The Moral Dilemma

As of recently, I have been following the various topics that have been posted on the news... more so than usual. Most of the articles that have been posted, however, have been about the recent conflict between Russia and Ukraine. It is heartbreaking to see how the war has escalated so quickly and has put innocent civilians in harm's way. Although I feel the urge to do something about the situation, I am only a teenager; there's nothing that I can do to help resolve the conflict any faster. However, instead of focusing on the things that I can't resolve, I have turned my attention to the things that I can do something about... one of which is the dilemma the world has today on the topic of morality.

I know what you're thinking... "Why in the world is a 17-year-old teenager so concerned with the wrongs and rights of the world? Doesn't he have other things to worry about?" Yes, in this case, you are correct. I am constantly wondering about how busy work will be when I clock in, how long it will take me to do schoolwork assignments, and how I'm going to find time between myself, family, and friends. However, the amount of schoolwork is not a question that the world as a whole is asking... morality is. From what I can see, and you might be able to see it also, due to the separation between ideologies and beliefs, moral conduct in today's time is drastically different from past generations, causing the line between "right and wrong" to become exponentially hazy. The widely accepted term morality is currently on a steady decline and society is asking for help.

First, of course, before I get on my soapbox, I should define what does it mean if something is "moral". According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, moral means "of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior". The definition itself is straightforward and may gather agreement from multiple walks of life and beliefs. However, when put into the realm of the real world, the definition seems to become insignificant. In the world today, especially in the American culture, everyone can come to an agreement about what is considered "evil". If you were to ask whether or not the execution of murder is considered evil, I can (almost) guarantee that everyone will strongly agree with the fact that murder is evil. Because of expanding ideas, whether it be socially, politically, or personally, however, agreements become less and less common.

In reference to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, they ask a series of questions relating to the main issues about the evil that is asked today, one being "What is the relationship between evil and other moral concepts such as badness and wrongdoing?" In basic terms, evil is anything considered wicked or immoral (murder, theft, etc). In recent history, citizens, government officials, and institutions have allowed for newer ideas to be implemented, but they don't take into account whether or not they are "evil" or will initiate a cycle of wrongdoing and what is considered "bad". The moral code today first asks the question "Is this (being a specific action, legislation, etc) considered bad, or can it result in wrongdoing later down the road?" It seems like in the past, however, that the first question asked is "Is this idea something that is, by definition, evil?" 

I find that what Michael Sandel of BBC Radio had to say in a podcast I recently listened to sums up what I'm trying to say, "There is a great yearning for democratic citizens to bring their moral and spiritual convictions to bear in debating about justice and nature of rights." Citizens today recognize the moral dilemma in today's society and have the desire and passion to do something about it, however, when they realize that the borders for society's moral code are no longer being drawn, they feel that saying something about their convictions will not result in change. Why can people no longer agree on topics through rational thought without their own opinions and ideas coming into play? What happened to the time when society as a whole agreed on, not only moral issues but on issues or conflicts that influenced the group as a whole?

Brittany Loggins posted an article this past year about morality vs. ethics and, specifically, how they play a role in mental health. She emphasized the idea that morals are guidelines that affect individuals more than a group as a whole, while ethics apply more to cultures and communities. Loggins then goes on to say "Since morality and ethics can impact individuals and differ from community to community, research has aimed to integrate ethical principles into the practice of psychiatry. That said, many people grow up adhering to a certain moral or ethical code within their families or communities. When your morals change over time, you might feel a sense of guilt and shame I'm not saying that the altering of one's ethical or moral code is wrong and he/she should be looked down upon. However, I am saying that this becomes a problem when either the moral or ethical code goes beyond the realm of what is acceptable in society and people no longer begin to feel guilt. 

In reference back to Michael Sandel, "Where passion does enter about a certain topic, it often ends in shouting matches where nothing gets solved.” People often argue about things that are petty or unimportant when put into comparison to problems that need to be addressed in society. I, too, have felt a lack of passion when it comes to discussing what is now considered "acceptable" and "unacceptable" because of the fact that it is no longer discussed by society, nor by officials. Morality is a topic that needs to be addressed for the sake of society, and the condition of the world as a whole.