A Response to Joan Didion's "On Morality"
The most common definition of morality is knowledge of right and wrong. People use morality to justify their actions and decisions. Some individuals also try to impress their own morality upon other people in the belief that standards of right and wrong are the same for everyone. In her essay "On Morality," Joan Didion objects to such thinking, saying that each person can have a different conception of morality.
To illustrate her point, Didion first uses the examples of Klaus Fuchs and Alfred Rosenberg. Fuchs was a British traitor who leaked nuclear secrets to the Soviets, and Rosenberg was the Nazi administrator of Eastern Europe, where the Germans committed their most heinous and most murderous acts during World War II. Both the traitor and the murderer tried to justify their actions by claiming they were doing as their morality demanded. After these examples, Didion then says Jesus Christ also use morality to justify what he did. This juxtaposition of seemingly paradoxical ideas proves Didion's assertion that morality can vary from person to person.
The juxtaposition also helps to prove that people can use morality to justify almost anything. Individuals such as Osama bin Laden believe they have the moral right to order actions that take the lives of thousands of innocent civilians. Many Christian fundamentalists think the American government can morally enact laws that oppress homosexuals. Such interpretations show that what people think is morality more likely is just the way people think things should be. Morality is not a device by which people determine right from wrong, but a tool people use either consciously or unconsciously to serve their own ends.
Clearly, universal standards of right and wrong do not exist. The circumstances Didion outlined in her essay, as well as current world events, demonstrate that fact. But many people do not agree with that analysis, and as Didion points out in her essay, that trend is dangerous. People who adhere themselves to a supposedly universal moral code can delude themselves into thinking people who do not follow that code are infidels who are less than human. As the events of September 11, 2001, show, the consequences of that line of thought can be tragic. People must resist thinking in terms of moral absolutes if the future is to be safe from terrorism and oppression.
