The Girl Who Couldn't Kill

Chapter 11.5-Rory's Definition of Morality

Mr. Volkov's weekly assignments

Topic: What Is Morality?

What is your definition of morality?

I believe morality can be interpreted in different ways therefore it does not have a definite answer. The theories of morality contribute to the philosophy of ethics which is exercising good judgments about actions. I believe actions come from a person's upbringing, whether they lived a standard "good childhood" or had other problems with family dynamics. This is often associated deeply within the mind which can be a habit or custom of character. This deeply integrated mindset is not easily persuaded only under special circumstances, for example, wealth. To me, morality ties a lot into the conscience and what the mind perceives as ethically right from learning under an underdeveloped mind. This kind of thinking overrides the idea of predestination which can be closely linked to religion or atheism.

Is morality ever universal?

I don't think morality is ever universal because it's so subjective and shapeless. With so many cultures, races, and sexualities, it's impossible to have the same morals and judgments that are fair. For instance, the law is definitely flawed one way or the other, hence many people want to get justice by going to court and through trials. Relativists would argue that defying the law does not necessarily mean that you are a criminal. For example, a homeless woman stealing feminine products at a grocery store is universally wrong since she went against the law and stole, but feminine products are crucial to a woman's body. But because of this situation, she is put on probation but is this really morally right? Isn't a right for a woman to care for her body?

A challenging perspective that I've come up with is that I do believe that these so-called laws hold a country together. It has definitely improved crime rates in certain aspects of the situation and has boosted certain economies. If we didn't have these universal morals then our world will be chaotic with so many differing perspectives and ulterior motives.

With the answer to this question change from society to society if yes, what problems can you foresee that bringing up?

Yes, I believe the situation will vary from society to society. A society of people growing up rich can only understand the perspective of being rich, even if they try to grasp the upbringing of poor people, they can fully understand their life circumstances and the struggles they had to through. For instance, a homeless man violently fought a store clerk due to prevent him from stealing food for his family. Absolutists would either agree or disagree that was universally right since they don't believe in "shades of grey." But was it morally wrong? Because to me, nothing is wrong with wanting to provide and care for your family and sacrificing your reputation to steal for loved ones' needs.

Is it morally permissible to kill one person to save many?

I don't believe it's necessarily "permissible" or acceptable but I believe in some cases, it is morally right to make necessary sacrifices although they may not be universally "right." There are multiple perspectives to this situation, for example, the DOC scenario that was introduced to the class earlier where there are 5 dying patients but the 6th one is more fatally ill. The doctor can either save the 6th patient by injecting medicine or let them die to harvest their organs for the other 5 patients. I believe this goes beyond morals and dives deeply into human instincts, interactions, empathy, and habits. We have to look at the whole picture, which can be impossible to determine what choice is morally right and fair for each person. The doctor could be a determinist, having no experience of the situation, and choose the smartest decision as a doctor with no feelings attached. Or the doctor could have a similar personal experience, (having emotivism) therefore having more empathy and may decide to do things differently. There are also so many more factors to the situation, considering the patient's family and their own conscious morals. To look at the whole picture would be a logical positivism.

Are all lives equally worthwhile, are some people more valuable than others?

I believe the answer is completely subjective and absurd and it has no definite answer for the "right form of worth." Some believe the lives of mentally/physically disabled or terminally ill people are lesser than normal humans, incriminated by internalized racism, sexism, or discrimination whereas there are others that believe anyone who is born onto this earth is worthy of receiving human rights. I don't believe a person is more worthwhile with religion or wealth since some people may argue that changing from poor to wealthy is a successful achievement. I believe the "success" factor only plays a small amount in the situation, it's all about the characteristics of the person after they've become successful and the steps to get there because money can really deteriorate and blur one's perspective of social status. When too much is given, one becomes greedy and nihilistic due to the fact that they can do anything they want, guaranteeing dopamine at all times. This can also be suffocating to a lot of people because they think they should be happy with their privilege but they are not.

Extra ideas!

A subjective scenario for conscious and subconscious morality.

A woman grew up with abusive parents and knows that it is undoubtfully and morally wrong to beat up her children. She grows up trying to shake off the idea of abusing her own children. One day she got upset and accidentally beats her children and hurt them. Her conscious morals know that it's wrong to beat up her children.

But she contradicts herself by beating up her children at her most vulnerable time. But I believe this is when her subconscious mind takes over, when she isn't in control, and where "her past" is in control.

Anger plays a huge factor in ethics and whether or not a person's decisions are affected by their emotions and insecurities

So are her decisions morally right or wrong?

Does her childhood play a factor in her actions? Can she be held accountable for what she did and can she be forgiven?

7/10. Good job! (Volkov is nihilistic and does not believe in the concept of ethics and morality. He prefers logic and political philosophy...)