Who has the right to judge right or wrong, whether someone is immoral or simply in another mindset? Our past influences in life, great passions and beliefs define what we label as "morals." People look to those they trust for moral guidance, and although society sets a standard for perfect moral behavior, it's not up to us to define morality. Morals are more than the opinion of a man, they makes up the very threads of his soul, decisions of his heart, and the actions that will define his future. Although the morals of a man define his fate in life, perfect moral behavior can never specifically be defined; it is all in the eyes of the individual. In The Picture of Dorian Gray, the beautiful young Dorian is portrayed as an innocent individual looking to find an understanding of his soul. Many would argue that the influence of Lord Henry, which is reflected on Dorian, is immoral. Ideas of Lord Henry may be considered by many to be preposterous in manner, but only the soul can judge the severity of its own behavior. If a man is incredibly vain, his morals will be shaped around himself as an individual and no matter how immoral a person's actions might seem, actions within a person's "morals" can never damage their soul or the way they view themselves compared to others.
What would you do to keep the possessions you hold so dear? If you could have youth forever, what would you do to get it? I believe in Megan's idea that as a race, human beings, "take things for granted." As human beings, we abuse power, take advantage of one another, and often use people just for spite, but is this immoral behavior? It is part of our nature that some of our behaviors must reflect the demons of our nature, and the others the angels. As human beings our ideas of these two parts of our nature differ depending on our experiences in life. The different sides of our nature are explained by many, but none can be defined by any man, because for the true meaning of morality we can never have the answer. As long as we cannot answer the meaning of life, we will never be able to define the idea of "moral behavior."
I like the idea that you wrote this one. I have often pondered something similar to this. Who is the good guy and who is the bad guy in a war? They both look at their morals and see that they are doing the right, and they see the other side as being wrong or "bad." I think our morals can be changed easily, like Dorians have been changed by Harry. What might have once been a "good" person is now "bad."
ReplyDeleteYour post on morality is insightful and thought-provoking, if a little disheartening to the idealists of the world. I agree that morality "is all in the eyes of the individual". As BABAJIDE brought up, each side in a war believes itself to be in the right. Similarly, if one reads a novel in which the protagonist kills someone out of self-defense or because that someone is "evil", one tends to think little of it, immediately excusing the character's behavior. In regards to oneself, one also tends to be much less judgmental of behavior than when one regards the actions of another.
ReplyDeleteI wonder about your assertion that "no matter how immoral a person's actions might seem, actions within a person's "morals" can never damage their soul or the way they view themselves compared to others". What if, even though a person does not believe his actions to be wrong, others do and let him know that they condemn him for said actions? Would the opinions of others - resulting from morals that contrasted those of the individual - influence the man's opinion enough to affect his self-concept or his very soul? It probably depends entirely upon the individual and how much he is affected by the opinions of others. Many are concerned with what their fellows think, but perhaps one independent enough to develop his own morals has learned to ignore others' views.
Yes, morality is a bit of a mystery, is it not? You say that vanity inhibits one from seeing fault in their own morals, and I would heartily agree. This egocentric behavior may prove to be disastrous if the person fails to develop their theory of mind. Without understanding, or even caring what the morals of others are, the vain one may be seen as antisocial or criminal. Can one be so vain as to be impervious to all the little influences of others' morals?
ReplyDeleteGabe had said that both sides of a war believe that they are the ones with the truer morals. From this, I ponder how morals are culture-specific. A moral shared by one culture may be prove to be taboo or inappropriate to another. From Gabe's thought, I was left with this question: "What would the world be like if morals were culturally universal?" I thought that it may lead to some peace, but in the end, I believe that many competitive humans, who may be driven by emotions, will still find an excuse to war.
"But only the soul can judge the severity of behavior."
ReplyDeleteThis is brilliant and very true. I think Lord Henry has said some things that are concerning, but Dorian is old enough to be able to choose what he will and will not believe. In psychology the other day, we talked for a long time about morality. We pondered what makes each person answer differently in situations, and concluded that each human will have a diverse set of morals because of where, when and with whom we were raised. Dorian Gray knows nothing of the incites of life, because of his sheltered background. I have yet to decide though, if Lord Henry is actually a bad influence or he is just being frank about the trials of life, which Dorian has a hard time grasping.