A Question of Morals...

We are all raised in different homes, with different parents, different religions (or lack thereof), different philosophies, and different backgrounds.


We all grow up and analyze our prior unquestioned universal truths, and wonder what we will choose to hold fast to, and what we will choose to let go.


I realized this today because my patient was a Jehova's Witness.

I openly admit to knowing very little of this religion, other than they will not accept blood if a transfusion is medically required. Prior to the patient falling asleep under general anesthesia, he told me, "I really can't receive blood. It's a really big deal." My heart ached for this man as I felt his anxiety and worry. I told him, "Don't worry. I don't eat meat, and I'd be really mad if somebody chopped it up and hid it in my food. I'll be sure you don't receive blood." He smiled, and drifted peacefully off to sleep.

I don't know this man's background, religious doctrine, or values. But I respect the fact that it is important to him. 

What intrigues me is how righteous one may feel in his or her own moral, value, or belief, with little regard to somebody else's. I became much more aware of this when I moved away, from family and friends alike, and started a new life in college. I was a sponge soaking up new information, learning a lot, and trying to become exactly who I wanted to be, with as few influences (positive or negative!) as possible.


Going on a slight tangent, I can't help but wonder if some people think their morals should be more highly regarded than somebody else's. Some that come to mind are people who can say, "I've never had a sip of alcohol," "I've never had premarital sex," "I've never stolen anything,""I've never tried drugs," "I've never uttered the Lord's name in vain," "I've never lied to my spouse," it seems all these "I nevers" are uttered out of righteousness. As if those "nevers" makes that person somehow more moral than somebody who has done any of those things.

And elaborating upon that point, I wonder if the stereotypical person to say the above statements, would think about the value in stating, "I won't drink out of a styrofoam cup," or "I will only eat farm-raised chicken," or "I will only drive a hybrid vehicle," or "I'll carry my glasses home if this establishment will not recycle them." 

Though I realize this is a very bold generalization, and I might offend some people (though I have no intention of doing so!!), it seems as though the stereotypical "conservative right" clings to personal convictions, while the stereotypical "liberal left" clings to environmental convictions. If I were to ask some of my Christian, Republican friends (which I have a ton of!), WHICH IS WORSE? LITTERING A STYROFOAM CUP, OR SMOKING MARIJUANA? I can almost guarantee the drug would be viewed as a worse action. Where as if I were to present the same question to some of my liberal, hippy friends (which I have a ton of!), I can almost guarantee the act of pollution would be more offensive. 


Why is this?


Who is right?

(Though this is an obvious rhetorical question, I can play Devil's Advocate and present both sides. I realize it can't be narrowed down to conservative/liberal because more factors come into play: religion, region/location, age, etc...but to make it simple, go with me on the labels.

The "Conservative" feels there is no possible way they can change the world, so they  must make choices regarding their bodies as if they are a temple. No drugs, sex, alcohol, or any other influence that could negatively impact the body that Christ has given them. 

The "Liberal" feels as though their body is going to die and turn to ash, anyway, and ultimately become a part of the world even if only as fertilizer. They gain more of a sense of being and purpose by nourishing the planet, even if only in gratitude for the one body they were given.)

Does it matter?


I think the most important observation I hold to at this moment, is realizing that your own convictions, morals, values, and beliefs, do not make them more important, or more benevolent, than anybody else's. I think every man and woman must choose what is the best moral code to live by, and live it with actions, rather than words. I love the quote by Margaret Thatcher:

 "Being powerful is like being a lady...if you have to tell people you are, you aren't." 

In other words, we can only be responsible for ourselves. We will ultimately be the ones who decide our own fate, and each decision we make molds our character. Telling people what you do or don't do, or have never done, doesn't make you any more moral or valuable than somebody who has done those things.  It's like speaking an entirely different language, in fact! The best answer, I believe, is to meet people where they are. And if somebody's moral code personally offends you, or makes you feel less valuable by your own set of standards, disassociate yourself from that person immediately! You don't have to change them, or make them feel bad about their choices. Odds are, they will instantly become defensive and bring out your flaws--which you might not even think exist because you have an entirely different rule book!

In high school, some parents cared more if their child was home by curfew. Others cared more if their child was getting into alcohol. Others cared more if their child was gossiping or speaking rudely of classmates. Ironically, the Christian face does profess that all sins are equal. James 2:10 states, "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all." Maybe all religions, including Christianity, should keep this in mind before quickly judging somebody for a personal choice.

Preps, lay off the Hippies. They're doin' the best they can with what they know.

Hippies, lay off the Christian folk. They're doin' the best they can with what they know. Plus, more booze for you.

Just food for thought!