Burlington High School
Burlington, Kansas
Teacher: Devra Parker

 

Moral Relativity V. a Standard of Morality
By Kate Parker
12^th grade

 

 

One of the most depressing [things] about our society today is the…emphasis people put on themselves.  In the world around me, I am constantly being bombarded with ideas of moral relativity.  This is the theory that whatever feels good or right to me is what I should do.  Basically, there is no moral norm which everyone must uphold.  What kind of society is this?  Honestly!  Whatever feels right to you?   Does this mean that if my mom tries to punish me for disobeying her, I can punch her because that is what feels right to me?  No!  This kind of thought is unjust, and quite frankly, un-American!  Why?  Because we, as citizens of the United States, must uphold the common good while we balance our individual liberties.

 

Many members of society would hear the phrase ‘common good’ and reply with, ‘Who cares?’  This self-centered mentality is going to cause harm for us in the future.  Harm in the fact that we will stop working together and eventually it will be every man for himself.  This is where we need some form of prevention!

 

A few people do not even fully know what the common good is. They think of it as being the best scenario for the biggest group of people, but it is larger than that. It is more! The common good [is] being a good citizen and [living] the old saying love your neighbor as yourself. For example, if you and your family see a homeless couple on the side of the street…it would be promoting the common good to stop. This is where it gets a little more complicated because of our society’s selfishness. Many times I think that we have forgotten how to put ourselves in another person’s shoes.

 

Also, I believe that this needs to start with the children. The youth is our country’s future!  What we teach the young is what our tomorrow will look like. This brings me back to the point of moral relativity. How can our society [improve] if there are no set standards…to live by?  Why can’t we, as a nation, [adopt] a set of standards which we [can use to] raise our next generation?  That should be one of the responsibilities we have! To me, moral relativity should be called moral confusion because no one knows what to expect with it.  A person can change his/her opinion on how he/she should live from day to day.  One day he/she could condemn someone for murder, and the next day go and kill someone. …

 

[But] how [would] we balance our individual liberties at the same time?  Many people go back to the idea of moral responsibility.  They argue it’s valid by bringing in the fact that we live in the land of the free.  Then, again, what exactly is freedom?  Wikipedia says it is ‘the right or the capacity of self-determination as an expression of the individual will.’  But, does that then give me the right to do whatever I please?  I do not think so.  My individual liberty, given to me by the Constitution, does not entitle me to abuse my right to freedom.  This is where a [concrete] set of morals would come in handy [to replace] moral relativity…because if everyone in our society were out for [themselves], we would never get anything accomplished.  In other words, there is no justice, because the definition of justice, according to answers.com, is the conformity to moral rightness in action or attitude.  If there is no exact set of morals, how can there be justice? … This is why this theory does not work.

 

Many people would argue that getting so many people to [follow] rules is a difficult task.  This is why I think we should just set a basic guideline for  people to live by.  My opinion would be to get the morals of our families set first, such as more family unity and time spent together.  Then it could branch out into other forms of society.

 

So, overall we must somehow find a way to balance the good of our nation and our own personal selfishness.  To do this, we must discard the ideas of moral relativity and cling to a standard set of morals.  After all, we want a…society we can be proud of, not one we are embarrassed to call our own.

 

Answers to Questions Regarding the Required Reading

 

 

Q1-What do you think Justin Reiter meant by including the following in his essay?
…if the people are not accustomed to the freedom they will be angered by the inequality.’  Were you angered by some of the things Justin said in his essay? Did you agree or disagree?

 

I think that he meant that if a person grew up in a society where everything was equal, when that person [realizes] life is not always fair, then he/she will face some harsh realities.  Although this does hold true, I do not believe there are many places with perfect impartiality.  Even communist regimes have inequalities.  I agree that not every country is designed to work like ours.  Ours is very unique, and our government has found that not every country can work like ours.  Over all, I would agree with Justin’s Essay.

 

Q2- Explain: ‘He felt that the common good could be served by each individual pursuing self-interest.’  To whom did Chris Carney attribute these feelings?

 

This was a quote that Chris took from James Madison, Founder of the Constitution.  I feel I must point out that Chris went on further than just this quote from Madison’s point of view.  Carney also pointed out that Madison knew that this would never fully be achieved.  I think that point is key to his paper.

 

Q3- In the next to the last paragraph in her essay, Faith Doyle discuses Emperor Diocletian and his Edict of 301. Relate that to the essay topic.

 

The example she shared was a perfect one for the point she was trying to get across:  one cannot put a limit on human expansion.  Rome put a limit on how much one could earn, which in turn [stifled] society’s creativity and drive.  This was used to prove that equality is not based on income, but more on opportunity.

