Someone once told me that ‘morality is a test’ and it got me thinking of tests that people are given. Catholics believe their ultimate test if given by god and their success of being a good catholic will get them to heaven. While those who don’t believe in a heaven do believe that it is society that is testing them to see if they can survive. Students, as well, are tested on all sorts of material to see how well they have learned and can apply the material.
If we accept this metaphor then we are accepting that there is a test for goodness. But, what does it mean to be good and how do we use our findings as a universal definition?
The thing is, we can’t. There are just too many factors (cultural-values, religious-values, political-values, family-values, philosophical-theories) that come into play when asking the question “what is moral?” Depending on your belief of any of, or any mix of the aforementioned factors, what you approve of is ultimately what you deem moral, but may be immoral to another who is basing their opinion on the same categories.
For example, if someone approves of cannibalism, incest, or sacrifice to satisfy the gods than those actions cannot be immoral solely based on their approval of it.
In addition, the morality of prostitution is also based on the individual. To say prostitution is immoral because it is illegal is basing morality on legality, but just because it is illegal does not make is immoral. If we based morality on legality than technically slavery was once a moral act. Even today, some people may still believe slavery is moral; and who’s to say they’re wrong?
In the Mariam Webster Online dictionary, you will find the word moral defined as “of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior” (). This definition does and does not work. It does work because it doesn’t suggest what the definition of right or wrong is. However, it does not work because it leaves it’s interpretation to the individual and so the word or term ‘moral’ can truly have millions of definitions and therefore, can never be universal.
Merriam Webster (check spelling). Hey, I think you have something here. I like your use of personal voice in the opening sentence. I would like to see you move up this last paragraph to an earlier slot. This way readers can get a better sense of your thesis/purpose for the paper. Looks like things are unfolding in the right way.
ReplyDeleteI really like what you have so far. The analogy of Catholicism works really well with your paper. I agree with Professor Smydra that the last sentence would probably be more effective if it was introduced earlier. As for improvement, maybe add some personal experience as a way to connect more with readers. Overall, I think this is great though! I really get a great sense of your thesis, and you bring up some great points.
ReplyDeleteI really like what you have.
ReplyDeleteI think morality isn't necessarily something people want to talk about because it makes them assess their own values; and that's not a comfortable topic.
The religion analogy works wonderfully.
And I too think the ending paragraph would work better if it was moved up.
All said though, I really like this topic, and I think you're doing a great job widening the issue.