Who decides?( On morality and judgement)
As a law student, my favourite module was criminal law. I have always found the idea of right or wrong; of morality; of judgement and condemnation pretty interesting, because who decides? What dictates it? At what point do people turn around and say, yh, this feels like a wrong thing to do and you are a repulsive person if you do that. Have they always felt it inside and ignored it? Did they encounter a life changing situation that made them re-evaluate? Was there a scale that balanced why certain acts left the lane of moral reprehensibilities to become acceptable or even heartfelt causes that people fought for? What causes the shifts?
Think about stealing for example. It is bad to take something that's not yours, I'm sure most people would agree. Yet, I see everyday on social media, people overlooking, or even encouraging people to steal from big corporations, because they make insane amounts of profits. However, when people hear that a scammer has managed to steal thousands of dollars from a corporation, it is off with their head. The argument against the latter is that no one needs thousands of dollars, but does everyone who steals from big corporations need it? If someone steals perfume or alcohol, would we term that a basic human need? The scammer could justify their theft by saying they come from poverty, and have a long line of people whose lives they can change. They could say corporations have insurance, and they could end up providing scholarships, creating jobs, starting charities, giving people access to basic life needs. Would we say that is enough to justify the crime they committed?
During the EndSARS movement in Nigeria in 2020, it was discovered that many state governments of Nigeria had raised funds, created budgets, collected donations for Covid-19 palliatives and had locked up an enormous amount of foodstuff in warehouses across the country, while people starved. Yet, when people got access to the warehouses, and thousands of people in different parts of the country trampled upon themselves to get as much food as they could possibly carry (without considering if perhaps they had taken too much for themselves), people said they were stealing. I saw people write that these people collecting food had become just like the very people they had condemned- the people who took food out of the mouths of starving citizens. Whilst I disagree with this sentiment, I do not consider it far-fetched that such a thought process should occur.
Many times the moral debate involves life. In my country, it is still a crime to try to take your own life. This is the case in at least 20 countries around the world*. In England and Wales, it stopped being so barely 60 years ago**. Legality aside, I have seen countless times where someone tweets about taking their own life, and people immediately rush to tell them that they would be facing dire consequences of eternal damnation if they do such. Some say it out of genuine pity, trying to encourage the people in that mental state, that whatever they faced here on earth, could be no worse than the burning fire of hell. Others, say it as a warning, as if reprimanding a child who is about to make an obviously silly mistake. How much does blind belief and religion obstruct sympathy and how much does it influence our view of morality?
We've all seen the ageless discoure around abortion. One school of thought says that it's bad because there is inherent value in life? Another says it might be acceptable if the mother's life is endangered or if she has been raped. Who decides to value that one life over the other? The answer to some of these questions seem fairly obvious to me, but then I encounter people who sort of roll the die even in situations where the mother might lose their life. "Don't take a life. Leave it to God, he who gave the child will save you both". I once had a very heated debate with my friend trying to convince him about the trauma of rape, and the stigma associated with pregnancy and single motherhood in Nigeria, and how forcing a rape victim to keep a pregnancy is likely to exacerbate and perpetuate the trauma. He responded by showing me an article about a nun who kept the pregnancy after she was raped and who wrote a prayer to God asking him to ease the distress that she so obviously felt. There was little focus on the pain that lady was going through. Instead, he said "If she can do it, anybody can".
I use some of the more extreme cases on abortion to drive home my point on morality. But what about other situations. Neither the fetus nor the mother is in danger of losing their life( besides the standard dangers that pregnancy in itself presents), but perhaps the fetus might have an increased chance of having severe disabilities. I saw a really sad story where this lady was poisoned by her partner who did not want to have a child, and so the child would have ended up severely disabled, and without a fully developed brain. She was insistent on going forward with the pregnancy regardless. Sometimes (albeit a thought I find to be to some extent "chronically online") the very idea of wanting a "healthy baby" is seen as ableist because it might make those who do not fit this idea of "healthy" feel unwanted. Other times, when people show their kids who are severely disabled online, they are told that they did not give any thought to how difficult a life the child might have, when they knowingly decided to birth them. But what about a difficult life in the absence of disabilities? What about Poverty? A very young mother? An emotionally unprepared mother? One in an abusive situation? Struggling with addiction? Or one who simply enjoys the freedom of childlessness? Have they committed any moral wrongs?
It's also not rare to see where sex offenders have been killed by partners or relatives of the victim, and people say "release them, they should be a hero". What happened to the sanctity of life in those situations? Yet, many times, people react excessively to certain other situations, and it is "They should have left the law to handle it". At what point do we decide it is acceptable to let people handle things by themselves. Are disadvantaged or minority persons who are constantly in the face of oppression applauded when they decide to take matters into their own hands, because they feel they would not be taken seriously?
The questions on morality are endless and perhaps have no answer. Why is it socially acceptable to eat a cow and not a dog or a cat? Are the lives of other animals any less valuable? Do they not all bleed and scream of pain when slaughtered? What about drugs? Does it affect you negatively if one does them? Or sex work and sensuality? What about sexuality? And people who choose not to conform to gender roles- from the transgender person to the woman who has refused to believe that a man is inherently above her, simply on the basis of his gender? What about sex? or marriage? The idea of "pre-marital" sex , the concept of virginity, open marriages and more recently,"body counts"? or the disgusting conversations suggesting that a man cannot rape his wife? When do we decide to allow people be; to insist on autonomy; to give room for religion or to caution certain extremes brought about by religion? What do we mean when we say society must prevent X act to protect their moral values? What values? Ownership of people was once perfectly acceptable in society, so how do they know said values are swinging right on the moral compass? Who decides?
Comments
Post a Comment