Most commonly, morality is defined as the knowledge of what is right, wrong, good and evil. The concept of morality is used by many people to justify their decisions and actions. A lot of people belief that the standards of morality are same for people all around the world, and hence, they try to impose their moralities on other people. Exactly this kind of thinking has been objected by Joan Didion in her essay, “On morality”. She claims that each individual has a different definition of morality and that there is no “one” system of values that we can construct in order to apply it universally.
Didion begins her essay by narrating the time she travelled to Death Valley due to being assigned a task by The American Scholar. “I have been trying
…show more content…
to think, because The American Scholar asked me to, in some abstract way about morality, a word I distrust more every day.” Her location has been highlighted by her due to its importance of it which she explains later in the essay. It was a place where stories and morality ran out of control. More importantly, this location helps her to see morality issues as a certain frame of mind. She provides the idea that it is not possible for us to distinguish between good and bad being human beings. According to her, the definition of morality has been lost within the conscience of humans due to television and press. And due to the very fact, the only way by which a distinction between good and bad can be made is believing that all those actions that do not hurt a person(s) are sound. I have a very strong disagreement with the idea presented here. Moreover, it is not right of Didion to say that universal moral acts do not exist. I would like to elaborate on the point I am trying to make by giving an example. No matter what one’s religious believes, where he comes from or what his cultural believes be, as long as one is not suffering from some type of mental illness, I believe that it is nearly impossible to find a person who believes that a young girl’s hands be chopped off for no reason at all. I do not think we would ever find a person who considers doing this a sane act. But to explain my point, I want you to imagine a situation where a criminal has taken over the world, and threatens to kill everybody if a certain girl’s hands are not chopped off. And let us also suppose that the criminal is actually strong enough to kill the entire lot of people the world contains. What do you think would be the most reasonable and rational thing to do in such a situation? Obviously, now the chopping off of hands of a girl which seemed “immoral” without a reason, seems to be the most reasonable thing to do in the given circumstances. Exchanging the arms of a single girl with the confirmation that the entire human race would be saved seems to be the “moral” thing to do. I am not, at this moment, forgetting the history of mankind who has actually murdered other human beings-which includes women and children- for unjustified reasons; reasons which seem absurd.
Human beings have killed human beings for reasons such as jealousy, hunger, revenge, war, religious/cultural sacrifices, and the list goes on and on. All of us realize that such acts are and never will be justified, they are absolutely wrong. The point being made here is that nobody performs such kind of acts out of the blue, there are always reasons. This exactly is the example of what unites and links all of the humanity. Hence, without any hesitation, I can provide here the conclusion that to harm a certain individual without any reason isn’t subjective. Without any doubt, we can consider it to be a universal way to judge …show more content…
morality. I would like to give another example to explain my point further.
I do not think there is anybody in the world (without a mental illness) who believes physical pain to be a good thing. And again, let us first keep aside any good or bad reason for which the pain is given or endured. That is to say, no reason at all for pain. Now looking at a situation, we all agree that the needles used in acupuncture treatment hurt, but a patient who, let’s say, suffers consistent headache, would not mind enduring the pain of the needles, and the person who provides the treatment to the patient would also not mind “hurting” him with those needles because it will ultimately help him to get rid of his headache. Also, all the people around the world don’t mind this treatment too, in fact, it is absolutely justified. Hence, keeping aside mental illnesses, it can be concluded that causing physical pain to somebody else for no reason at all is globally considered as “wrong”. And the given example of acupuncture helps us reach the conclusion that causing pain to a person for the purpose of relieving some other pain he suffers is accepted universally as the “right” thing to
do. Joan Didion has no doubt structured her essay very well but I do not agree with the reasoning style she has used. I might be becoming judgmental, but this essay written by her gives me the idea that she is against the idea of universal morality because she believes that it encroaches her freedom. She has given examples of people such as Klaus Fuchs and Alfred Rosenberg-these are people who themselves have committed significantly wrong and heinous acts-claiming that they performed “moral acts”. By this, she has presented morality pejoratively. Being a history student, I know that Fuchs was in reality a British traitor. While nuclear achievements were accomplished by the Americans (during the space race), he leaked their nuclear secrets to the Soviets. While, Alfred Rosenberg was Eastern Europe’s Nazi administrator. This was where, during the World War II, the Germans performed the most inhumane and murderous acts. Both of the personalities justified themselves by claiming to have done what was ‘moral’ to them. I would like to conclude by saying that some of the claims, as mentioned above, by Didion are false, and the examples she has used to prove that morality is subjective have flaws. In my view her ideas about morality are wrong and that to some degree, there actually exists a system of values which is universally applicable.
