Continuing our discussion in class today, is there an absolute morality? Or does the definition of "good" change depending on the person, the culture, the time period, or other factors?
After explaining your personal view, discuss which view the play communicates. Is right and wrong absolute or relative in this play (not in the characters' view, but in the overall philosophy Miller puts forth)?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
I don't believe in n absolute right. I believe that a person's idea of right and wrong comes from their surroundings, their personality, the way they were raised, the time period, and many other factors. If there were an absolute right, that would mean that everyone from the past is wrong, and at least half of the people today are wrong. Unless no one has discovered the absolute right and people from 1000 years into the future and judge us on how wrong we were to do things that we did. In my opinion, people who have ideas of absolute right simply are making their opinion of right, or the opinion of the time an absolute right, and judging others based on it. Also, if there is an all-powerful, all-knowing God that created the very complex word in which we live, with highly complex people, why couldn't he have created a complex sense of right and wrong. To think of right and wrong as black and white, you assume that there are good and bad people, where good people are right, and bad people are wrong. There are no such things as good and bad people, but many shades of grey. This holds true for right and wrong.
I think that Miller wrote his book with a sort of condescending tone towards the people of Salem. The book seems to portray them as crazy, gullible people. It seems to me that Miller is writing the book with the superior air of people of the future. He is saying that these people from the past were wrong, and what they did was bad.
I do agree with Michael (for the most part). His comment that our generations before us must have then been wrong about SOMETHING does make sense, although it seems tough to see how maybe a couple hundred years from now, shooting our enemies, or just people that piss us off, casually will ever be "right". I know that it seems that it is just our environment that causes us to view that scenario as wrong, and maybe that is why i'm having such a hard time imaging that, but i suppose it raises the question, will murder/death ever be "right"? since i always seem to give oppposing scenarious in my blog responses, here we go. If one person, from the present day, decides to tell someone they are hideous and they should kill themself, they would be looked at as a horrible, evil human being. If someone, one hundred years from now said that to someone they would still be considered a jerk. Im anticipating that other people are going to say "well what if everyone in that age said mean things by means of communication" than fine, but that would be one messed up world. I believe that in the play, the Puritan religion in and of itself is an absolute morality. If you sin, you are bad, if you go to church and follow the rules you are good. It is only when people attempt to create a gray area (Proctor sometimes going to church, 'dancing" with the devil..) that the option of relativism is essentially introduced, and as a result, an uproar and more than enough hangings.
I agree with Michael and don't believe there is an absolute morality. I think that we each have our own opinions on what "good" is. Sometimes a certain person or culture may view one thing as good, and another person or culture may view it as evil. For example, because many people were killed on 9/11, we view the terrorists and their actions as evil. However, in their minds they believed that they were doing the "good" thing, and that we were the evil. So I think it really depends on different peoples' views. There can't be an absolute morality in our world because if there was, people would be either good or evil and have black or white actions. Every person in the world doesn't have the same mindset of exactly what is named good and evil. We all make mistakes and do bad things at one point in our lives, so if there was an absolute morality wouldn't we all be considered evil? We talked in class about how if you believe in God then you are good and do good things, and if not, you are evil. But there are people who don't believe in God and are still viewed as good people by others.
In the play, I believe there is an absolute morality in the town, thus agreeing with Kristen. You are good if you support the witch trials, but you are evil if you are against the trials. Also, if you go to church and follow God's ways you are good, but if you do not attend church you are considered evil. There was so much chaos in the crucible because a gray area was being created, and the Puritans had never viewed it before. There was confusion and difficulty among the Puritans because they couldn't grasp this concept. For example, Proctor was in between because he was viewed as a good person in town although he didn't attend church.
I believe that there is no absolute morality because the definition of the word "good" changes depending on the person, culture, time and rule of law. For example, it may be a sin to practice witchraft, but the US does not have a law against it. It may be a sin to have an affair, but it is also not a law. I believe that everyone makes mistakes in their life but then as Jamie said everyone would be evil and then no one would be good. Even if people do make mistakes that doesn't mean that they are still truley good. This is why I don't believe in absolute morality.
The people in this play base their rules and laws around Puratin beliefs. I agree with Kristen and Jamie in that this play shows absolute morality. In the play the people of Salem believe that sin is against the law. People being accused of various sins were brought into Salem to be proven innocent or guilty. Sin and wrong doing are absolute moralities in this play. Yet when you go to church and you know the ten commandments you are good.
Everyone before me has said that there is no absolute morality. I agree with them somewhat. However, I feel that at the core of the human sole we have a belief in a few basic principles, such as stopping the murder of innocents and generally feeling compassion for our fellow humans. But despite our shared principles, we all interpret these concepts differently. Everyone time one person strays from the path of perfection, it causes forces another person to update his morals, to move further into the shades of grey, until we have all been tainted by perception, interpersonal relations, etc. Contrary to what one might think, it is in the face of evil that morality must be compromised, when we must decide between sympathy and standing up for oneself, and people make choices that are not perfect. For example, US globalism has made much of the world hate our iomperialistic tendencies. To what they view as oppression, groups such as Al Queada react with violence. When we react with further violence, we are only continuing the shift to moral compromise. Each side believes itself to be protecting the same morals, yet they disagree. This is because different circumstances cause different perceptions, including perceptions on what is morally "right".
