The Issue of Morality In Our Culture

If there’s one thing I’ve learned over these past four weeks, it’s that morality is as complex of an issue as rocket science, or at least it can be. In a world full of materialistic, egotistical, money-hungry sharks, it’s easy to fall into the belief that in order to survive, one must fend for them self. And while it’s important to stand one’s ground, there is a fine line between being selfish and graciously walking away from what you know to be harmful to you or others. My purpose in saying this all is to preface my explanation of how I see normative ethics present in today’s modern society. How we morally respond to the decisions we are presented everyday says a lot about the person we are and who we are becoming. That being said, I will use this time to talk about the ways I see normative ethics playing out in our culture, while also observing what the scripture and media have to say about this issue.

When it comes to understanding a culture, observing its entertainment content is a great way to get to know the people and values behind the work. Take Source Code, for example. The movie was released in 2011—right around the time of the iPhone 4’s launch—and in such a tech savvy, business minded world, Source Code captures an intensified look at how our government and society functions. In terms of how this relates to ethics, it does not take much for one to gather that Dr. Rutledge—the fictional Director of the Source Code Project in the film—is someone who can be understood as a consequentialist ethicist. These are those people in society that focus strictly on achieving beneficial end results. Oftentimes, you will find this type of thinking in the corporate world, especially in business relations and economic practices. It seems to be socially acceptable to justify a decision when what is chosen is the lesser of two evils, but that’s the thing—both options are still evil. With that said, the corporate world will continue to function as a hub for consequentialists as long as money is involved.

Moreover, if one were to try to apply consequentialist ethics to a romantic relationship, the results would most likely be ugly. Human beings typically don’t take well to being evaluated for their usefulness, because the last thing we want in a relationship is to feel used. Romantic relationships fail to be just that—romantic—when they serve as just a mean to an end. That is why I believe virtue ethics to be the most appropriate method to take when loving someone. While duty-based ethics could also apply to romantic relationships, such as a husband feeling obligated to not flirt back with other women at a bar because he has made a vow to his wife, such moral guidelines do not produce confident results. In other words, if the man wants to flirt with other women, he eventually will, regardless of whether or not he has a ring on his finger. However, a virtuous man—one that has spent time cultivating such honorable traits as wisdom, temperance, and courage—will make the decision not to flirt with other women based on his sense of character, not some obligation. That is why it is my personal opinion that virtue ethics is the only true way to love someone, because the moment you start to feel obligated towards him or her, you risk opening the door to resentment.  

Furthermore, just as Jesus did not stress obeying the law, but instead, turning inward to reflect on one’s inner disposition (Matthew 5:17-48), we, as a culture, must be willing to take responsibility of positioning our hearts in a way that is receptive to all the hurt and injustice in this world. Then, and only then, will we see a difference in the ways we do business, learn, and love one another.