I've often heard people say that it's good to "stick to your morals". What does that mean? If referring only to a specific person's morals, then those morals are not always seen as good by others. Do "your morals" include those of society? To what extent are any morals "yours" as apposed to those crafted by society's definitions of what's moral? There needs to be some cooperation between individuals and society so individuals' morals are acceptable in society. It's difficult to differentiate what is truly individual thought untouched by societal ideals.
Discussing Reading Lolita in Tehran in my English class got me wondering about how morals are created. The morals of society definitely can shape individual morals: if a society follows strict morals on how women can and can't dress, socialize, and become educated; then it's not surprising for a women to have opposing morals. In Reading Lolita in Tehran, Mahshid, a female student in Nafisi's literature class, questions, "Do we have any morality at all? Do we consider that anything goes, that we have no responsibility towards others but only for satisfying our needs?" This certainly is not an altruistic view in terms of how this satisfaction could affect others. Mahshid's view is that she doesn't need to cooperate with society's morals to satisfy her needs, in fact, doing so would inhibit her satisfaction.
Can there be total peace between society and personal morals? Obviously, morals can't be voted on like laws in a democracy. What effect would that even have? Even if the government comes up with some representative morals, how would they apply to society? The morals would have to be integrated into media, news, and laws. There will always be opposition to any opinion, and morals are the essence of opinion.
I believe that individuals can find balances by respecting of society's while maintaining integrity of individual morals. An extreme example is the American right to bear arms. I personally would never own a gun, but I respect the right of others to (assuming they posses it legally). I would not protest this amendment even though it doesn't apply to my morals.
Individuals have a place in society and everyone has the right to their own moral opinions as long as they don't endanger others. However, the stricter a society's morals, the more individuals' morals could cause conflict. Awareness and respect for differences between personal and society's morals can lead to peaceful coexistence. I'm interested to see if some sort of cooperation between individuals and society (government etc.) is possible and if it could create more peace in societies with strict morals.
I love this exploration! I found myself discussing a similar point with students in my math class. We were trying to determine if tolerance was possible. If we are tolerant of all views and cultures, then should be tolerant of the intolerant? We either are intolerant of those individuals, entering a loop of hypocrisy, or are tolerant of those who may destroy the system we which to create. The same problem arises with morality. If a ruling power is immoral by your standards but moral by their own, who's right? If you respect the right of the ruler to define morals, then you are stuck, but if you don't respect that right when you obtain power who's to say they should follow you? This morality problem is the biggest issue Iran faced and continues to face. The justification through religion creates a dichotomy that results in conflict over whose morals are better.
ReplyDelete