Morality Versus Propriety: A Personal Perspective

Morals and values are what makes each of us ourselves and distinguishes us from one another. Everyone is unique due to our individual experiences and backgrounds that make us who we are and shape our interpretations of the world around us. Being told to act morally in a situation and being told to act properly in a situation are two different entities. The understanding of what it means to do something properly versus what it means to do something morally differs from person to person as a result of the inexhaustible amount of factors that affect our ethical standpoint. While it is possible to act both morally and properly, it is more often that people choose to act one way over the other due to the circumstances. The difference between

morality and propriety is that society views acting based on morals and acting based on beliefs of what is proper are different.
Whereas acting morally is done to satisfy one’s personal standards, acting properly is done to satisfy society’s standards and expectations. In several cases, people choose to act based on what they believe is proper rather than what they believe adheres to their moral compass because of how judgmental society is and can be. Morality encompasses beliefs of what kind of actions are acceptable versus unacceptable, and propriety encompasses beliefs of what is socially acceptable and conventional. During the Salem Witchcraft Trials, the many people involved lost their sense of ethics because of the riotous environment in which they lived. They acted based on what they believed was proper conduct, which was accusing innocent women of being witches (Miller). At the time, strange behavior was widely condemned, especially of females, and the Puritan society was superficial in terms of morality. The Crucible teaches the audience to challenge social norms, as John Proctor did, in order to defy the set definition of “proper” and give it a new meaning. People thought it was proper to sentence accused witches to death, but Proctor acted on his moral of honesty so that the truth would prevail. Prior to his confession of adultery, his hauteur kept him from telling the truth and this resulted in greater damage because more innocent lives became involved. However, due to his sense of morality, he let his guard down and ultimately decided that the right decision was to listen to his morals instead of keeping his reputation. Proctor was aware that he would face death and he chose to face it with dignity, which meant that he would feel content with himself rather than satisfying what society wanted from him. A moral lesson to learn from his death is that honesty is the best policy. Thus, the dissimilarity between morality and propriety is that when people choose to act morally, they fulfill their own meaning of life and their own needs. On the other hand, when people choose to act properly, they desire to stay within the confines of society, do as society tells them to do, and cause no disturbances to the structure of society for preservation. Miller addresses the question of sacrificing for oneself as opposed to sacrificing for others in order to remark on the extent that people are willing to go to in order to protect their status.
Money is the motive behind many people’s actions and when dealt with in large amounts, money influences a person’s life to a great extent, usually more negatively than positively.

Money is a strong force that is able to weaken the social fabric because of the suspicions and sense of mistrust that it produces. In addition, money is capable of clouding one’s judgment so that their actions reflect a more selfish, immoral purpose. For example, Daisy Buchanan’s seemingly jovial character is juxtaposed with her shallow, egocentric actions that demonstrate that material wealth is the one thing she cares about. Because of money, Daisy is able to disregard Gatsby’s love and sacrifices that he made for her because she represents an unattainable dream. Although readers are not able to learn much about her character, it is made clear that she lacks morality when she does not even batter an eyelash to the death of Myrtle or Gatsby, both of which she is the cause of (Fitzgerald). The issue amplifies when Daisy simply leaves without a trace. Evidently, Daisy did what she believed to be proper because her insolent husband, Tom, would have condemned her otherwise. Her society centers around Tom’s opinion of her and how he will provide her with the luxuries that she is able to enjoy; as a result, what Tom believes is correct is what Daisy practices. Therefore, Daisy serves as an accurate example of someone who only knows how to act based on what is proper because she has no morals. Readers

will frown upon the conduct exhibited by many of the wealthy characters in The Great Gatsby because of the little significance that is accentuated on morality, an essential part of a positive persona. The Valley of Ashes serves as a symbol of the absence of morals in a convoluted world where wealth and status are prioritized over integrity and virtue. Its dismal, deplorable state magnifies the degree to which the affluent will go to in order to get what they want, even in the event of ignoring any ethical principles. In this sense, morality and propriety differ because when one is absent, the other exercises dominance. Money changes people’s behavior because it is believed that if one has money, he/she also has power and influence over others.
The consequences of actions and society’s views of those consequences greatly influence how people conduct themselves.

Choosing to do the right thing is difficult because there exists no clear description of what the right choice is. The difference between right and wrong is not black and white; rather, it relies on one’s conscience as well as the outcome of a situation. Dishonesty is often resorted to because of greed or pressure, among a multitude of factors. The meatpacking industry is a prominent example of a complete neglect and destruction of morality. Meatpackers paid little attention to the quality of what they were selling, which would eventually be consumed by countless people. The factory owners were only concerned with making a profit, and they were able to benefit by producing cheap quality products with cheap labor (Sinclair). The meatpacking industry was undeniably completely lacking in morals and properness. If factory owners had chosen to work honestly and with dignity, they would create sanitary conditions. Moreover, if they had chosen to act based on the notion of propriety, they would have yielded to corruption and informed the public about what went into the food that they ate. The difference between acting morally versus properly in the situation of the meatpacking industry is that acting morally includes taking into account the health of consumers and acting properly includes maintaining a professional demeanor towards employees. However, the

meatpacking industry is not the only business that practiced an immoral approach; the housing industry was able to benefit from the fact that many of the people arriving in the country were immigrants with no experience and a language barrier (Sinclair). Consequently, the real estate agents were able to mislead their customers into buying property that costed much more than expected. A morally conscious agent would choose to assist the immigrants with their transition into the unfamiliar country by providing them with a clear outline of what to expect from the purchase of property. A proper agent would choose to act professionally and adhere to the set rules of how to handle customers. The lack of any moral or proper conduct on the part of the realtor is significant to note because it emphasizes how people distinguish between morality and propriety. The proper thing to do at the time that Sinclair’s novel took place was to make money through corrupt means, otherwise they would suffer negative consequences from their employers. As a result, the agents chose to act properly instead of morally in order to satisfy the expectations of a larger population. Sinclair’s take on morality reveals that circumstances often result in failure to comply with one’s own set of principles because of social expectations.
In the final analysis, choosing to act morally or properly comes down to how the choices that are made will affect one’s future, reputation, or self-worth. A common source from which we formulate our moral compass is from works of literature. Authors choose to challenge the beliefs of their readers by introducing controversial or discordant scenarios that force readers to characterize the characters as generally good versus generally bad. Commonly, good characters are the ones who act morally whereas bad characters do not. Additionally, good characters know when the right time to act properly is while bad characters choose to act properly at the wrong time. Although the definitions of morality and propriety seem to overlap, Miller, Fitzgerald, and Sinclair indicate that the two terms take on different meanings because having a sense of morality is different from knowing what is proper. In summation, morality is based on one’s own conscience and propriety is based on what is believed will appease the public and maintain one’s reputation. Being able to act both morally and properly is a feat unto itself and without a sense of ethics, people are more prone to making poor choices.