in your first post, and you share many though-provoking examples of the difficulty in evaluating the difference between right and wrong. However, you ask so many questions, I'm not sure which one will be the focus for your Big Question. You seem to be questioning "situational ethics" vs. "absolute ethics." Am I correct? Try to narrow your focus a bit, but I like your passionate voice!
Carol. You are so good at asking questions. First, in your college essay, and now in your BIG QUESTION blog post. But really. I love what you have to say about doing what is right even if the opposite isn't wrong. It is a question that would probably lead everyone to feel a little guilt, whether it is not giving money to the Ronald McDonald house when at McDonald's, or spending money on an Ipod instead of giving that money to charity. So are you saying that everyone needs to be completely selfless? Or where should we draw the line? I love this first post! It looks like you are on the path to some really deep soul searching.
ReplyDeleteCaroline,
ReplyDeleteYour question is really profound. I had never really deeply contemplated the establishment of "right" and "wrong" in society before I read your post. In my opinion, what is "right" and what is "wrong" is ultimately up to an individual. Our society today generally allows for this. We are a democratic nation, in which it is acceptable for people to have their own beliefs on many aspects of life. Because of this freedom, it is acceptable for a person to form his/her own opinions on morality, to an extent. However, there are some exceptions. If a person's sense of what is "right" interferes with legal restrictions, then conflict inevitably ensues. So long as a person is still willing to follow the general laws of the nation, it is perfectly agreeable to form their own sense of morality on minor issues. For example, when shopping at the supermarket, many people feel as though it is perfectly okay to sample a few grapes when strolling through the produce department. However, others feel as this is immoral and that this is stealing from the grocery store. Ultimately, this is not a big issue, because the cost is more or less an issue of a cent, if that. Even so, some people do feel as though the price is irrelevant; theft should not be situational. This moral predicament is a common example of differing morals between people. I agree with your statement, "there is no perfect way to agree on what is right and wrong." I feel as though it is impossible to universally determine what is "right" and what is "wrong," outside the restrictions of the law, because it is such an individualistic decision.