morals

            With all the recent controversy surrounding the Penn State and Syracuse coaching scandals, I feel that this is a perfectly relevant topic. I will delve into my opinions on absolute morality accordingly.  

I believe that to a certain extent there is absolute moral truth.  Jerry Sandusky is one of the greatest college defensive coordinators ever. For over a decade, he recruited and developed Penn State’s program to be known as “linebacker U.” A seemingly stand-up sort of guy, he ran a nonprofit organization that focused on underprivileged youth. Recently it has been discovered that during and after his time at Penn State he sexually molested over twenty kids. I have always understood that some may be raised with a different set of morals than I. That my neighbor may not think abortion is wrong and that he may think corruption is fine. But when one gets down into the deep, deep core of morality, (as for the case with Jerry Sandusky) one must not deny that absolutes exist. If someone told me that what Jerry Sandusky did was okay, I’d probably beat the crap out of them. One would never, EVER consider his actions to be fair, or even bearable. This moral standard is universally accepted, and to think not would just be foolish. If one continues to deny such moral absolutes, I’m going to take their shoes. If they call me out on this action, I will ask if stealing is absolutely wrong. If it is not, what’s the problem with taking their possessions? Clearly there are some absolutes that one cannot deny.   

            I believe that the typical Christian moral standards stem from the morality of Christ, as well as what God calls for those in the bible. That being said, those that are not under this biblical influence (or misinterpret the bible) will clearly have different moral standards. This is where the debate begins. I’m not one of those “no grey areas” sort of kids. I would never condone lying when it involves something as simple as brushing teeth. In fact, I’m pretty sure everyone would agree that lying is bad. However, good luck convincing me lying to a girl is wrong when she asks me if she looks fat. Clearly that dress makes you look large, but I refuse to take the bait…… A lot of my own moral fibers are not the same as Mr. Dyck’s. In fact, I believe that most decisions are made based on what our consciences permit. SOME MORAL DECISIONS ARE SITUTATIONAL.     

Karma

First off, Karma is all too often misunderstood. Karma is a principle in which each individual is subject to reward or punishment for their life choices. It is NOT a set of laws to live by.  

            For Karma to not just exist, but actually be relevant, there must be a very, very clear understanding of what is “right,” and what is “wrong.” Otherwise, searching for advancement through this karmic system would be impossible. How could I go from a common man to a prince with no understanding of how to get there?  The video did a lackluster job of describing such. In fact, in this karmic system it is impossible to know what results in good karma or bad. In the video, the narrator declares that the feelings experienced when making decisions are the greatest indicator of what is “right,” and what is “wrong.” “If you get a message or a sensation of comfort, then the choice you are making is karmically appropriate.”  This may work sometimes, but how does it explain some situations? Psychopaths may not have any feelings whatsoever when killing, however, that makes it no less wrong. KARMA IS RELATIVE! It is absolutely determined by the individual, and the conscience that they have. I may feel worse stealing a pencil off of Brittany Hoff’s desk, than Hitler felt murdering millions of Jews. And if this system is determined by the individual’s conscience and their own moral fibers, he would be more karmically approved than me.

            Karma is all about following the rules. But yet, these rules are (again, relative) based solely on the individual. Jerry Sanduski could have very well been following his own set of rules when he molested over 20 kids. Am I supposed to applaud him for being a fiend? For sticking to his own code? Karma cannot attack these actions as wrong, when he was following his own rules.

            The karma principal has many logical holes. Can Karma explain why babies die every day from abortion? They are too young to even establish any Karma whatsoever. And if their death is a result of a previous life, how does their karma translate into their next life? The idea for Karma involves the ability to change. How can a baby change when it has never left his mother’s womb? Equally, how can someone mentally retarded “change” so they can better their karmic state? I have a tough time accepting the idea of “change,” when many can’t change who they are (autism) or the ailments they may have (cancer).