Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Living Amid Fragments and On the Brink of Confusion and Violence
In his opening chapter, Hauerwas writes that we "live in a precarious situation. Life is always on the edge of violence, since there are no means to ensure that moral argument in itself can resolve our moral conflicts... Moreover the fragmentation of our world is not only 'out there,' but it is in our own souls. Amid fragments it is extremely hard to maintain our moral identity. We feel... unsure whether there is or can be any coherence to our lives. We become divided selves, more tempted to violence..." In other words, he paints a rather bleak landscape of the moral world we are encountering today. And, to be sure, in an increasingly polarized world (both politically and economically) in which we continue to bear witness to figurative and literal violence, things can look dire. However, are things really that bleak in society and in ourselves? Is there really so little hope in our quest to live moral lives? Moreover, do you buy Hauerwas's argument? Are we really that confused about morality today as a society and as individuals facing existential dilemmas? Please respond in at least 10 thoughtful sentences.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think that in some ways our society's morality is that bleak, which is a hard fact for us to face, but in many ways we are still aiming for the most part to be morally correct. Hauerwas is a little extreme by saying that we are "more tempted to violence," but I can understand why he believes it. Our society as whole is much more violent than it needs to be, we shouldn't abuse animals for our amusement, yet we still do it. He mentions that society's moral standards have lessened over the years and that is true considering the rules in past ages. Except we live in a different time so I think it is tough to say if we are really truly doing such a terrible job at being morally correct. We as human-beings still want to be morally correct it's not as if we hope to be as cruel as we can. I think that the original set of standards is getting more and more impossible for people now days to follow, which leaves or generation with the responsibility to figure out what is morally possible. I really liked the example of having science be completely wiped out and people trying to figure out and glue the pieces back together, but it did make me consider if our society's morality is really in such a bad state. I have never though of our morality being in such an awful place, but Hauerwas argument really made me wonder if I just hadn't been looking or paying close enough attention. I think it is a really tough decision to say whether or not I agree/buy Hauerwas's argument, because I have never considered it before now and it is a heard topic to choose just one side of. In some ways Hauerwas's argument makes complete sense to me, but at the same time it seems a bit extreme.
ReplyDeleteI believe that morality has evolved through out the decades. It is true that the world in which we live in has become more complex and sometimes it is hard to do the 'moral thing'. Each individual has their own definition on morality, but there are certain standards which are universally acknowledge. I would agree that there is a great amount of violence currently, but I would argue that some moral views, specially freedom, have increased in the past years. Rights and freedom have increase in the past centuries and we struggle to provide more aid to those in need. The world may currently seem fragmented but morality is not gone. Morality is adjusting to our modern times and we have to adjust as well. Maybe it is hard to choose what is consider moral but we, as humans, haven't lost faith in morality.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Hauerwas is completely right. He discusses our tendencies to lean more towards violence rather than seeking morality, and he is completely correct. It’s an unfortunate truth, but people are becoming less and less focused on the morality of their actions and thoughts, and continue to fight against the absorption of morality into their daily lives. Hauerwas’s view is quite cynical, but I think he is definitely on the right track in regards to the origin and expression of the societal snubbing of a formal, unified code of morality. He addresses the disheartening wane of morally just people and moral-based thinking from our society, and I can understand how this could lead one to view society through a cynical lens.
ReplyDeleteI definitely believe that there are different levels of morality, and people accept and practice certain aspects of a moral conscience, but as a whole, people, as a group, do not practice a moral lifestyle. People want to be free of expectations, rules, and consequences, so they choose to not associate with any stringent forms of morality. I don’t think Hauerwas is extreme in his explanation of the detrimental existence of the morally ambiguous society. Morals should not be something that can be contorted. I believe that people are just so eager to shy away from any sort of structure, so they choose to shun the use of open, possible controversial morality in specific situations in order to remain unscathed in the possible verbal line of fire. People want to feel like the majority, so they try to fit in with a general consensus of ambiguity. I am saddened by how little this society cares for morality, and by the lack of respect towards those with a moral code. I am in agreement with Hauerwas in that I believe people do not focus on morality the way they used to or should.
I believe that Hauerwas, though has some fine points, is wrong about the population being confused about morality thus leading to existential dilemmas. Everyone has their own set of moral codes and while this does lead to confusion about what really is exactly the set, "right and wrong" thing to do, it doesn't ultimately lead to outbreaks of violence. The media focuses on what is going wrong with the world rather than the good. People who have good moral values are contributing to the under publicized "good" part of the world, charity's, educators who put in extra time to help kids with learning difficulties, soup kitchens, ect. while people with jaded moral values are more likely to contribute to less proactive things and in fact, potentially harmful things like violence. I think Hauerwas is thinking too broadly and is making the world seem like a terribly misguided one, some truth rings in that statement but overall the world is filled with good people who want to do what's morally right in their own minds.
