My Morals vs. Your Morals

When I first starting reading the article “The Challenge of Cultural Relativism” I thought I really agreed with everything it was saying. Now, I was only on the first page, but I liked the idea of having an open mind, not judging others, and that “if we assume that our ideas of right and wrong will be shared by all peoples at all times, we are merely naive.” But, as I continued reading, I realized that Cultural Relativism was not what I truly believed. The article introduced me to things I have never really thought about before. I really liked how the article asked why people did the things they do, and how it showed how everyone’s morals actually are similar in a way. I thought it was extremely interesting when the author explained the reasons for actions, like the infanticide and the society that does not eat cows. I would have never thought of that as in depth as this did.
This article can connect to Things Fall Apart, since it is a strange tribe to us that does not follow our society’s morals. In our society, we would view some of the things they do as strange, and some people will judge them on it. For example, having multiple wives and leaving twins in the forest to die are not exactly good things in the U.S. But, there is more of a reason on why they have these beliefs that not everyone outside of the tribe understands. This is explained through the article in “How All Cultures Have Some Values in Common.”
I think it could be easy to find the challenges of cultural relativism throughout our society today. “We fear what we don’t understand.” This quote popped in my head while reading the article. And it’s true. People will see a society different from their own, say, the Muslim religion, and since they have different morals, some people judge them on it. They think what they do is strange, when in fact, it’s quite similar to a lot of other religions. They worship a god. They just do it differently than, say, Christians. I also was intrigued by the quote “there are some moral rules that all societies will have in common, because those rules are necessary for society to exist.” If we agreed to the rules of cultural relativism, then we would not be able to survive. I doubt there would be any laws because if someone did something illegal, then they could just say it was part of their beliefs, so it was ok. Like with WWII, if people just let all those Jews get killed because they didn't want to judge that society for their beliefs, then it would not have ended well.
I still do agree with some parts of Cultural Relativism, just not every aspect of it, which is why I enjoyed how the article ended with the quote, “There are important points, not to be taken lightly. But we can accept these points without going on to accept the whole theory.”

What a Tragedy...

The word “tragedy” can be interpreted in several different ways. In literature especially, different authors have different ways of writing a tragedy. For example, for class, we had to answer questions about the essays that served as a transition between the novels we are reading. In this assignment, we learned about “The ‘Tragic Vision,’” “Tragedy According to Aristotle,” as well as “Arthur Miller’s Definition of a Tragedy.” The “Tragic Vision” said that in order for a story or play to be a tragedy, it had to include a catastrophic conclusion, a sense of inevitability, human limitation, suffering, and disproportion, and a learning process and acceptance of moral responsibility. According to Aristotle, a good tragedy had certain elements to it, including a single motive, the fall of a man whose character is good and high in power, an error caused by the protagonist, it should cause pity and terror in the audience, explore the actions of God towards mortals, purify emotions and possess unity. Arthur Miller’s version is similar, but different in ways such that the protagonist can be a common man who must be ready to lay down his life, the tragic flaw in unimportant, it must include an under-lying fear, and does not have to have an unhappy ending. In Oedipus and Hamlet, we see more of Aristotle’s version, rather than Miller’s. There is an unhappy ending in both, which results in many deaths in both plays. Both protagonists are in high power, Oedipus a king and Hamlet a prince, and both have a tragic flaw that ultimately leads to their downfall.
In society today, many people, including myself, believe a tragedy can happen to anyone, and it does. When a tragedy occurs in our world today, there is no set of elements that people go through before officially calling it a tragedy. The word “tragedy” is often used to describe a horrible event. Like 9/11, the Boston Bombing, or Sandy Hook. Those are all tragedies as seen by society.
When I think of a tragedy in society, I am the same way. I think of things that weren’t supposed to happen but did and ended up in untimely deaths. When I think of a tragedy in literature, I do think of the more Shakespearean idea of it. I don’t agree with Miller in saying that it doesn’t have to have an unhappy ending. Basically every story ever written has something go wrong in it, but that doesn’t make it a tragedy. I think tragedies are more related to deaths and unhappy endings like Aristotle discussed.

Are You A Hero?