 

Q4- Kelly Lanier says in her essay: ‘Even though everyone is born with the same rights here in America; sometimes a person can step on or take away the rights of another person.’ Relate the example she gives and give us another one of your own.

 

The example she gave was if a person uses his/her right to bear arms to shoot another person, then he/she is taking away that second person’s right live or be free from danger.  I think another example would be if one was to use their freedom of speech to preach their beliefs, they could be impacting someone else’s freedom of religion.

 

Q5- Explain what Joshua Spencer means when he says that ‘individual liberty is a fragile, yet powerful, asset.’ How does he relate individual liberty to dictators?   Do you agree with his assessment? Why or why not? Be specific.

 

Liberty is the right to of an individual to exercise his/her freedoms.  Dictators see this as a threat.  A dictator wants the people to rely on him/her.  I agree completely with this statement.  Liberty is very delicate.  One can have it and completely disregard the blessing.  It is something that I believe many Americans take for granted.  Dictators take it away and the society realizes its power.  Without the liberty we have to live, we would not be the country we are today.

 

Q6-Luck Hall asked ‘Will we maintain our freedom or destroy it to be safe?’ How would you answer that question?

 

I would say that in the end, we will probably destroy it to be safe.  In today’s society, there is too much reliance on the courts.  What I mean by this is we sue over every little detail.  This is going to cause laws to be made that are completely juvenile in order to maintain the safety of the society.

 

Q7- Some people, according to which student essayist in 1999, suggested that ‘the Constitution's framers might have 'put greater emphasis on the protection of the community over individual liberty', had they seen the world today.’? She doesn’t agree.  Do You?

 

Molly McGlone said that she did not agree with this statement.  I think that the framers did what they thought was best for the nation at the time.  Maybe they did put more emphasis on protection, but I think they knew what they were doing.  I feel that the Constitution has held up this far, who is to say they are wrong.

 

Q8- "Just because a law may achieve desirable results, it should not take precedence over the Constitution." Do you agree or disagree?  Aaron Traffas, discusses the Ban on Smoking in Public Places and the Gun Free School Zones Act.  How do you personally feel about these two issues?

 

I completely agree.  The Constitution is our founding.  It has made us the country we are today.  I’m not saying it should never be changed, because it does refer to issues that are unjust, such as slavery.  I think before it’s changed, the congressmen should know for a fact that their change is a good one.  I think those two bans are also just.  I have a right to walk into a public area and not smell smoke just as much as someone has a right to smoke.  It is the same concept with gun free school zones act.  I have a right to feel safe at school.  That is constitutional.  Anyway, why does a student need to bring a gun to school?  In my mind, there is no point for it.

 

Q9- Annie St. Romain referred to a book in her essay where "the government regulated every possible aspect of human life from profession to family to emotions." What was the name of that book?  Have you read it?

 

The book she referred to is called the Giver by Lois Lowry.  I unfortunately have not read this one, though I would like to.  Having read other books from this author, I know it would be a good one.

 

Q10- "As nations grow in size and social complexity, governments claim greater powers to restrain individuals and groups.  Those who criticize this development believe that it has gone so far as to threaten the existence of individual liberty.  Others believe that only if government is granted such powers, can complex problems be solved." This quote can be found in Jessie Veit’s essay.  Which side of the issue do you support and why?

 

I think that the government should have these powers.  A strong centralized government is what we were founded on.  It has to stay strong in order to survive.  Without control, our society would become anarchy.

 

Q11- Give three examples where personal responsibility would replace the need for laws. Do not duplicate those found in Patrick Karcher’s essay.

 

For one, if girls, and in some cases boys, wouldn’t lower their self worth as low as to become a prostitute, we wouldn’t need those laws.  Second, if men and women would be responsible and not have sex before they are ready for a child, then there would probably be no need for abortion laws.  Last, if parents and guardians would be responsible and send their kids to school, there wouldn’t need to be a law requiring school for children up to a certain age.

 

Q12- It is obvious that Benji Lehman is idealistic.  In his essay he claims when the founding fathers "wrote the Constitution they put a great emphasis on each person having personal rights as well as individual liberties. The true strength of each and every community falls on the individual. Believing each man, woman, and child will, and can recognize the importance of good responsibility.… These were laws that gave each and everyone of us the opportunity and self-respect to do the right thing."  Benji believed that people would make choices that would serve and benefit their communities. Do you believe that? Please explain.

 

I do think that he is being idealistic.  I am an idealist as well though.  I think if we could educate our citizens enough to where they know right from wrong, then it could be a possibility.  It is a slim chance though.  I think in today’s society, it would take more than what the government is willing to do to achieve this.  It is a good plan and I would say ‘all the power to you’ to anyone willing to try to achieve it.

 
BACK