Which brings up my other point: that because perception is everything, the only true moral authority is YOUR own opinions. It is insignificant what a person thinks of your actions, or even of his own actions. The only thing one can truly know and truly care about is what he thinks of himself. Often, he thinks he cares what others think, but he only cares because he wants the contenment and self-confidence of knowing that others think well of him. At the end of the day, the only thing that matters is a what a person thinks of his own character.
in response to the question of whether morality is something that is dependent on factors, i believe that it completely is. morality varies from person to person, time to time and situation to situation. different groups, whether religious or not, are constantly trying to put together a set of rules which project right and wrong in an absolute sense, but in reality that is something that does not exist. you can't put a book together of what is right all the time, because there are various factors which impact what may be right and what may be wrong. for example, there are people today who may think that doing something is not necessarily a bad thing, that the same person 30 years earlier may immediately disregard as being a bad thing to do, or even consider doing. all the factors that impact our morality cannot be ignored at all, because it not only shapes ourselves, but it also shapes are family and those around us.
in response to what idea miller is trying to communicate I believe that he is trying to communicate the idea that morality is ever-varying, through demonstrating the opposite through his words. throughout the play so far, it is clear that the people of salem are forced to live under a set of rules which are the same for all and which are not allowed to be questioned. for example, when the Proctors are explaining their less-than-stellar church attendance they speak of several circumstances which were unavoidable and should have been compromised for. however instead of compensating for Elizabeth's illness the Proctors were reprimanded for their behavior and it even thrusted them further into the trials. it is in examples like these that i believe Miller is trying to get the opposite idea across. he is displaying the negative repercussions of absolute morality in order to get the reader to see the benefits of looking at morality objectively and as something that will rarely be the exact same for two people.
I believe with the general opinion that an absolute opinion does not exist. I feel it depends on the time, person, culture, and ruling. Saying there will always be a "right" path is too harsh because how do we know it is the right path. It could be the god that you believe knows the rights and wrongs, but how will we ever know. Also, in someone interpreting something as good, there will almost always be someone who sees a different "good" path; therefore, it is very hard to judge. A perfect example of this is what Michael mentioned in class. This was the attacks on Pearl Harbor being a victory for the Japanese; however, this was considered a tragedy for U.S. citizens. Of course, If I myself were to talk about the situation my feelings would be horrific towards the event because I am from the U.S. Being from where I am from truly directs our good and bad instincts. Also, concerning whether someone is good or bad this also depends one situation, time etc. Also, there is no one person that is ALL good. Another point(agreeing with Michael)many grey areas lie in between our good and bad understanding of things. So many things can be looked at as both negative and positive because usually they are judged by numerous people.
I agree with Kristen and Jamie in that the Puritan religion seems to portay an absolute right especially with the court system. BY going against the witch craft you are deemed evil; however, you may have reason. These reasons are ignored however when this strong absolute right has taken over. Jamie mentions a really important point in that people where going crazy because grey areas were formed. For certain people to think that "maybe there are just corrupt people in our town" was too hard to handle.
I do not believe in an absolute morality. This is pretty much in agreement with everyone else. People are certainly going to have their own moral beliefs of right and wrong, but there does not exist some universal understanding of what is right and what is wrong (good and evil). I agree with Michael in that, the way a person turns out, along with their views and opinions of things, has to do with many contributing factors. How thwy were raised, what their surroundings were, what were the opinions of those surrounding them, what their personality is like and what type of person they are. i could go on forever. These all contribute to how a person's views of good and evil turn out. If there were an absalute right, that would mean that the world would be split into two, good people and bad people. There would be no gray areas at all. And as I said in last night's response, I do not believe that is possible. There are no purely good people in the world, as there are no truly evil people in the world. Everyone has a balance of each in them. It is there surroundings and all the other factors I talked about that make it so which one shows more or at all. I know, people are going to say that there are some truly evil people in the world. But I do not believe that anyone person can be completely evil. There is always at least a little good in someone. A person's culture, also affects their views of good and evil. Their culture could possibly condone, acts and behaviors that other people consider to be evil. It all depends on what side you are on. Each side of anything, whether it be a disagreement, or a war , the people supporting each firmly believe that they are right and that the other side is wrong. How do you accuse someone of being wrong, and "evil", if they firmly believe in their hearst that what they did and what they are doing, is the right thing to do? This is where it gets very complicated and confusing. In my opinion, I do not really know if there is an answer to this question. I feel very strongly that there is no absolute morality.