What do you think of when you hear the word “hero”? Do you think of Superman, and Spiderman? Or do you think of firefighters and policemen? Everyone’s vision of a hero is different. Question 14 on the Beowulf Socratic Seminar asks “What does the poem teach about the qualities of a hero? Of a villain?” In Beowulf, a hero is someone who does great deeds for their people. Now, this sounds like our society, but when they say “great deeds” they don’t mean saving a cat from a tree or helping an old woman across the street. They mean battling a creature like Grendel, fighting a dragon, and swimming an ocean with just one arm. These are superhuman deeds that the writers and storytellers of Beowulf see as qualifications of a hero. And the heroes know it, too. They have no problem gloating about all their heroic deeds. If someone did that in today’s society, they would no longer be seen as a hero, but as egotistical. In today’s society, heroes can still be seen as the superheroes that we see in movies, but since they are fictional, there are many more qualifications for being a hero that are much more realistic. For example, firefighters and policemen are often seen as heroes. They risk their lives every day to ensure the safety of their people, just like Beowulf. But today, heroic deeds don’t have to be as intense like in the poem. Movies today are starting to make heroes out to be just like everyday people. This way, little kids are able to see them and think “I can be a hero too!” Personally, I don’t think heroes have to be policemen or firemen. I think anyone can be a hero. If someone does a good deed, that could make them a hero. To me, heroes are brave, humble, thoughtful, caring, and honestly just a good person.
Now villains. In Beowulf, the villains are the enemies. They are Grendel, Grendel’s mother, the dragon, basically anyone trying to hurt Beowulf or his people. Today, villains are still kind of seen in the same way. They are hurtful, evil, etc. Terrorists, murderers, and criminals are the villains of today’s world. I see villains in the same way; people who hurt others and try to ruin our society, like the terrorists on 9/11, the shooter at Sandy Hook, etc. Those people are the ones I, and most of society, see as villains.

What Would It Be Like?

Stubbornness can be a quality that not everyone enjoys. It can sometimes be a good thing, but a lot of the time, it just annoys others. Questions 102 in The Fountainhead Socratic Seminar is one that I thought was pretty interesting; "What would the world be like if Roark's ideas were the dominant philosophy? If Toohey's ideas were preeminent? If Keating's were? If Dominique's were?" As seen in the novel, Roark's idea was to be an individual and not change for anyone. This could be a really great quality in someone, but not necessarily to the extent of Roark's ways. Being able to compromise is a very good quality that Roark does not have. Like our class mentioned in the Socratic Seminar, Roark sounds like a really amazing person for a book, but in real life, no one would want to work with him. He goes as far as destroying his own building, just because it was changed a little bit. This seems a little extreme to me. If everyone in our society was like Roark, I feel like nothing would ever get done! Everyone would be too stubborn to compromise and make things actually happen. Stubbornness like this would be a huge problem. I believe that it takes teamwork to actually make something happen, so if Roark's philosophy was dominant in our society, we would have a lot of great ideas and no one to make them happen and successful. This can relate to my own life because of the people in my life who are very stubborn. Especially my older brother. If he has his idea, he's not going to change if I beg him to! It's often very very annoying. And when he is forced to change, he isn't very happy (not blowing up buildings like Roark, but still pretty unhappy).
Now, if Toohey's ideas were dominant, everything and everyone would be exactly the same. We would have one person controlling the world, and the rest of us following like zombies. It would be communism. One person could work all day and all night, and another person could barely ever work, but they would be treated the same exact way. That doesn't seem fair to me. In the novel, Toohey is the controller, and he openly states that he thinks communism is the way it should be. I personally think that someones hard work should determine their way of being treated. If someone graduates from an Ivy League school and goes to work for a major corporation, then yeah, they deserve the paycheck they earn. It wouldn't be fair if someone else works at McDonald's for a living and made the same amount of money as the other person. I understand that some people do work incredibly hard to support their family, and still don' t make a lot, but they can always work their way up in the work force!
If everyone in the world was like Keating, I don't think anything would ever get done. Throughout The Fountainhead, Keating goes to Roark for all his decisions. First its whether or not to take the job or go to school more. Then it's all of the drawings that Keating can't come up with himself. If we had a world of Keatings, no solid decisions would ever be made. Everyone would be trying to please everyone else and worrying about what others think of them, but they would be completely miserable themselves. I can kind of relate to this because I am very indecisive myself, but I am a lot more independent than Keating!  I may ask someone their opinion on one of my decisions, but in the end, I always go with what I want. They just kind of help me look at the options in different ways. There are so many people in this world that could be so much more happy with themselves if they did what they wanted and didn't let people walk all over them.
If Dominique's ideas were dominant, we would have a very unhappy world. Everyone would be doing things to make themselves unhappy and others as well. No one would be happy. This relates to all the pessimists in the world. You see, I am a pretty optimistic person, so this philosophy isn't one that I would enjoy at all.
Personally, I like the way our society is with our philosophies. I think it's good that people can be independent, but still be willing to compromise and listen to what others have to say. I think that's an extremely good quality that someone could have.