Ancient Greeks did not have a way to recognize morals; nothing defined why they valued their ideals. It was not until the father of philosophy, Socrates, came along that the ancient peoples began to question their morality. Today, we are aware of what morals are but little has changed in terms of how morals are taught. There is no question of our morals but rather they are held concrete. Those morals that one accepts as their own become absolute, everything else is foreign and wrong. It is through this ignorance that we fail to examine other culture’s beliefs or new cultural trends.
We hold concrete ideals and impose that all should follow that set leading to conflict, especially in the realm of religion. Intolerance of other morals stagnate society and create an “us” versus “them” mentality that causes suffering for ideals.
What should a society do about this? What can we do? These morals that cause so much pain, the morals of universal truths, are who we are. It is our culture. Through the readings of the following essays, I would like to suggest that an evaluation system of morals to be taught at a younger age. By teaching people to examine their ideals and beliefs they can answer why they are influenced by their morals. When done with a truly open mind this examination allows one to question whether their morals are better than another individual’s. We need to not only teach morals, but state the fact that these are values that influence our society and that there are other ways of achieving the same end. To perhaps achieve even greater ends than what our own morals aspire to.
If children are taught how to examine morals rather than just told to accept them absolutely, then as adults they could evaluate new ideas for what they are worth. They could view other culture’s ideas or changes in their own society (that could have merit) instead of naturally distrusting what is unknown.
One must accept that by teaching children to question the merit if their own morals destroy the concept of absolute morals. For a moral to be absolute it requires that there can be no exceptions. Anything that questions that belief undermines the moral faith. In order to keep it, once must accept it absolutely which leads to intolerance and forcing individuals to conform to common beliefs. This takes away from individual thought of right and wrong as Joan Didion eloquently puts in her essay On Morality: “You see I want to be quite obstinate about insisting that we have no way of knowing-beyond fundamental loyalty to the social code—what is ‘right’ and what is ‘wrong,’ what is ‘good’ and what is ‘evil’(Didion,183)”. Didion explains that why people give up their integrity: to preserve order. If the old order begins to change people literally die for their beliefs because resistances to the new values are so strong,
Nowhere is this scenario more apparent that in Martin Luther King Jr.’s Letter from Birmingham Jail in response to clergymen informing that his actions were “unwise and untimely” (King, 142). He tells people that they are being held back by those who silently suppress their morality, not those who violently declare it. This becomes clear when King says “…white moderate, who is more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice” (King, 148).” He points out how the white majority believes that they should be pacifist to allow time to achieve what they cannot. King’s demand of change is challenging an absence of integrity. He asserts that progress will not happen by affirming the old value system. The moderates are afraid of his demand because challenging order and prompting change causes pain and suffering. They are right, as evident in the examples he gives: the poor treatment of abolitionists where dogs bite into their flesh and the policemen insult the demonstrators.
King’s work in the civil rights movement shows the difficulties in challenging what is believed to be universal truth. Would this suffering have occurred if everyone had been taught that all values have equal amounts of importance? After all, morality resides in the individual. Due to the inherent nature of man there will always be those that decide that ill-will and selfishness are more important than another’s values. This is what having concrete values solve: the possibility of ‘evil’.
However, this is less likely to happen if people are given a system to evaluate morals. I am not arguing the abolishment of all morals, but to add the moral value of change. This is important because it will cause people to question their own ideals and motivations leading them to question other individuals’ ideals and motivations. When one allows for such questioning it opens up the evaluation of if that is indeed the right thing to be done. This concept is something that society considerably lacks in culture today.
A system to evaluate morals is briefly touched on by Stephen L. Carter’s essay on The Rules About the Rules. He relies on integrity and says one can achieve it in three steps: discerning right and wrong individually, act upon what is concluded and to be unafraid to say the reason why those values were chosen. The first is the most crucial because it evaluates moral philosophies. It is also what society lacks today according to Peter J. Gomes’ speech Classic Virtue and the Character of Followership. In it he speaks of how citizens of old knew exactly where they stood but citizens today complain about leaders when they do not know what it is that they follow.
Additionally, evaluating morals is necessary to achieve the importance of them to individual believers. As illustrated in Mark Clayton’s essay A Whole Lot of Cheatin’ Going on, students still cheat even when they are taught that that cheating is wrong. The problem was only corrected when the university had extensive seminars and pamphlets about the moral issue. People begin to employ values only when it is explained why that value exists. The problem is put best by my mother when she read this paper: “We don’t tell children anything. We just hit them when they get it wrong.” It is worthless to have a moral of the story without the story. To not tell the story makes it so that peopleforeget why they do as their moral code dictates. This problem is compounded by making it a value to believe in things with no personal reason to do so. This makes is easier to believe in things that are not proven.
There is a term for believing in things that are not proven; faith. Faith is something that we value in a Judeo-Christian society. It requires for a blind belief in morals that are held universal. In society, faith has been misconstrued into blindly believing what is told. There is little room to question, doubt or second guess. However, in order to truly understand something you must truly know it by asking questions and seeking answers. Religion is a large part of our moral basis and the problems that arise from this is evident in Anthony Brandt’s essay Do Kids Need Religion? He perfectly describes the answer to the problem posed here, when he states: “Teaching our kids how to ask the right questions may be the best we can do.” (Brandt, 197). It does not state any great conclusions; it is what morality needs. Every person cannot have absolute conclusions that are not ambiguous in the nature of morality. When attempted it has been met with grave results, such as holy wars and regression of society.
The improvement of evaluating morals is a necessary goal which must be met. Carol Gilligan’s Concepts of Self and Morality is an excellent piece about status quo thinking of moral nature of men and women. In it, Gilligan claims that women’s morality is thought of as childlike because women approach ideas differently. While men judge morals on justice and logic, women judge morals on care and responsibility. The common opinion is that men have a superior way to contemplate morals. Gilligan’s essay reveals that the way a woman contemplates moral decisions is not a more fallible system than a man’s, but simply different. Her opinion on the morality of women does not make her an intellectual inferior but this is not the shared opinion of society. If we were to evaluate her ideas we could come to acceptance and society can progress.
A better, tolerant society is crucial to the progression of society. Greek society advanced greatly when Socrates sat among his people and asked what was important and why, even though the change was difficult to initiate. To do anything less is only to clasp things that one hopes is right. By denying or ignoring the truth of why we value morals or ideals causes society to crumble underneath the moral weight of the comfortable familiar. People need to understand what it is that they believe and why that is. It is only then that there will be integrity to act out upon that, and be unafraid of another’s beliefs.
Works Citied:
Lunsford, Andrea. Ruskiewicz, John. The Presence of Others. Moller, Marilyn. 3rd Edition. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2000.
