These days, society can be regarded as being a harmony of vice and virtue. Both are the fundamental concepts that everyone in the world, regardless of one’s identity, utilizes as a primary device to decide their subsequent behavior. There are a wide variety of individual thoughts upon the distinction between good and bad. In other words, it seems as if many people are currently confused and, sometimes, ambiguous when stating the correct definition of morality.

Some people argue that the distinction between moral and immoral is strictly determined by the law, culture, gender, race, religion, age, or other factors that makeup one’s identity. However, this statement is partially flawed and contradictory. For instance, the consumption of marijuana is a legal activity in certain countries whereas it is strictly punished in China or Korea. Would a citizen who resides in the United States, where marijuana is widely allowed, be considered a moral citizen if he or she smokes marijuana? In contrast, would a Chinese citizen, who smokes marijuana, be considered an immoral citizen? If it is, isn’t this the discrimination between the countries that, again, leads to immorality?

Due to this confusion that exists in our current society, some people question the wide distribution of the idea: Moral Relativism and the philosophical idea stating that no objective moral facts are present in the world and morality is determined by individuals. In other words, no definition of morality is employed by everyone. Rather, individuals have the right to distinguish what is moral and immoral.

However, while it seems conclusive and profound, the problem of Moral Relativism arises when this contradicts the concept of justice. If an individual is given a right to independently determine his or her moral facts, this could make the legal punishment nonsensical. The legal punishment could be regarded as ‘government’s despotic exertion of power’, potentially leading to the corruption of political structure and obscure definition of the term criminal. For example, If people define murder as morally acceptable behavior while the government doesn't, it could possibly lead to protests against the government’s powers.

임수영 강남포스트 학생기자  webmaster@ignnews.kr

<저작권자 © 강남포스트, 무단 전재 및 재배포 금지>