In our lifetimes, we meet many people. And, hopefully, with each of them we follow a certain protocol when we first meet them. When one is greeted sweetly, or even sourly, the receiver is expected to graciously accept it and return the favor politely. In other countries, children are taught to show their respect towards elders at all times. Young ones in the Philippines are conditioned to grab an elder’s hand and bring it up to their forehead in a bowing motion, this practice is known as “blessing”. However, no one has ever given a more in depth answer for the reason of these practices other than, “Because you should.”
Though individuals live by and react similarly to various situations, not all people have the same morals. I can relate to instances where I have supported a belief, regardless of the criticisms that arise, all because my choice is based upon personal morals. The same can be said regarding Debra J. Dickerson as she expresses in her novel, An American Story. In Carol Gilligan’s “Concepts of Self and Morality,” she states, “The moral person is one who helps others; goodness in service, meeting one’s obligations and responsibilities to others, if possible without sacrificing oneself” (170). After considering this statement, I strongly feel that Gilligan’s proposal lacks the depth to accurately characterize the moral person, but I am able to accept the argument raised by Joan Didion. Her essay entitled, “On Morality,” clearly provides a more compelling and acceptable statement in describing the moral person by saying, “I followed my own conscience, I did what I thought was right” (181). Joan Didion’s proposal is precise and acceptable. It is obvious that as long as people follow what they believe is the right thing to do, and approach the situation maturely, their actions can be considered examples of morality, and they can then be considered moral human beings.
Joan Didlon talks about morality in two different stories, “On Morality” and “Comrade Laski,” She talks about morality in both of them, yet one is clearer about what mortality is. She never actually defines morality, she seems to only talk about descriptions of what it is or examples. She leaves it open like that for interpretation of her words. Everyone thinks differently and she uses that to her advantage. She doesn’t state what morality ever is because she wants each person to think for themselves on what they think morality actually is. Morality is not something that is taught in grade school classrooms or textbooks it’s a set of ways and values people live by every day.
The essay is Didion’s account of a visit she made to her family house in the Central Valley of California for her daughter’s first birthday and how she found herself facing her past at every turn. According to Didion, family life was “the source of all tension and drama” in her life. She mentions over and over that being home gave her a sense of unease, “some nameless anxiety”, but despite this she suggests that home, and the emotional baggage that came with leaving home, defined the character of her generation and she sees it as essential in having formed her personality. Didion ends the essay with the rather upsetting revelation that she “would like to give [her daughter] home for her birthday but we live differently
Joan Didion, the author of On Self Respect, claims that self-respect demonstrates a display once called character; she also argues that the ability to sleep well at night depends on self-respect. Namely, one who realizes that the choices and the actions he/she had made have brought his/her today, has self-respect. Considering Didion’s arguments and personal, real-life examples, self-respect must have at least some influences on physical behaviors.
Morality is, in essence, subjugated by he who defines it. This being the case, morality (defined as right or wrong, good or evil) is malleable as long as it does not impede upon any “ipso facto virtue';(Didion). In the essay “On Morality';, by Joan Didion, this aspect ‘on morality’ is composed. This will be utilized to verify that William Saroyan’s (author of “Five Ripe Pears) guilt of an immoral action is conflicting given specified conditions.