ReplyDeleteI am going to take a strongly impartial side of this. Yes, it is pointless to try to become the most moral person ever, and no, it is not pointless to try to be a better person. Just because religion might not be the truth (Let's be honest, it's probably not the truth) does not meant that all people should cast morals to the wind and do whatever they want. Just because there is no religion to guide people should not mean that people should guide themselves. There really should not be an issue here. You should try to be a good, and thoughtful person in everyday life. With this, comes an alternate viewpoint that you must take. Normally, someone would say that you should not do something bad because of the repercussions from a religion. We would have to move in the direction of realizing that a certain action is bad because of how it will affect those around us, not about how it will later be used against ourselves.
ReplyDeleteIn general, out search for morality is only as bleak as we make it. We could search intrinsically, which would not lead us very far, or we could take in all that is around us, and begin to think of others, and how our actions will affect them. this would make for a better society, and a non-pointless system of actions.
I do not think that the world is bleak. However, I also don't think that "our quest to live moral lives" is what prevents life from being bleak. Life can be great and fulfilling without everyone being 100% moral. A huge part of life is making compromises, and finding a right shade of gray in between the extremes. By making a declaration such as "If we want a non-bleak world, then we must all be moral", Hauerwas is creating an unavoidable dichotomy between the bleak vs. the non-bleak and the moral vs. the immoral. I would suggest to Hauerwas that he should modify his opinion to include wiggle room, because a horrible person can have what they consider to be a great life, and a total mensch can have the most boring life in history.
ReplyDeleteI think that in certain cases, the world is quite bleak, and some people do struggle with morality and existential dilemmas. And on a much smaller scale, we all struggle with morality on a day to day basis. Simpler things like lying. I think there is a point to be made that moral arguments can't necessarily solve moral conflicts because morality is an extremely abstract idea, however, I don't think that the world is just teetering on the edge of descending into complete chaos. I think that often times people can justify their immoral actions to themselves in a way that can make them seem moral, but I believe that people that contribute to this violence and fragmentation in an extreme way are less common than the people that want to do good, due to whatever inherent moral code human beings seem to have. And I think sometimes looking at the world as a whole can look a lot more bleak than something smaller because we tend to focus on the bad, and while, because the world is a large place, there is a lot of bad, there is also a lot, and I would argue more, good. There may be conflict, but I don't think we're just this close to falling into bleakness and chaos.
ReplyDeleteI don't think our world is as bleak as Hauerwaus makes it out to be but it isn't exactly possible to have the sunniest outlook on life if one observes human nature throughout the years. It isn't exactly possible for everyone to reach some divine morality, but that shouldn't stop us from trying to be good people. Having evils in the world really isn't an excuse for not trying at all. I've stated before that it isn't one's sole life purpose to strive for moral perfection but that doesn't mean someone should be evil because some other people are. There is much more good than bad and people (including Hauerwaus) should keep that in mind. We, as humans, are intrinsically moral beings. Hauerwaus compares our convictions to things we don't think about, such as the air we breathe. We just breathe, we aren't consciously thinking "inhale, exhale" just like we don't think "I must be moral today". As a majority, we just are. Not all of us. There are certainly gloomier bits of society but not ALL of it is so
ReplyDeleteI think that Hauerwas is right in that our society is confused as to what morality really means, and what role it should play in our public lives. That is true, but I don't think this uncertainty is a bad thing. I actually think it is good: this confusion and flexibility mean more thought is going into the question. It is easy to say definitive statements like, "You should not lie. Ever.", but when you start to actually think about the issue of lying and the circumstances surrounding it, I'm sure everyone can find at least one situation where lying is acceptable, even preferable to the truth. I think this confusion derives from increased thought and effort being given to what is right and moral.
ReplyDeleteThe only negative I see in society we live in is clearly depicted in the example of science being lost and people trying to piece together the remains. I think the only time this confusion becomes a bad thing is when people give up on trying to progress towards a new moral framework, and instead look backwards. In this way people take the pieces of morality from history, pieces that they do not understand, and grasp tightly to them for no reason other than it is tradition, and people did it before. This concept it dangerous, but I think that when society uses its confusion to move forward rather than rely on scraps from the past, it turns into a good thing.
In my opinion... things are NOT really that bleak in society or in ourselves; there is NOT really so little hope in our quest to live moral lives; I do NOT buy Hauerwas's argument; we are NOT really that confused about morality today as a society or as individuals facing existential dilemmas. I'll admit that I was slightly more optimistic about humanity and human conscience before I read the following words by Hauerwas: "We can be sure of our principals if they can be shown to rely upon God's will. Because of this, some have claimed that if God does not exist everything is morally permissible" (2). Why can't people just be GOOD without the threat of eternal damnation looming over them? Again, Bill Maher said it best: "Really? We need God to decide not to kill each other?"
