Words carry with them values that are often unspoken and in our post-Modern world seldom thought about. Postmoderns, particularly in America tend to speak and feel out of raw emotion and cultural catch-phrases. Thought is not something they like to get involved with. The quote below is just such an example:
[...] By the same token, I do believe an individual has a right to choose what is right for them. It may not be what I agree with and I may find immoral, even. But until I’m in that person’s shoes, what right do I have to tell someone what is moral for them? Should not morality come from within and not be imposed? [emphasis added, ed.] There are people and societies out there that want to do just that– impose a set of values on us that we disagree with. That imposition of morality goes against everything we believe in. [...]
The person (referred to hereafter as The Writer) who made this statement is highly educated and I presume has a Doctorate in one discipline or another. I don’t believe I have ever read anything by him before and after reading this I will not return to his blog.
Morality is a communally agreed upon set of rules by which the community agrees to abide. Often these rules are religious in nature, IE: “love thy neighbor,” or “thou shalt not kill.” The Islamic community abides by a different moral code in which “honor killing,” is believed to be the moral action to take if a female member of the family is violated sexually, whether by rape or because she chose to give up her virginity: Two different communities; two different sets of MORAL rules.
The Writer has made a philosophically fatal error in espousing the argument “…until I’m in that person’s shoes, what right do I have to tell someone what is moral….” It goes without saying The Writer does this very thing all day, everyday, just by existing in a society any society.
For example, if I cut him off in traffic he will certainly tell me what the rules of the road are and that I ought to obey them. If he is on line waiting for the next cashier at Wal-Mart and I cut in front of him, we all know I will be told that my actions are abhorrent, wrong, and that I have violated an unspoken, unwritten, rule of conduct. He will have, of course, judged me without knowing a thing about me. You see, he lives by an unwritten moral code that he uses to look out for himself. You can bet he will want to force payment from me if I refuse to pay what I believe to be an immoral charge for service.
To repeat: Morals are nothing more than the principles of right and wrong agreed upon within a particular community. Apparently, The Writer never learned that or has gotten so caught up in jargon he can no longer think. I would suggest he move to an Islamic society ruled by Sharia law. There he will find out about judging, morality, and the necessary restrictions of living communally whether or not one happens to like those restrictions.
If I were to witness him getting shot by some street thug and I did nothing to either prevent that action or to rectify it by trying to help him you can bet I would get a lecture from him, his friends, the police and the courts about my responsibility to assist in that situation.
The Writer says “…(I)have a right to choose what is right for (me)…” Who is he to judge me? Therefore, I say let him lay on that sidewalk and bleed to death. I don’t want to get involved. Besides I might miss my bus.
That’s my opinion,
Dr. Jim
ps: any guesses on how I get judged concerning this post?
February 23, 2007 at 4:48 pm
You neglected to make note of a few other things I said- “Morality is a moving target. You can’t just nail it once and call yourself moral. Some of the moral choices we are faced with are easy, some are more difficult. There are choices we face everyday and others we face once in a lifetime and everything in between.”
Further, having babies is not like having puppies. Unless and until there is a support system in place that will help care for, raise and love that child, women will make decisions no one will be happy with. While you have an easy time excoriating me I don’t see you addressing those issues.
Further, your morality is as suspect as mine. I wrote, “There are people out there with terminal diseases or in dire need of organs. Despite the desperate situations and the pain and suffering some have to endure, we do not force anyone to donate their bone marrow or organs, even in the event of death. In not doing so, we condemn those people who are ill, to death. These individuals and unfortunates are innocent and defenseless. We do not mandate that like it or not, everyone must donate what may be lifesaving to another. Is that moral?”
Your representations of my remarks are rather shallow.
My last remarks re abortion can be found here:
http://sigmundcarlandalfred.wordpress.com/2007/02/23/the-cost-of-the-abortion-debate/
February 23, 2007 at 5:56 pm
“…we condemn those people who are ill to death.”
Excuse me? The last time I checked all humans die, and I haven’t condemned anyone to death so where do you come up the we? Are you judging?
I believe, however, you are asking if we should intervene when intervention is possible regardless of personal choice.
That is one of those pesky “is” “ought” questions that you so blithely glossed over in the post I mentioned. Paraphrased you said, “who are we to judge?”
I’m not an ethicist and your question about organ transplants is an ethical question. I’m just a guy who tries to use his mind to the best of his ability. The AMA has committees upon committees who sit and AGREE upon those exact moral and ethical questions. Apparently they have decided that if I’m dying and choose not to donate my organs that is to be my choice no matter what. And, as you said, (paraphrased) “they don’t have the right to tell me what is moral for me.”
Moral issues are difficult, I will agree. But as I said their solutions are agreed upon in community and that comes about by making judgments.
Ethical questions, the one about organ transplants in your comment, are more difficult. They are more difficult because they are generally limited in scope than are moral questions. However, not judging either category reduces us all to the lowest common denominator.
Not judging moral and ethical issues and teaching how to do that in our Universities, is precisely the cause of our cultural malaise. It is wrong always at all times not to make moral and ethical judgments. Without them we cannot survive in community.
So I am pleased you judged my post as you should. And, I am delighted you commented. Thanks.
Dr.Jim
February 24, 2007 at 6:40 pm
[...] Yesterday I posted about “judging” and some of it’s ramifications. Today I read in the Gates of Vienna the Baron has run into [...]