To be honest, I like to believe my morals are relatively simplistic and that these morals are a relatively good example for other to live by. When I say this, I do not mean that I wish to press my ideas and concerns onto others, I simply believe that my own morals have led me along a relatively virtuous path that has benefited me as well as the others around me. Once, when I was younger, I believed logic was the answer to everything and that cold, rigid morals were to be imposed on everything and everyone I interacted with, but this is not the case now that I have grown older and wiser. Now, many morals I have have shifted from a left-brained approach to a right-brained approach as I myself have become less dependent on logic. I believe everyone should act in accordance to helping others and themselves at the same time, however, if this cannot be accomplished, one must simply act for the benefit of others, disregarding one's own needs entirely. If everyone followed such an ideal, humans could take care of one another, rather than strive against one another for the meager self-gratification that only serving one's self provides.
My morals and ideals are truly amalgams of the morals I have seen on the television or from other people I have encountered, whose advice has stuck with me to this day. Frankly though, most of my morals come directly from my grandparents, and it is because of this that I am often labeled as "old-fashioned" or "out of the times." I know not to steal, kill, hurt, or threaten others, for I see these as universal examples of evil, and that evil in any form should be avoided. Put simply: crime is bad, kindness is good, no matter which way you slice it.
Most of my morals and ideals come to light when speaking about law and justice, however, for there are many gray areas and blurred lines within the law that I have gone to great lengths in order to establish my own, personal interpretation of whether criminal acts are evil. Many ask themselves "What if a person stole in order to feed their family?" and my response is that such a person ought to be punished. Any criminal, regardless of criminals whose situation cannot be conjured by my mind, ought to be punished for his or her crimes no matter what the intensity may be. For example, Raskolnikov should clearly be punished for his killing of both Ivanovna sisters, and it is not enough that he suffers psychological damage as a result. Mental illness, especially recently developed symptoms are not punishment enough. For one's morals to be recognized, they must be placed before others to see their reactions.
Good, welcome to the dark side...of the brain...the left side...with more gray matter. You show a fairly black-and-white view of crime when you say, "Put simply: crime is bad, kindness is good, no matter which way you slice it," but I would like to know if you have any thoughts regarding morals in special situations (such as Raskolnikov's murder to better humankind). Then again, by looking at your last paragraph, you seem to have answered my question. I interpret your ethics as being an unswayed, hit-or-miss kind of system. You say you have grown out of the cold, logical morals that you had as a child, and I am wondering, as a genetic copy of yourself, why I have not grown out of this idea and why I do not wish to do so.
ReplyDelete"For one's morals to be recognized, they must be placed before others to see their reactions."
ReplyDeleteThis reminds me of what we discussed in class today. Mrs. Levin was saying that morals are internal, but once put out for everyone to see, they become almost imposing. When we post our feelings of a murder on facebook, we are imposing our ideas on others. But how is this different than voting for a law or marching for a cause? (Which I believe we all should do!) We always say, nothing will be changed unless we speak up. But isn't speaking up the same thing as posting on facebook? While it is not a prestigious as marching in Washington D.C., we must take into account how many people will be affected by our comments because of the popularity of our tools. If facebook is a way to get a point across, then why not take advantage of it?
I can get what you say in this article until the bit about the person who steals in order to feed their family. In America, there are other options to get food, like the Community Kitchen. In other places, there are not. If that is really the person's only foreseeable option, should they be punished? We can say in America they should be punished because that is the law, however unfortunate, but that it is necessary for social control. But in the Middle East, can you really make that judgement?
ReplyDeleteOn what Tamar said- based on Ms Levin's idea, then, to not impose, we should not voice our morals. Yet we are shaped by the morals of others', in conversations, she said. And what Tamar pointed out, it seems contradictory. I suppose one must simply voice their ideas respectfully. When do you cross the line between active citizen and pain-in-the-ass on Facebook who posts ten similar news stories a day?