ReplyDeleteI'm particularly troubled by the defense of any principals "[...] if they can be shown to rely upon God's will." It is very dangerous to use any one faith as an ultimate authority in ethical discourse. This sort of Judeo-Christian bias ("Christian exceptionalism," as I've called it before) is the genesis (pun intended) of many ills, one of which would be the trivialization of religion that so frightens the likes of Steven Carter. What Hauerwas condemns as a time of forgetting religious roots should rather be praised as a time of transition from trust-based religious moral thinking TO logic-based secular moral thinking. This age is a confusing one, but in terms of the source(s) of our morals, this era (as Hauerwas describes it) should be seen as an enlightenment rather than a regression. Indeed, "we have [...] been condemned to freedom" (7), but this condemnation is a blessing and a right like no other. People have to (at least be able to) think for themselves in any society that resembles a democratic one.
Yes, I think we are just as confused about our own morality as Hauerwas assumes—but that’s not to say that we weren’t just as confused about it a hundred years ago. It’s true that we live in a different society today, but I think there’s some kind of innate desire to constantly consider our own existence that humans can’t fight off. It doesn’t matter how rigid or comforting our sets of beliefs are—we want to fight off the majority and make a name for ourselves. We want to further our species, and progress is made when we begin to doubt what we know.
ReplyDeleteAs for the unchanging moral confusion—Hauerwas wasn’t around a hundred years ago, so he can’t honestly say what the people back then felt. Even historic records can lie, because individual morality is very personal and something that, I think, people don’t ever fully discuss. But I don’t think that we naturally lean towards violence in the face of our confusion, or that we’re morally doomed. Even with only a few of the puzzle pieces, we can figure out the picture the pieces were trying to make. I think it really depends on the personality of the given person to determine how she’ll act. If she doubts her own morality but has faith in a moral path that she is not worthy of, then I think she’ll tend to do more good towards others and avoid forms of violence, because even though she can’t succeed, she believes in something greater than chaos, and she aims for it. But if she is instead critical of the moral institution, then she’ll lean towards selfish actions which she can now easily justify. And then someone might get shot.
But here we go. That’s not to say the first girl isn’t equally as selfish, because I’m still not sure whether one can be an actual ‘Moral Saint.’ Why do we want to be moral? Well, it’s like dealing with delayed gratification vs. instant gratification. So being moral is, like, one of the most selfish acts a person can commit—unless you are one for the right reasons. And that’s another question. Does it matter why you’re a moral saint, or just that you’re a moral saint? We never really talked about that when we were dealing with the loving vs. rational saint. That’s not actually on topic, but it’s hard to talk about one aspect of morality without running into another.
Every human being is 99.99% the same, but that one .1% is what makes one unique. That point one percent of uniqueness gives each human being the ability to decide who he/she wants to be in life. They could be moral saints, good people, or people who don’t take ethics seriously. These people make up a society that Hauerwas describes as risky, non- hopeful, and confused. But are we really confused about morality? I think that every single human being has a source of ethics. Yes, as Susan Wolf puts it, it is a goal for some to become moral saints, but I think that one should not achieve to be the greatest, but to be the greatest that they can be. The world is a great place with life changing opportunities and we as citizens should be able to have hope for becoming “good people.”
ReplyDeleteI do not think that I would get along with this fellow at a dinner party. Yes, the world is becoming increasingly bleak according to his Judeo Christian principles that were written in a story book fashion a few thousand years ago. Everything sounds better when reading it in retrospect. Similarly, as access to media and recourses is opened up, it is quite understandable that morality and religion will be questioned more often. When an entire continent is hearing about the same book from a select few en mass, there is much less room to question what you are being told.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I agree with Hauerwas's ideology that society is going to be a bleak place in the future. Namely, I would say, because of people like him who group humanity into the moral and non moral, damned and saved. Despite the fact that people make awful decisions, they are often only awful when comparing them to a strict set of moral codes that we may or may not follow today. Although the ability to choose morality in this sense is frightening, it is what we have been doing for ages. To someone rooted in these blanket ideologies such as Hauerwas, they must be shaking in their boots, but there was a point in time when the morals we regard as universal today were new and frightening.
I disagree with Hauerwas in that I don't believe that each individual person is forced to face such a bleak world all the time. There are bad people who cause trouble for some, but we are not all that close to violence. On a bigger scale there is a lot of violence caused by wars, and economic failure can cause millions of people to go broke. But on an average day I think it is easy for most people to go about their day without encountering some life altering conflict. However, on the concept of morality, I think Hauerwas is more correct. Not that morals are as pointless as he says they are, but that people cannot agree on the level of morality of every action of every person. It would just be impossible for everyone to share the same view. So the judgement of others or of yourself is really subjective in each situation and cannot be based on some exact moral code.
ReplyDeleteHauerwas is an ethicist, so it seems almost silly to point out that he
ReplyDelete>is making an argument that focuses entirely too much on the role of
>morality in daily life, but he comes across as slightly shortsighted
>all the same. With the exception of those who attempt moral sainthood,
>there is much more to living than right and wrong, and Hauerwas'
>statements put far too much stock into the latter. If we are a morally
>bleak society - and I'm not endorsing that notion - I think it's
>absurd to argue that we have devolved into such as opposed to simply
>perpetuating the same "precarious" morals that our ancestors
>carried out as well. We are no closer to violence today than we have
>been in the past.
>