What is morality? Merriam-Webster dictionary states that morality is/are the beliefs about what right behavior is and what wrong behavior is
Pain is something most people want to get rid of. It would be shocking if a person would want pain or create their own pain. Sounds outrageous, right? The millions of Americans suffering with diseases and conditions, from chronic pain to cancer, all want their pain to simply disappear. But, most people are aware that some treatment options and pharmaceuticals don’t always work. As a result, they are forced to live with their conditions or diseases for long amounts of time, sometimes even leading to their death. Other times, treatment options and pharmaceuticals that don’t medically have any pain-relieving or curing effect do work. In turn, patients who suffered with cancer or post-tooth extraction pain are relieved with nothing but a
In the article, "On Self-Respect," Joan Didion talks about what it means to her and what she thinks it should mean to others to have self respect. Didion defines self respect as love and confidence within a person for who they are. She states that self respect comes from a persons character, which she defines as, "the willingness to accept responsibility for one’s own life. " This means not blaming others for wrongdoings that were actually partially or fully their own.
Specific examples of this repetition can be found at the end of the third paragraph, where Didion says, “The dismal fact is that self-respect has nothing to do with the approval of others…” And in the fourth paragraph Didion makes a comparison between living without self-respect to lying awake in bed one night and not being able to reach the milk and pondering on past regrets – it stays with you and makes you feel negative emotions as time passes. One may post-pone those thoughts, but we all end up going back to laying in our bed at night. She, then, goes back to her principle about self-respect – “Whether or not we sleep in it depends, of course, on whether or not we respect ourselves.” The ending statement reinforces the fact that it is important to have this quality in your life, so that you do not have these negative feelings that can potentially prohibit you living life the best way you can or want to. By continuously stating these anecdotes and comparisons, the key principle of Didion’s essay always comes back and emphasizes this to readers. Repetition of this lesson is an attempt to implant this principle into reader’s head, which she is successful at.
Whether put simply or scrutinized, morality cannot be defined simply by looking at it from one or two perspectives. One must acknowledge the fact that there are several different factors that affect judgment between “right” and “wrong”. Only after taking into account everything that could possibly change the definition of righteousness can one begin to define morality. Harriet Baber, a professor at San Diego State University, defines morality as “the system through which we determine right and wrong conduct”. Baber refers to morality as a process or method when she calls it a “system”. In saying “we” she then means to say that this concept does not only apply to her but also to everyone else. Through morality, according to her, one can look at an action, idea, or situation and determine its righteousness and its consequences.
Morality and views about right and wrong are not something that is formed by human minds. It comes from the creator God. It is described in this article that we can know morality by looking at God’s actions throughout history as seen in the Bible and throughout time (Kennedy, 2009). God sets the standards for moral behavior by looking to him through the Bible and
Every individual is taught what is right and what is wrong from a young age. It becomes innate of people to know how to react in situations of killings, injuries, sicknesses, and more. Humans have naturally developed a sense of morality, the “beliefs about right and wrong actions and good and bad persons or character,” (Vaughn 123). There are general issues such as genocide, which is deemed immoral by all; however, there are other issues as simple as etiquette, which are seen as right by one culture, but wrong and offense by another. Thus, morals and ethics can vary among regions and cultures known as cultural relativism.
Morality is defined as the system of ideas of wrong as well as right conduct. There are several ways one can classify the word morality in the society. Morality is classifiable as religious implications by arguing that morals
“Different cultures have different moral codes”, James Rachels discusses in his article Why Morality Is Not Relative? (Rachels, p. 160). A moral code is a set of rules that is considered to be the right behavior that may be accepted by a group of individuals within a society. Each culture tends to have their own individual standards and moral codes. Moral codes are guidelines laid out by a cultures ancestors. Standards are guidelines set forth by the individual themselves. Standards and morals don’t always have to be the same, but there are instances where they are. The moral codes claim what is “right” and what is “wrong”. Moral codes outline what behaviors individuals are supposed to make. These codes are basically laws, but specifically