Ethics

My stagnant ethics are pretty basic. Don't intentionally hurt people. Don't waste. These are things that my parents have taught me since birth. However, much of my ethical system is dependent purely on given circumstances. Don't steal-unless you're going to starve to death if you don't take that loaf of bread. Don't lie-unless the truth is devastating, and even then, there are degrees of deception. Knowing what is acceptable is learned through experience and observation. It is simply processing data and analyzing it to find the most ethical and most effective solution. Ethics are simply a 3-dimensional graph: costs vs. rewards vs. state of affairs. It is not a collection of scientific evidence because everything is subjective, but one graph typically holds to one person.

My dad taught me about ethics in kind of a non-conventional manner. Whenever I presented to him my opinion, he would argue the opposite view, regardless of his own beliefs. These debates would stretch on for days until I could finally gather enough information from research to support my side. It wasn't until my Freshman year that I realized what he was doing. To this day, I don't know what he really thinks about many issues. He tries not to disrupt my development of my own system of ethics.

Outside of home, my friends and my books are probably the most influential to me. I learn from my friends' experiences, and their reactions to certain behaviors often determine what is acceptable in the normal world. That is the kind of socialization to which all children are sensitive from very early ages. Reading books written from a diverse group of authors has helped me to refine my system of ethics. They have provided me with the foundation of my current religious beliefs. They led me to the conclusion that all members of the animal kingdom are linked, giving me reason to stop eating meat. From books, I learned about the earth, and how beautiful it truly is.

Cooperation and Sticking Put

Booker T. Washington proposes that the only way for any change to take place in the South is for everyone to stay put and try to live full and happy lives. If there were a mass exodus of the newly freed African Americans, the the Southern white man would have no reason to change his way of thinking. The Southern white man needs to see for himself that African Americans can be dull or intelligent, lazy or hardworking, just as white people can. It has to do with the individual, not the race. As evidence for the plausible success of this, he discusses how he, a black man, was nominated to lead inspection of schools, both black and white, by a group of Southern white men. Washington argues that this transition has to be witnessed and processed with the natural course of time, not forced by a Northern out-group. This cannot happen if there are no African Americans to behave as examples.

Booker T. Washington asks Southern African Americans not to turn their foci to political or social change. Pressure would only turn Southern whites away from the idea, just as Northern interference would. However, if Southern African Americans turn their attention toward learning mundane trades, like farming, they would be able to work their ways up the social ladder. Washington explains that success within a family takes precedence over political change, and this can be done without migrating North. Interactions with white people in the South should be cordial and cooperative-instead of boycotting the vote, ask of white neighbors their advice in voting.

Cooperation. That is what Booker T. Washington advises, and it is only possible if there are two parties present to exchange dialogue. That is why Southern African Americans should stay in the South.

Loathe Largesse

The ladies have determined that they want to give money to the poor. However, they don't want to be exposed to too much. Too much pain, too much grime, too much anger, too much ugliness. Too much. The are proper ladies. High-society ladies. Ladies who were cosseted by proper, high-society mothers. They don't understand the gravity of poverty; they are doing what respectable young ladies do.

When they see the poor, the ladies see them as unfortunate wretches. The ladies believe that they are bestowing wonders upon the pitiful. This largesse that they dispense is a handout. A "here you go, you poor little soul, you" kind of handout. The ladies view themselves as superior angels, sent from the heavens to offer relief.

The recipients of this largesse see the truth. The ladies are ignorant, free of care from troubles like having to use a newspaper as a floor-covering. They go through rituals of self-flattery by troubling themselves with this missionary endeavor, but they decline to bear witness to the truly down-trodden. Instead, they seek out those who are troubled but have tolerable presence. Their condescending manner is more insulting than if they ignored poverty on principle. It is as Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote in Letter from Birmingham Jail, "Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."

The largesse is "loathe" by all parties involved. The recipients loathe the ladies for being conceited enough to think that their half-hearted attempts at charity were enough to qualify as authentic generosity. Negligence would be better than empty "love." The ladies themselves loathe to be immersed in the nasty life of the impoverished and its absence of niceties. To escape, they turn to the "worthy" poor, and when that is done, they retreat back to their cars.