I read something on someone else�s diary here recently that really got me thinking... The issue at hand was the idea of morality- and tangible definitions of what is right and what is wrong. This D-Lander had mentioned that being a vegetarian is �right� and that eating meat is �wrong�. I hope they don�t mind some slight plagiarism here, but the exact wording was, �Though I am still a bit torn on this issue, lets say it is my position that it is morally wrong to eat meat (mostly not, I�m pretty sure I�m right that this [eating meat] is wrong). A large debate ensued, and while I agree with roughly 90% of what this D-Lander has to say, I have to disagree on this one. Morality, and the ideas of what is �right� and �wrong� are societal constructs- constructs that differ greatly depending on which society we�re talking about. Point being that morality is relative. While they may think that eating meat is wrong, I sure don�t. So who is right? Is there a right or wrong answer? No, there isn�t. It will all depend on who you ask. Ask a Hindu if eating beef is wrong, and they will or course say yes- cows are sacred animals according to Hindus. Ask someone from Montana who makes a living raising cattle and you�ll get a totally different answer. Another poster had brought up the idea of eating meat as a �necessary evil� that is no longer necessary for human survival. This of course falls into the same trap- what is �evil�? To some, cannibalism is �evil�- but to certain isolated tribes, it�s a part of their culture. In Southeast Asia, monkey brains are a culinary delicacy, and they will continue to think so no matter how gross or cruel you or I think it is. What is evil to me may not seem evil to you, and vice a versa. The point I guess I am trying to make is that while people can argue about morality until the Hindu cows come home, it�s pointless. Remove any false notions of an all knowing Deity passing judgment on humans, and everything goes. We are animals, just like every other animal on the face of the earth. Do you see grizzly bears lamenting over the lives of the salmon they just snatched out of the stream? Or the female praying mantis after she bites the head off her mate? Nature is a brutal, uncaring force, and we just happen to be the lucky ones to have bent it to our will. Should we feel bad about eating cows? Not any more so than lions do after taking down a zebra or killer whales throwing around the carcasses of baby seals. Are we going to pass moral judgment on Shamu for playing with his food? For some reason, I don�t think he feels too guilty about the whole thing.
While I�ve been using food as an example here, it applies to everything. As a society, we view murder as amoral- unless of course its state sanctioned as with the death penalty. We consider drug use to be amoral- and proclaim as much while sipping our coffee or glass of wine. There are a lot of things that I think are �wrong�, but they don�t necessarily fall in line with what society tells me I can and cannot do. I conform to these social rules not because I agree with them, but because I fear retribution for failing to do so. Does following the rules make me a �moral� person despite the fact that deep down, I don�t agree with the �morality� I�m complying with? Most people view polygamy as �wrong�, but Mormons sure don�t see a problem with it. We set up these oftentimes arbitrary laws in order to coexist in a social environment. So in that sense, the concept of morality is simply a by-product of being social animals, and what is deemed morally acceptable is wholly defined by that particular society.

7 comments from the peanut gallery