We like to think that morals are black and white, but in reality they aren’t. According to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, moral relativism is defined as:
“The view that moral judgments are true or false only relative to some particular standpoint (for instance, that of a culture or a historical period) and that no standpoint is uniquely privileged over all others.”
I’ve always been one to criticize moral relativism, but as I was writing Canine Plague, it occurred to me that it’s not really that simple. Yes, it’s immoral to kill someone – unless you’re defending yourself. And yes, it’s immoral to steal – unless your family is hungry. And yes, it’s immoral to lie – unless it is to prevent someone from harm. I could go on and on, but you get the point. There is nearly always an “unless.”
Morality is in fact, relative. In the book, the protagonist Steven is confronted with helping a neighbor who has run out of food and claims his children are hungry. I devoted an entire chapter to explain why Steven decided to help his neighbor, why it would be the last time, and his discussion with his family about the morality of his decision. An excerpt from that chapter can be found here: HELPING OTHERS. <– click here to see the discussion.
We would all like to think we value the lives of others as much as we do ourselves, but it’s simply not true. In fact, Steven explains why it’s not only a fallacy to think so, but that it is in fact immoral to behave that way too. In it’s most basic form, the philosophical concept can be described by considering the following scenario.
You are a multi-billionaire and you continue to make vast amounts of money. You feel guilty knowing you are so wealthy while much of the planet is actually starving. You could give it all away by spending every last dime on food and distribution to the starving citizens of the planet. It appears to be a noble thing to do. But since you spent all of your money, the number of people you would help is finite. Once the food is consumed, you could no longer help anyone else – because you’re broke and now you’re hungry too.
Another solution is to wisely invest your money in a foundation and dole out the earnings so that it will continue feed the hungry in perpetuity, even long after you’re dead.
The point is, if you give until you have no more, you can no longer help anyone. If you give wisely, you will likely help more than you would have if you gave it all.
Back to the title of the article. I could have asked “Is your life more important than others?” That’s much different isn’t it? Many have nobly laid down their lives for others. Personally, I would give the last bite of food to my children so they could survive, even knowing it meant I would not. I will not do that for children I don’t know. You wouldn’t either, otherwise you would have given away your last dime long ago so that one child would not die of starvation.
Sometimes we are faced with real moral dilemmas. They are hard to confront, which is why we call them dilemmas in the first place. Why is The Walking Dead so popular? Believe it or not, it’s not because of all the gushy, bloody zombies. It’s because we are immersed in the lives of people who face one moral dilemma after another. While Canine Plague doesn’t have any zombies, it does deal with moral dilemmas in a way that can cause you to think.