Since the dawn of humanity, a sense of moral and ethical standards has been incited into our race. From the Stone Age, through today, the people of this world have been, and are being, affected and guided by their moral standpoint. Morality is a unified concept of many individual ethical questions one must answer for himself, and morality has always been in place since the begging of the human era; there is no arguing that. The true debate is how does morality come about in people, and this can be answered. In this essay, I shall discuss modern day morality and where the people of the present attain their moral judgments. 

What is morality? Morality is the guiding and determining force in one's life. Morality defines the basis of right and wrong, good and evil. What one perceives as their "conscious" is really just an internal depiction of their personal moral standards. The basis of morality is built off of society. An individual adopts their moral background from he society that embodies the culture in their place of birth. Equality is the testing factor in the assertion that morality of the individual comes from their society and culture. At birth, we are all inexplicably equal. A child has no prerequisitional knowledge of the metaphysical world or the epistemological aspect of human kind that we (and by "we" I mean those of us with a full state of consciousness and awareness) have developed over the years. A child can be molded to be anything; it is at society's bidding. Take for example a common child born in the United States. The child from the USA is brought up to believe that murder, stealing and the initiation of physical force against others is wrong. Now look at a child born in the slums of India; this child may not even be raised by legitimate parents and early on a sense of "survival of the fittest" is instilled in them. Their perhaps not-so-virtuous moral framework is more than justified to them. Their society and sociopolitical situation determines the character and conscious of the individual in question. Modern day morality is directly based off of society which evolves and progresses every day; thus modern morality is not based off of any religious historical text or standpoint.

 

 

Ever hear the phrase "Personal Responsibility"? If not, the only thing you have to do is flip on Fox News when Glenn Beck, or O'Reilly are yammering off and you're sure to hear that as the solution to every problem that happens to be showcased that night. What the conservatives like to pass off as "moral justice" is really just another loophole for us to exploit. Now, lets take a look at 3 reasons why Personal Responsibility is completely, and utterly Retarded.

Reason #1) - The way its fashioned.

I'm just going to say it right now; the way personal responsibility is presented to the public is seriously delusional. Personal responsibility (or "PR" as I'm going to call it from now on, as I'm much to lazy to type out the entire phrase) is presented to the public as the only moral means of justice. PR is the only "logical" way for justice to be served, and it's quite the argument for any lawyer on the prosecution. Why is that? Because it's astronomically misrepresented

Reason #2) - The way its used.

I haven't yet expanded on exactly WHY personal responsibility is idiotic, but rather, give you my basis on it first, and that is what you shall expect in this section as well. Don't worry though, Reason #3 explains the hypocrisy, and "idiocracy" of the coined term. All right, so PR, as I've previously stated, is used to represent the conservative man's warped view of logic and reason in respect to social justice. Now, in layman's terms, personal responsibility (as used by the cons) basically states that, as the name suggests, one should take responsibility for their actions. Sounds harmless enough right? You can see how that fits together. If you kill Joe Blow, and you get taken to court, the obvious argument against you, is that you must take personal responsibility for your actions.  In a select few cases, this political theory works out fine. ...But in most sociopolitical cases, there are just too many variables to take into affect for this to work.

Reason #3) - It just doesn't make sense.

Why doesn't this make sense? Whats the big flaw that's been hinted at this entire page? Why doesn't this system work? Let me tell you.
Lets say... there is this couple... Ryan and Suzy. They've been having some tough times lately, and Suzy has been cheating on her husband with another guy - We'll call him "Steve".  Now, before I continue, I'm going to set a social variable in this situation. Lets say Ryan has extreme, Documented, anger and violence issues - He's had them his whole life. Now, Ryan comes home late from work one night, only to catch Suzy and Steve on his favorite recliner. Ryan immediately shoves Steve's head up his own ass, killing him instantly. Ryan is taken to court, and convicted of murder, all based on personal responsibility.
Whoa Whoa Whoa, do you see the problem here?
Let me exploit this loophole for a second to demonstrate.
Now, since Ryan has had documented anger and violence issues that everyone knew about, shouldn't Suzy have taken Personal Responsibility and NOT slept with Steve? She knew what was going to happen. Same with Steve - shouldn't he have taken personal responsibility and not slept with Suzy because he knew full well he was going to get his ass kicked by Ryan if he ever found out? Who's fault is it now that the social variables have been factored in? Is it still Ryan's? I think not. If you want to apply personal responsibility to the situation, it becomes Steve and Suzy's fault, and they get hauled off to jail, not Ryan.

Personal Responsibility is retarded. Now please, do the public a favor, and every time you hear someone utter that phrase, kick them in the face*.


*Dont really kick them in the face :)