|
home > writing
> battalion articles
Right, Wrong, and all things between
As with every presidential transition and political party change,
certain issues are always presented to the American public as being
more important than others.
In the 50s we were all concerned with impending nuclear war and
communists. In the 60s and 70s, social reform was at the forefront.
Reagan and the 80s tried to reinstate the 50s and now Clinton and
the 90s are reproducing the 60s.
The primary topics are no longer the rich getting richer, military
spending – there isn’t much – and the cold war.
The new themes Washington and the media are concentrating on seem
to center on the current value system of the nation: gays, gays
in the military, women in combat, political correctness, AIDS-provoked
sex education, etc.
Because values are such personal thoughts, people – including
members of government – believe they have the solutions to
the American morality problem, and therefore they inflict these
values on everyone else.
There’s a sizable problem with inflicting moralities of any
type on any people who are old enough to think for themselves. Everyone
gets furious and nothing is accomplished. Politicians implement
laws in an attempt to meet their objectives, but justice is usually
compromised, leaving everyone angry again.
This is essentially the situation of the times. Americans –
or all humans for that matter – don’t seem to realize
that aside form hurting or stealing from other people, there really
is no right or wrong.
All other moralities are merely inventions and opinions of the majority
or those in charge. Thus, they carry no weight aside from the sanctions
they impose socially or legally.
To facilitate understanding of just what morality is, let us consider
three basic categories.
Civil moralities – hurting or stealing from others –
are necessary for a society to survive, but only survive. Clearly
no group of people can thrive if individuals truly fear for their
lives and belongings. And although murder and theft rates are still
rising, they are somewhat slowed by the existence of much needed
laws.
Legal moralities are issues deemed either moral or immoral simply
based on the current laws. Although we are taught to think of “illegal”
as automatically “immoral,” it simple isn’t the
case.
Because 18 year olds are allowed to drink alcohol in Mexico but
not in Canada, are Canadians more moral than Mexicans? Is Ireland
morally right in banning abortions, leaving America in the wrong
for legalizing it? An act can be legal or illegal depending on the
geography, but the Earth’s surface can’t make an act
right or wrong.
People commonly believe that legislators pass laws without the influence
of group-specific values in order to protect citizens from themselves.
However harmful breast implants, liquor and tanning salons may be,
they remain legal; while sodomy, marijuana and polygamy are rejected.
Majority groups, through economic or political power, introduce
social moralities to a society and tend to enforce them with or
without the help or legislation.
For instance, our country places heavy social burdens on “loose”
women, claiming breach of morality. First, we have to determine
what constitutes “loose.” At what point does a woman
become “loose”?
Is a legal prostitute in Nevada less moral than an adulteress in
Utah? The same hooker who would be chastised in Salt Lake City would
be making an honest living back in Nevada. She would be wrong and
not wrong at the same time, and this is not possible. Can an imaginary
line used to distinguish geographic boundaries determine morality?
And if so, does this make Utah a better state?
Most – but certainly not all – social moralities are
based on the religious affiliations of the area and often exceed
legal confines. Devoutly religious college students, however bad
off they may be, are less likely than a couple of Times Square thugs
to rob and beat a senior citizen for a Social Security check, but
this is not because the students are scared of the cops. They’ve
been taught and believe that such activities aren’t those
of “good” people.
On the other hand, fanatics have bombed abortion clinics and murdered
doctors in the name of God, truly believing they have served justice.
The question is really one of deciding which social moralities should
be elevated to legal status and enforced as such. Obviously America
can’t determine the laws of other countries, so we must decide
amongst ourselves what is right and wrong.
The problem is that a great deal of pending legislation is morally
ambiguous from a civil standpoint.
Abortion, sex education, drug legalization, family values, homosexuality,
prayer in schools, ad infinitum, are hot topics these days. We will
no doubt eventually arrive at laws for all of them, but it won’t
make the laws moral – or immoral.
Prohibitions will be repealed and instated laws will change, but
such issues will be just as controversial 100 years from now.
I hope so, anyway.
|