This morning, I woke up with those two word, ‘moral ambiguity‘ rolling around in my brain. It can be tempting to be morally ambiguous when it comes to the big picture events that are occurring at the speed of light. It might seem safer not to take sides for fear of alienating the people in our lives. In some situations we know that there is a clear cut sense of right and wrong. When I was a child, I was taught that if something wasn’t mine, I was not to take it. I was taught not to litter. I was taught not to use the word ‘hate’. I was taught to be non-violent. I was taught to respect differences in peoples’ culture, religion, abilities, age and skin hue.
When I was in college, I learned about psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg who proposed the Heinz Dilemma which told the story of a man whose wife was dying and needed a certain medication that he couldn’t afford. The local pharmacist wouldn’t provide it to him for the amount of money he could afford, so in order to save his wife’s life, he stole it. Linking it to Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development, the reader is asked to determine if his actions were moral/ethical based on societal perspectives of right and wrong and the consequences of Heinz’ choice.
We are in a perilous time where moral ambiguity is the flavor of the day. People justified their votes for a president because they were convinced that it would benefit them, without regard to how it would impact the rest of the world. They cast aside what morals and values they might have otherwise held. The chickens are coming home to roost as those who helped to elect the current administration are discovering that indeed the fallout is affecting them. I heard about someone I know who had voted for him and justified it until she heard that a person close to her could lose their job, working for an essential function of the government. She is rethinking her decision; not that she could go back in time and change it, but hopefully, she will find a way to help mend the rend in this country by volunteering or donating to pro-social causes and when the time comes to vote again, will vote Blue. I may reach out as the mid-terms approach to encourage her to ‘change her colors’.
I consider the concept of moral ambiguity as it applies to my strongly held personal values. I am a pacifist, but if I needed to protect someone from harm, would I use aggressive means? I would, without a doubt. If someone I know did something intentionally harmful to someone else, would I out that person? You bet. An example would be, if I knew someone had assaulted a previous partner, I would inform the next person I saw the offender with about their history to help prevent further damage. We are indeed our brother’s and sister’s keepers.
Last week, I was watching the hidden camera television show called What Would You Do? One scenario took place in a Reno, Nevada all you can eat buffet. A woman and her young son brought Tupperware containers and started filling them with food to take home with them, justifying it since she had fallen on hard times. These two were actors, but those at the restaurant didn’t know that. Some spoke to the woman who pretended she didn’t know that all you can eat meant all you can eat there, rather than takeout. She justified by saying that she couldn’t afford to buy this amount of food at the grocery store. Some who interacted with her thought it was a grey area since it was food and she was struggling financially. Others spoke up and said it was blatantly wrong.
This morning, I was watching a video filmed by one of my favorite content creators, Miriam Malnik-Ezagui. She always starts her videos with this line, “Hi, my name is Miriam. I’m an Orthodox Jew and I share what my life is like.” She then goes on to answer questions from some of her many fans. Sometimes it is about religion, sometimes it is about her family, sometimes about the state of world. Her responses are from the heart and embracing diversity and accepting that although she has her beliefs and rituals that she practices, she wouldn’t impose them on anyone else.
Today, she responded to a question from one of her numerous online followers who asked whether she believed peace on Earth was possible. She said she thought it was, but then added a caveat that there was a balance and dichotomy in all of creation, that where there is good, there is also evil. She went on to explain that within the elements of earth, air, fire and water, there are both constructive and destructive components to all of them.
I wish I had the spiritual certainty that Miriam does, because I find myself in feisty God-versations daily in which I want to know how things can possibly be as they are, if love is supposed to be at the core of religious belief and practice. I question how a loving God could allow the atrocities that are happening all over the world as I am typing these words. I ask for my ‘marching orders’ so I can do what needs to be done to repair the world and to put a protective halt to damage before it can be initiated. There is nothing morally ambiguous about that.
—
This Post is republished on Medium.
—
Photo credit: iStock
