The
societies in which we live in play an indirect role in determining our
personalities and who we become as individuals. This is because our societies
can throw us into situations that force us to make decisions that clearly end
up shaping our personalities. For example, a person who spends all of his life
in a wealthy society is less likely to have to decide between selling drugs in
order to pay rent and being homeless while a person who is not as privileged
and lives in the projects may have to face this dilemma. This is not to say
that if a person grows up in a poor society he will automatically grow into a
man with poor morals and bad personality. It just means that this person who
has been dealt difficult circumstances will be exposed to things that will be
detrimental to his beliefs if he makes poor decisions.
Although
our society plays a role in determining who we become as individuals, it is
always in the hands of the person to decide what type of man he wants to
become. Regardless of your circumstances, you will always be faced with a
choice to either compromise or persevere. Your society does not force you to
become what it wants you to be. As human beings, we make decisions that either
improve or damage our ideologies. Two people from completely opposite societies
can end up having identical morals, even if they don’t go through similar
experiences, simply by knowing where to draw their line of what is permissible
and what is not. For example, one person has friends who like to go to parties
and drink while the other has friends who would rather play videogames and
smoke. Both can easily decide, “I enjoy the company of my friends, so I’ll hang
out with them, but I won’t drink/smoke”. As long as they draw their lines at
the appropriate spot, they will grow up to have identical morals.
In
a literal sense, it isn’t possible for society to determine who we become
because we have to choose to let
society to do so. If everyone in your town went out and bought a dog, although
it may be the cultural norm to have a dog, you would still have a choice as to
whether or not you will get a dog. There is no physical law that says, “If you
don’t conform to society you will stop existing”. As rational and autonomous
beings, we choose what affects us and what doesn’t affect us. We allow certain
thoughts to manifest and become ideologies. This world can be defined as a
chain reaction of choices. Society itself stems from choices made by our
ancestors.
There is nothing about my social
environment that, in itself, shaped me as a person. Rather it forced me to make
a decision about what type of person
I wanted to become. For example, in 7th grade, on the first day of
being at a new school, I decided that I would say hi to whoever sat next to me
in all of my classes. This was the first time that I would have different
teachers for different subjects in different classes; prior to that I had one
teacher who would teach every subject in one class. In one of my classes I met
a kid who is now one of my best friends. Because of the decision I was forced
to make given my social environment, this person is responsible for convincing
me to play football for Hamden (we played pop warner and high school football
together), introducing me to the friends I have now, and was also the first
person to put a golf club in my hands. My social environment presented me
choices; it did not force me to move in a certain direction.
Social
identity does not affect moral responsibility. If you are able to help someone who is in need, you will always be morally
obligated to help them. Going out of our way to look for someone in need so
that you might help them is not a moral obligation. But when you are called upon to help and it is within your power, you become morally
obligated to act. Whether you are poor, wealthy, tall, short, dark skinned,
light skinned, etc. does not affect your obligation. You might be the poorest
person in the world, destitute of proper clothing. But if you see someone drowning
and there’s a rope right next to you that can reach them, and you have the
strength to pull them to safety, you are morally obligated to help them. The
key argument is that you must be called
upon, able, and it must be within your power to help (ability and
power are separate because, for example, a deaf person who isn’t looking in the
direction of the person who is drowning has the power to help, but doesn’t have
the ability to hear the person in need). Whether it is your family, friend, or
stranger does not change your obligation. You are responsible to all people.
If
you have two sweaters, knowing you can survive with one sweater, and someone
asks you if you have a spare sweater, you are morally obligated to give them
that sweater. You may be colder and less comfortable, but imagine that you
didn’t give that sweater to the person in need, and that person never finds a
sweater and freezes to death. Which would you prefer: to be less comfortable,
or that a person dies because of your negligence? Many who oppose this view are
the same people who refuse to give generously because they are afraid that they
won’t be able to provide for themselves. That is why I am saying you must be
qualified to help before helping. You must be able, and it must be within
your power.
In
addition to being qualified to help, your assistance must be called upon before
you can become morally obligated to help. If you have one million dollars, but
no one asks you for a cent, you are not morally obligated to assist anyone. It
would be a good thing to go out of your way to look for someone to help, but
your obligation is only initiated when someone in need calls upon you for
assistance.
Clearly,
social identity does not affect moral responsibility. Social identity can be
characterized as wealth, political connections, economic opportunities, etc.,
but in many cases this does not affect our ability to help others and therefore
does not affect our moral responsibility to others.
No comments:
Post a Comment