Redefining our morals

Dylan McCabe, Editor

The incomprehensible power of a moral compass cannot be measured. It is a fundamental virtue to the framework of individualized character. It has been a driving force of civilization for all of time and has been responsible for the humanitarianism that drives all of mankind.

Psychologist Johnathon Haidt equivocated its exceptional power in his novel The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion.

“Morality binds people into groups. It gives us tribalism, it gives us genocide, war, and politics. But it also gives us heroism, altruism, and sainthood,” Haidt said.

But in the realm of economics, each decision made based off this compass poses a fundamental question: Who decides the standards of morally based economic charity?

Monotheistic religions have previously tried codifying charitable law in the form of Zakat and Tzedakah—Islamic and Jewish tributary financial relief. But what authority do religious texts have over the individual judgment of moral criterion? Countless ethical dilemmas concerning economic decision-making have stemmed from the universal characteristics of morality, especially one question which sharply divides the public: who has the right determine whether or not you should make charitable donations?

No matter the instance, each moral decision is individual and is formulated based on one’s upbringing and genetics. Moral obligation does not drive humanity, but rather hinders the natural mindset. There is no foundational basis to decide the morality of one’s actions other than their own conscious.

While promoting moral freewill in is the interest of some, famous philosopher Pete Singer disagrees, emphasizing the vitality of moral philanthropy. In response to the starvation of Bangladesh Liberation War refugees, Pete Singer wrote his critically acclaimed essay “Famine, Affluence, and Morality.” Singer argues that citizens of western cultures are morally obligated to donate more resources to humanitarian crises than they normally would.

While it is deemed by society “good” to help the less fortunate based on the principles of societal norms, there should be no obligation to give anything at all. Free will in Western is one of the few ideas that separates America from a totalitarian socialist state. “Beneficial” government enforced citizen payments to the less fortunate are a beautiful lie. They are draped in a false sense of mission to command individuals to be charitable.

Unsubstantiated enforced morality exists across the country, specifically in high school. In order to graduate, it is required to have completed 100 hours of service. This mandatory obligation continues to be shrouded in mystery, as there is no valid reason as to why these requirements have been put in place. Are the volunteer activities which met the requirement even analyzed? Should this truly earn the right of passage for each student?

I firmly believe that the incorporation of a moral standard into the education system is a façade, orchestrated by the work of con-artists to justify growth in students. I am fully aware of these abhorrent actions. I too have been coerced into volunteering, which is the epitome of a misconstrued homonym. Forcing vague and useless tasks upon students does not accurately reflect moral growth, nor does it encourage self-initiative and independence in a real-world environment.

Morally based volunteering should be up to students in every sense of the word. It is important that as humans we do not lose sight of the true test of morality. By transcending the prevalent societal norms spurred by institutionalization, we will encourage self-actualization and usher in a sense of individual pride rather than appeal to societal criterion.