Thomas Freedman began his lecture by critiquing modern morals in comparison to the morals of the 'greatest' generation, by saying that their morals were sustainable and our morals were situational.
First I would note that no moral is completely sustainable- in sustaining anti-communistic values you end up with the red scare and the cold war, in sustaining pacifist values you end up being shoved around and out of rights. (unless you possess the genius and self-sacrifice of Gandhi, that is)
On the other hand, a situational moral is tough to define. It is not right to meddle militarily in the affairs of other countries, I would say, but at the same time it was entirely correct for the United States to become militarily involved in World War II in order to end the Nazi regime.
That said, it is clear that the 'greatest' generation did not possess sustainable morals. Their excess following World War II is the cause of our current economic and ecological situation, as consumerism was nurtured under the cold war presidents, especially in the fifties. The constant wars to push back communism had no positive effects on the nation's budget. The capitalist culture in the United States encouraged excess for profit, and here we are combating those values in order to make a better world. So really, are morals sustainable and situational, or do they defy those limited definitions?
No comments:
Post a Comment