This play I believe shows absolute morality. There is no gray area in the Puritan religion, and the officials in the book, do not want to allow for any gray are. I really liked what Jamie said, about how a gray area that was formed created mayhem. They did not know what to do about this because they had never had one before.
Unlike what most people said I believe there is such thing as absolute morality. I think there are certain actions that will always be good and others that will always be bad no matter what the circumstance may be. This is not to say that sometimes it isn’t understandable when people do wrong things for the “greater good.” Still the action is morally bad. For instance killing is a “bad” thing to do. It doesn’t matter what the excuse is, it will always be awful. But if you saw someone with a gun threatening to kill another person and in trying to save the victim you struggled with the offender and mistakenly shot him your bad action would be warranted. This isn’t to say it is no longer bad. It is simply justified. Also, a lot of people brought up the fact that in was both side think that they are “right”. I think this can still hold true with absolute morality. Each side can perform actions or have beliefs that absolutely wrong or absolutely right. Additionally, I don’t think that the idea of absolute morality means that there are actions that are neither right nor wrong (like deciding whether you are going to walk or drive to school today). It just means that a certain action cannot be bad one day and good or neutral another. As for the book, at first it seemed to me as though it was supporting a changing morality because what the Puritans held to be right (what the church said) was incorrect. However it could also be interpreted as absolute morality. Proctor (and other “good” people of Salem) believed that killing and lying was wrong. It didn’t matter what the circumstance was or who else believed it; they still upheld their beliefs.
I believe that there are some absolute "rights" or morals that never change. For example, i never think that killing another human being is justified. No matter the time, people, circumstance, or place, killing is an "absolute moral" that cannot be broken. Some people might say that highly dangerous people might need to be put to death, but i think life in a maximum security prison would actually be worse. By putting that criminal to death instead of locking him or her up in jail the accuser has blood on his or her hands and that, no matter who's blood it is, is never right. however i also believe that the definition of "good" in some circumstances does fluctuate. for example i think it is "good" to defend your country with an army, but i don't think it is "good" to actively seek war. for example i think it is "good" that the American government tried to protect its people against Al Qaeda but i do not think it was "good" for the United States to needless attack Iraq, claiming that nuclear weapons were being produce there. I definitely agree with Sam when he says the only important moral authority is yourself. You are living YOUR life, YOU are the main character, YOU decide what happens to you. And one of the most important parts of life is feeling comfortable with yourself, because you are stuck with that person for the rest of your life. If you perceive one thing as "good" and it makes you feel happy, then it is "good." If you see something as "wrong" and it makes you upset, then it is "wrong." For example Michael is right when he says there is no absolute right, but i am also correct when i say that in some situations there is. Although our ideas conflict they fit our personalities, thus they are "right" for both of us.
Like Michael and others said, I would also say that I believe there is no such thing as and absolute set of moral laws that govern the universe. "right" and "wrong" fluctuate freely based on circumstances, and it is impossible to say that certain actions are always done out of virtue or sin. In history we read an excerpt by Charles Darwin, in which he discussed this same idea, the composition of one's morality. He said that a person's morality is a mixture of the common morality of one's society, and their natural moral instinct, but that one's internal morality is more deeply rooted within your conscience. I would agree that these factors account for different moralities in different people in different circumstances, disproving an absolute morality. I would say that Miller uses a reproachful tone towards the actions of the citizens of Salem. He condemns (perhaps not even the right word, as this implies an absolute wrongness) the town's creation of an absolute morality, because a judgement that does not take into account a possible grey area is an unreasoned one.
I definitely don’t think there is an absolute morality. “Good” changes with the person (some people think the rare instance of cheating is OK, others think the opposite), culture (the U.S. has an indecent exposure law where several other countries would never think of it) time period, (1950’s America would not approve of many of the clothes “good”, upstanding people should wear) religion (Hindus believe cows are sacred, in the U.S. they are a prized product) etc. “Good” is simply a view derived from all of these examples, when we are born we have no view on it or thoughts as to proper conduct, we only have instinct. I think when you boil a person down to their first moments as a baby, that shows that there really is no universal good because we only formulate that opinion after living in a certain society. Sam stated that “At the end of the day, the only thing that matters is a what a person thinks of his own character.” I do not agree with this, as what society will think of you often overrides this. Take Mary Warren for example. She is a pious girl, but knows that all of her prayers will get her no where in a corrupted court. So instead she lies and pretends to be bewitched, placing the blame on Proctor. This shows that she cares what others think of her, even thought she knows the line between right and wrong, she just knows it will never help her. The play communicates that when an absolute right and an absolute wrong ideal is upheld, problems arise. Human nature is often to protect oneself first, but society says that helping others is usually the most virtuous thing to do. The confusion that arises between good and evil is depicted through the witch trials, where Miller attempts to show the negative affects of rigidity. Miller is attempting to show I think that right and wrong is relative because of the naivety some people have to the witch trials and the lying that occurs due to it.
Post a Comment