The Dilema of Today’s Morals

(Inspired by David Foster Wallace’s “Consider the Lobster”. May he rest in peace.)

When learning of the worlds when such atrocities such as the Nanking Massacre occurred, we feel detached from them. It feels like we weren’t there, because we weren’t there. Students note them to pass exams, but no student depresses over those events. Why should they? Those events were of a different time and of a different age.

Indeed, the world has come along way. Human life is valued, rights are inherent, and morality matters. In our perspective, we are different; we would never allow another Hitler, because we now know better.

But what if our morality isn’t truly moral; what if a hundred years from now, people then will perceive us as we perceive the amoral people of yesterday? They will think about abortion. They will think about our carnivorous eating. They will judge us.

“Hey Bob! Can you believe they ate meat back in the 21st century? Killing lives—god’s lives—for mere pleasure?!”

My point is this: Our movement towards a more moralistic world has not slowed in the very least. So how then, can we judge and debate morals accurately having been born today?

(I am genuinely curious. Comments are appreciated.)


3 Responses to “The Dilema of Today’s Morals”

  1. ok is dilema an SAT word? cuz i only know dilemma

    and i really don’t think we are necessarily going to be more moralistic…i mean the media? the music? the movies? gay movement? prostitution legalization?

    is this post supposed to be sarcastic?

  2. It’s kind of funny. My spam filter blocked your comment. Hmmm.

    The media is nothing! Seriously, I’d much rather have rap music than have black people being hosed down. The gay movement isn’t immoral at all. In fact, I see it as a step forward for morality; now we are much more accepting of everyone. Lastly, prostitution, in most places in the United States, IS illegal. Indeed, it was the PAST prostitution was legalized.

    I am not being sarcastic. If I was, this would have gone in the “fallacious” category.

    I felt the need to point out that I am for abortion, and that I eat meat. That’s actually my point: I do not know if my morality will feel as solid to people a hundred years from now as it does right now to me.

  3. My belief is that human morals have never changed.

    The difference from before to now, is that we’ve advanced far enough to find unique and more effective ways to conquer the “evil” that we view.

    And our view of evil is much different from other people’s. Back then it was okay to “rape” women, have slaves, and kill or capture villages for “prizes” and whatnot.

    If you think about it, that’s not too much different than what still happens in other places. And though it’s not as severe, it exists here as well. Countries like the US can try to eliminate these things, but tyranny, rape, and hostility can not be stemmed for good.

    The only chance of wiping out evil is to wipe out the “bad” people. Which to the “good”, is immoral.

    What is morality? Depends on the preference.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: