La Fin

Shalom!  Ciao!  Adeus!

This is the final post, the one in which I bid you all Adieu.

It has been quite the journey, researching and writing for you all.  I've enjoyed it all and even grown as a person throughout the semester.  Above all, I would like to thank you all for your kind words of encouragement and for your participation with commenting!

I would also like to thank my cats, Big Kitty and Little Kitty, for keeping me company throughout all
 the late nights I've spent composing this blog.  Yes, the pictures are necessary.

Little Kitty

Big Kitty

Throughout the semester, we've been all over the map with these last 10 posts.  The adventure began in the deep rain forest of New Guinea, then we arrived back in modern society and into the classroom, then shortly after to the dog house and then even to the church and to the bank.  We've seen some heavier topics and some lighter more cheery ones.  

All in all, I hope that from reading my posts you've all been thought provoked by my opinions.  Through researching and reflecting upon these topics throughout the composition of this blog, I've spent a great amount of time deep in conflicted thought about morality.  All in all, I feel as though I've ameliorated myself as a person and I surely hope you have as well through reading my posts.  

Just because this is goodbye doesn't mean that you no longer need to question society or morality.  I'm not saying that you should question every action of society, but you should more over reflect upon your own values and ideas and definitely live by them.  Don't fall into other people's (my) ideas of what is right and wrong.  If it is what you believe in, then you don't need to explain yourself to anyone. 

Again, thank you all for reading and participating by sharing your ideas and opinions.

Never stop questioning.

The ABSOLUTE

"Compassion is the basis of morality."

-Arthur Schopenhauer

Throughout course of my philosophy class this semester, we talked a lot about morals.  We ventured into the depths of right and wrong and where these "perceptions" we have come from.  The one thing that still resonates with me, sometimes in an irritating way, is this thing called moral absolutism.  It is this complicated concept, by which all judgements are based upon an absolute standard of morals in any given circumstance (1).  Basically, rather than the fine line between right and wrong, its more of the galaxy which separates the universe of right and the universe of wrong.  If something or someone were to exist one of those two given universes, they could never and would never exist in the other.  It's the idea that anything we consider to be "wrong" or "evil" completely over powers anything good, as if someone who has ever done anything "wrong" is completely incapable of even having a single good thought or intention.

For example, we did this activity in class where we had to choose who we would want as our world leader, based on how they live their lives and wether or not their lives would fit with our morals.  We were given three candidates:

A)  This potential leader is confined to a wheelchair and has numerous affairs outside of his marriage.  He also smokes and drinks excessively.

B)  Candidate B is a decorated war hero.  He is vegetarian, practices abstinence, doesn't smoke and rarely drinks.

C)  The last candidate enjoys an occasional drink during the evenings, has experimented with drugs in college and often sleeps in until noon.

Now who did you choose?  The funny thing is, these are actual world leaders.  For those of you who chose A, you picked Franklin Rooselvelt.  Candidate B is Adolph Hitler and finally, candidate C is Winston Churchill.  Interesting, eh?  Perhaps even upsetting?

What upsets me about this exercise is how bothered people are when they learn who the real leaders are.  Oh, the humility! To think that Hitler could ever possess a single ounce of decency within him after all he's done!  Well of course he can!  He's human!  We, as humans have a choice; we can either let the good within us over power, or let the bad take over for reasons we regard as justifiable.

"Yea, but Martin Luther King cheated on his wife..."

Stuff like that, stuff people say, that is completely irrelevant to the tremendous accomplishments of many people disappoints me.  What does it matter that MLK cheated on his wife?  Does that completely cancel out anything he's ever done in regards to racial movements?  I strongly don't believe it does.

This is why we need to stop judging based on these ABSOLUTE moral standards.  No one is perfect.  There are two sides to every story and you have the power to let the better side be exposed.  There are exceptions.

What do you think?


(1) http://www.gotquestions.org/moral-absolutism.html

Equality?

It's a strange thought; We're all different, yet we fight so desperately to all be treated the same.  It's quite the oxymoron, I must say.  If something is so unique, shouldn't it be treated in accordance to its individuality or distinctness?  Our race, our religion, our hair colour, our beliefs, our gender, our social class, our sexual preference, our culture, our jobs, our everything; the list of what separates us into individuals drags on for eons, down to the tiniest of moles and freckles.  So this equality we're striving for, is being constantly interrupted by the fact that we're just our uniquely human selves.  But, perhaps by being unique individuals we're technically the same...  We all share that common uniqueness, which alters this oxymoron into more of a correlative statement.

For all differences or for all similarities, the question still remains:  What does equality mean?

This topic is something I've explored before.  The idea of what equality means to most of us.  Generally speaking, to be treated with equality is to be treated the same despite your differences from those in comparison to you.  We tend to consider treating others with equality as tolerating their differences.  However, I don't agree with this idea.

To be tolerated. It insinuates that we're pretending the differences aren't there anymore - that they're just the same.  They're not the same.  They never will be the same.  In my eyes, to tolerate is the same as ignoring, pitying, stereotyping, judging, victimizing or showcasing an individual because of those differences.

I'm suggesting that as an alternative, we should always accept, never tolerate.  Every being deserves to be unconditionally accepted for what they are.  To be accepted means that instead of having to understand and tolerate something, it's immediately accepted for what it is - no questions asked, no judgements. Unlike ignorance, we know it's there and we can appreciate it.  Be that difference negative or positive, it doesn't matter.  We accept it sans judgement or stereotype.

Revisiting the question, what is equality, the answer is acceptance.  Only through acceptance can equality truly exist, not tolerance.

What do you think?

$$$

Robin Hood and Little Jon walkin' through the forest, oo-de-lally oo-de-lally golly what a day!

Incase you didn't already know, I'm a huge Disney fan - as juvenile as that might seem.  Given the topics of my blog entries, it would only make sense that Disney's Robin Hood is one of my favourites.  To steal from the rich and give to the poor...  One of the many twisted morals in our world.  Not only does this movie make me sing-a-long, but it makes me think about the act of stealing.  It is bad, and at that a crime as well as a violation of a Commandment.  Yet, what if you were a real life Robin Hood?  Breaking the law with the best of intentions to help those who 

fortunate and suffering - then would it still be bad?

Since my last post touched upon how laws and morals are twisted together into a knot of contradiction, I'll be venturing more into the realms of poverty in this post (still relevant to Robin Hood, yay).  

For rich, or for poor; does our class alter our morals when it comes to money, status and materialism? I think it's most certainly safe to say: It absolutely does.  In Americanized societies, where some of the richest of the rich can be found, materialism is thriving and in constant growth.  The need for what's next is more urgent than the fundamentals of basic living.  Ever noticed how that acquaintance of yours can't afford to buy their own lunch, yet sports around that flashy iPhone 5?  Where the necessity to own a product is more important than having enough to send your children to college or even pay the water bills?

But how does it work on the other end of the spectrum?  How are the morals and values of those in poverty affected?  Well, when an anthropologist confronted a group of children from an african tribe and offered them a proposition, the children had an interesting response.  The anthropologist had placed a basket of fruit beneath a tree and told the children that whoever got there first could have the fruits all to themselves.  The children, however, all linked arms and marched over together simultaneously, then shared the goods equally amongst themselves.  The children claimed that "How can one of us be happy, if the others are sad?".

Interesting how materialism and money almost blinds us in regards of the basics of life.  We forget about those around us and their happiness.  All that matters is what other people think about us, and if its a positive judgement, we're happy.  We completely forget about those who are suffering and less fortunate, be it near or far .  We're in a society where "All for one, and one for all" is misinterpreted to just all for one and we hoard our riches to ourselves, rather than acting upon the idea of being able to work collectively towards one common goal and share the wealth equally. 

I believe this video is important for you too see, in relevance to my entry.  However, *DISCLAIMER* it has some vulgar language, so prepare your virgin ears if you decide to view it.

Funny how the problem is only there when we want it to be...  What do you think?

References:

http://www.tigweb.org/youth-media/panorama/article.html?ContentID=7355

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-judith-rich/ubuntu_b_1803189.html

The Grey Area

What separates us from the good and the bad?  An orange jumpsuit?  Three dirty, soul depleting cement walls and a set of iron bars?  Wether religions are implemented or not, the law is the principal means of moral enforcement in any civilized (or so-called civilized) society.  The Ten Commandments, the law, human rights and morals are all based upon similar premisses.  Being so similar in their nature and the promotion of good intentions, it can be pretty mind boggling to consider the contradictions webbing them all together.  Though it has never really crossed my mind before, this idea has however been recently brought to my awareness.  I can't stop contemplating all the complications, the injustices and the denials arisen from this idea.

Here, a perfect example of said contradiction:
An individual murders an innocent victim.  The murderer is proven guilty and either sentenced to life in prison or in many cases given the death penalty.

For some, this is justice - to me, it doesn't make sense.  In a society where we fight so hard to enforce the moral principle that every human has the right to live and we therefore shouldn't kill them, how does it make sense to then execute the murderer who is also human and deserves to live?  This is a very complicated and in-depth topic.  Of course there are many things to be taken into consideration, like wether the murderer is mentally well and such.  The law states that it is illegal to kill another person, yet this law is excused in order to enforce itself.  In other words, there is a rule.  That rule is given however an exception in order to make that very rule.  There are many other examples of this throughout the justice system, not only in our society but around the world.

This is prevalent throughout numerous religions as well.  If morally we are all equal, despite race, age and gender, how is it that some religions consider women to be lesser or mistreat them, deeming them to be almost sub-human?

More recently in the news, a interesting contradiction of morality and law has arisen.  Nineteen year old pink haired mother, Catalina Clouser from Arizona, recently drove her car for nearly 12 miles while stoned, before finally realizing that she had left her baby on the roof of the car.  Miraculously the baby went uninjured.  The child has since then been taken out of Catalina's custody. When the law got involved, Clouser pleaded guilty to child abuse and DUI, avoiding jail time and only being sentenced to probation.  However, an unemployed Arizona mother of two, Shanesha Taylor, who left her children locked in her car while she attended a job interview was sentenced to nearly 8 years in jail.  Although both of these mothers did commit felonies, Shanesa's intentions were morally right, striving to ameliorate her life and the lives of her two young children.

I don't like using the word justice.  To me, it doesn't seem right, it makes me feel uneasy.  Its meaning has been lost - or rather can't exactly exist in such a contradictory and intricate world of rules and exceptions.

What do you think?


Referenes:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-06-02/baby-left-on-roof-of-car/55349990/1
http://www.myfoxny.com/story/25142271/mother-allegedly-leaves-young-children-in-car-during-job-interview
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/30/mother-leaves-her-kids-in_n_2217766.html

Paradoxical Beginnings

So where does it all come from?  All of these morals?  The base, the origins?
Perhaps, the 10 commandments? The Five Precepts?  The Torah?  The Commands of Islam?
Whatever their title may be, together religions all present the same general ground rules for what is considered good and bad.

Practiced since the beginning of time, through rituals, sacrifices and traditions, religions have kept the people of earth grounded and conscious of morals within their actions.  The threat of eternal punishment by a supreme being has been enough to keep people in line for millenniums (1), guiding them through the gardens of good and evil.

All religions in their entirety, for the most part, are there so we as people and followers always do what is morally right.  Although we find honouring and worship of idols of exactitude through religion, we can also find many negative things.  No religion is perfect, obviously.  They all posses their own faults like the oppression of women, the intolerance of those who are different and violent and sexual abuse, to name a few.  Above all, a fault that can be found present in any given society of our world are religious wars.

No, not all wars are cause solemnly by religion - in fact, religion is merely a catalyst or one factor among many in the grand scheme of wars.  Thats not to say there aren't any significant wars due to religion.  The French Revolution, the Crusades, the Lord's Resistant Army, WWII, the Islamic Revolution, the Lebanese Civil War and so many more wars have throughout history been caused or based on religious differences (2).

Its odd to think, that the true nature of religion is to be faithful and most of all to be a good person, yet so much of it has been contorted into negativity.  I'm not saying religions are the root of all evil or the cause of all wars.   I see it more as the practitioner's who've taken the nature of religion out of context.

I myself am not religious in any way.  I sometimes do however envy those who have such a strong faith, because I find myself scared sometimes - wondering who will take my destiny into their hands and redeem me for all of my poor decisions and actions.  Yet, when I think of all the controversy that comes along with religion, I can't help but wonder why, as humans in a society which strives for peace, we can't all forget about the differences and superficialities in various religions and rather just focus on being a morally good person.  Rather than fighting for some supreme being's acceptance, I'd rather focus on striving to one day be able to accept the best version of myself and to be able to put that version out into the world.

What do you think?

"I thank whatever gods may be or my uncomfortable soul, I am the master of my faith.  I am the captain of my own soul"

-William Earnest Henley

(1)http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religion-science/

(2)http://www.lepg.org/wars.htm

How Much is that Doggie in the Window?

The best friend, we've all had one.  For some, its someone we can confide in and tell everything to; someone we can stay up all night with talking about the deeper meaning to life and giggling madly over nothing; someone who knows what you're about to say just by looking at the expression on your face.

Super doggy and I

Wether that best friend is a person or an animal, does it really make a difference?

Growing up, we had chocolate springer spaniel named Nubbers.  He was my guardian, my companion and above all, my best friend.  Sleeping was impossible without his heavy breathing and chubby chest rising and falling at the foot of my bed.  I'm sure everyone likes to think that their dog was the best, but Nubbers really was the most incredible companion I've ever had.

Sure he had his moments, like when he bit the mail man, or got hit by that car, or when he broke through the screen door and chased my mom's Minivan all the way down the street, but what dog doesn't?

All the good memories, however, overshadow all the dark moments.  At the time, its not like we could've trained my baby brother to go fetch the newspaper, or dig holes in the snow for me to hide in.  When the neighbour kids would come over to play, our favourite fort building spot was way into the tall corn fields.  My dad would tie a rope from Nubbers' collar around each of our waists, that way when we went too far into the fields, all he had to do was whistle and Nubbs would drag us back home -- dirtily, but safely.

Now, when the years started to add up, the "Velvet Pup" could no longer fetch the newspaper, or chase us through the yard.  He rapidly went blind, followed by deaf, then eventually both hind legs became paralyzed with severe arthritis.  There was no doubt that he was in pain.  After falling down

No winter blues here!

the stairs and breaking and fracturing many bones, all he could do was lay there.  He had to be carried outside and basically spoon fed.  His end was approaching and it was inevitable.  At 11 years old, looking at his sad body laying on the floor, I knew he was in pain.  When I came home from school one afternoon, however, his bed was gone and his heavy breathing could no longer be heard.  Dad explained to us that he'd taken Nubbs to get put down, taken out of his misery.  It was heartbreaking, yet so relieving knowing that he was no longer suffering.

If you've been lucky enough to experience a such a relationship with a pet, like my Nubbers, you understand that they're basically considered family.  Losing a pet can be just as difficult as losing a close family member.  Seeing your own mother, brother or grandfather suffering in pain, knowing that their time is near is absolutely heart wrenching - knowing that they're pleading for recovery even though it'll never come, and knowing that there is nothing you can do about it.

What I'm getting around to is the topic of Euthanasia.  In other terms, it can be called assisted suicide, signifying to painlessly end one's life with the assistance of a medical practitioner, in order to relieve pain and suffering.

For our pets, we see Euthanasia all the time.  When we can no longer stand to see them suffer with no hopes to spare, we realize that its time for them to be put down - sparing them, and us from the heart wrenching pains.

Yet when a family member, one who is even closer to us than a pet could ever be, is suffering tremendously knowing that they will never recover, there is no end - other than waiting for the mournful morning when they don't wake up.  The psychological, emotional and even physiological tolls taken on family members of those who are suffering, go beyond compare to any broken bone or stressful week at work.  The effects can even be long lasting, such as loss of appetite and weight loss, mental instability and anxiety.

So, why is it okay to euthanize our pets for their greater good, yet it becomes unthinkable when a loved and loving human being is suffering?  I believe there should be a choice, an option for severe cases - not all.  Cases such when they keep someone alive one more day, and then another day,  and then another day, just to watch them suffer even more on their deathbed, when their goodbyes have been said long ago.

I do not wish to upset or offend anyone with my approach to such a sensitive subject.  If I have, please don't neglect to let me know.

Otherwise, take a moment to think about this topic, the pros and cons, the humane and inhumane side of things and let me know, what do you think?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/euthanasia

Ode to The Pumpkin Eaters

Moving on from my last post, (which felt more like a rant, rather than a concrete composition) I hope this topic will leave you with lighter feelings than before.  Or perhaps just slightly guilty?  We'll see...

Wether or not we like admitting to it, many of us have been in that stress-sweat inducing situation while sitting in one of those claustrophobically sticky school desks.  You know what I'm talking about!  When you're writing a test that you're unusually unprepared for, and find yourself in a do or die situation?  When your last branch of humility and collectiveness has been brashly broken and your eyes begin to wander in desperation toward your neighbours page?  Oh yeah, I've been there.

It was a friday.  Every friday of my second grade year was a dictation day, right after the last recess.  That bell would ring and stomachs would simultaneous curdle throughout the schoolyard.  We would receive our study words monday, giving us plenty of time to "study" at home.  This week, however, I had not had my parents quiz me in preparation.  I don't remember what word I was searching for on my neighbours page, I just remember the shrill voice of the teacher singling me out as my face flushed strawberry red.

A week later, the recess bell rang and we filed into our 2B classroom.  When I went to take my seat, however, a green cardboard had been folded creating a tiny cubicle of a desk.  On my desk only...  I remember the words "cheater cheater pumpkin eater..." buzzing through my mind, as I wrote the dictation feeling like a horse and buggy - me being the blinded and tunnel visioned horse, while the carriage being my guilt and embarrassment.  It was definitively a day marked in my calendar of morals.

Now that I'm in high school, I know better than to cheat and try so very hard not to give into all the temptations.  Although, It's never hard to find a fellow classmate in the act, or willing to help.  In North American education systems, cheating is highly punishable.  Many students are suspended and
expelled annually, as we often see in the news as scandals.  From a young age, we are taught that cheating in school is unfair and wrong - your eyes belong to your page and your thoughts are your intellectual property.  Although to succeed in high school without really earning it may facilitate those years for you, once you've reached University, life and karma will swamp you with the heaviest and greatest of difficulties.

While researching this topic, one article in the Globe and Mail (which even depicted conflicts from Toronto and Windsor) had me pondering.

Different cultures obviously have different systems of beliefs and morals.  But what about cheating?  At first, I presumed that surely cheating in school would be frowned upon anywhere else, just as much as North America.  It had never occurred to me that it could even be conceptualized in a different way.

Imagine learning in a community struck by poverty, where absolutely everything is shared as a necessity for survival.  When it comes to learning, however, they still value sharing and believe it overpowers. Thus, cheating is the right thing to do; to help one another become better, stronger and more successful.

Or, what about receiving your education in a densely populated country, where the only way to succeed and bail yourself and family out of poverty is absolute, almost impossible, academic excellence?  When you're taught that you must do anything in order to succeed, that the pressure becomes so vast and heavy that it seems like the right thing to do?

Now, what about when these students come from overseas to continue and further their education in places like North America or Europe?  Is it still okay under these new circumstances?  To them, by moral they feel as though they need to cheat.

Wishfully thinking, if it were up to me I'd truly want them to be able to keep their values and remain as they are - being from a completely different culture.  To me, it would seem almost just as unfair to change them and strip them of their cultural values, than to let them cheat.  Nonetheless, I admit that only in a perfect world would that occur.  So in our world, there probably should be a change in the systems, educating foreseeable cheating international students on the rules of our home turf.

What do you think?

Laws and rules aside, is cheating morally wrong? For us? For international students? If cheating was tolerable for international and foreign students, would it be fair for us citizens?  Can anything be done?  Should something be done?  So many questions, all because of an 8 lettered word.


References:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/education/why-many-international-students-get-a-failing-grade-in-academic-integrity/article4199683/

http://janmagnus.nl/papers/JRM060.pdf

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/05/24/cheating

From Point A to Point B

"Rape is one of the most terrible crimes on earth and it happens every few minutes.  The problem with groups who deal with rape is that they try to educate women about how to defend themselves.  What really needs to be done is teaching men not to rape.  Go to the source and start there."

- Kurt Cobain

No one likes discussing this sombre topic, but it must be done.
Here we go, jumping in head first.
I once read a quote online that stated something along the lines of "if ignorance is bliss, then you must be a rapist" however I can't quite remember the source.  What that quote expresses though, is that ignoring the crime is equally as punishable as committing the crime.  Food for thought...

We all know how horrific and tragic these events can be, so I'm not going to bombard you with gruesome facts.

Back to our beloved friend Kurt.  What he had to say brings up many striking points about the morals behind rape.  Let's start with the basics.  Rape is bad, and I'm sure we all agree upon that.  The topic itself is very controversial and arises many more subtopics to be disputed, like awareness, prevention, recovery, reasons, education and so on...  Morally, it goes against the notions of respect, abuse and sexuality.  

What Cobain said has its positive and negative points.  I don't agree with the use the word women, as though only they are ever victimized.  Men and children are often victims as well, with men and women alike acting as aggressors.  Furthermore, The victims of rape shouldn't have to be educated on how to act in prevention so that they don't get targeted, because ultimately it shouldn't happen.  

It seems as though in society, one of the rules of life seem to be "Rape is bad".  Yet, we've been taught through history, particularly as women "Don't get raped".  By this, they assume things such as, don't dress provocatively, don't roam the streets alone at night, don't put yourself in the situation.  In my opinion, being stripped of the right to dress how I feel and the right to be alone merely because I am more susceptible to it, is absolutely wrong.  Although I feel this way, I understand that not all cases happen under these conditions, some have nothing to do with the victim.

With progression in society, today we reach the realms of a more "Don't rape" type moral.  Sadly, not everything has magically been fixed, rape culture still exists (blaming the victim, sexually objectifying...)  but it is much more advanced than it once was.  It is truly wonderful how society has progressed.  Yet in my eyes, this still poses a problem. 

The plausible aggressors shouldn't be taught not to commit rape.  To me, that means that we view rape as a choice, when it shouldn't be.  We are teaching them to chose not to do it.  Thats like saying, "We hope you don't do it, but if you do thats okay because it was your choice".  It shouldn't even be viewed in that context.  It should be taught to men, women and children alike to respect, love and be compassionate with one another, and therefore not commit it.

The notion of rape being bad in society is constantly being interpreted into a moral ideology that many people abide to, thankfully.  Yet this moral, as I've just shared with you, has been misconstrued into many undesirable points of views.  We've gone from don't get raped, to don't rape.  Now we just need to get to respect one another's personal being and sexuality. 

What do you think?

References:
http://www.marshall.edu/wcenter/sexual-assault/rape-culture/
http://upsettingrapeculture.com/about_the_exhibition.php
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001955.htm

  

Howdy !

Throughout our whole lives, morals, life lessons and consequences have nipped at our heels.  It seems as though growing up there was always a lesson to be learned, even when you least expected it. Now that you're no longer eight years old and learning why hockey shouldn't be played in the house, you still find yourself getting more than you asked for out of everyday events.

Passed down by our parents from their parents, read aloud from children's books, taught in class rooms, reflected upon in the principals offices', discussed in workshops and meetings; these morals (values, lessons, meanings, messages, codes of ethic, whatever you want to call them) are part of our everyday being as we participate (sometimes unwillingly) in society. 

As humans, we have this idea of right and wrong.  Some grasp this concept more easily than others, and many find themselves in a constant battle for what is right.  In my mind, morals are basically the rules of wrong and right.  They persuade, enforce and teach us to consciously and unconsciously make the better choice, although they are sometimes unsuccessful...  However, when they are successful, our choices not only help ourselves, but everyone around us in our society.

Members of the Korowai Tribe (One of the only
photos where they are dressed, thank God)

These morals do vary by culture and living conditions.  Across the world, what may seem completely obscene and wrong to us, is but only good natured and right to them.  Cannibalism, just as a quick example, seems completely inhuman and horrific to our societal morals.  Yet, to the Korowai Tribe of New Guinea, this deed is derived from positive consequences.  To them, they are saving their kin from danger and suffering of demons and illness, so that they and those around them can live peacefully - all the while maintaining respect for their Gods and the values descended upon them by their beliefs.  So moralistically speaking, cannibalism is the right thing to do, don't you think?  For those of you saying no, I understand.  For us, who are privileged enough to have modern technology and medicine, cannibalism seems very wrong.  But for the Korowai people, they don't have the same options we do.  To them, they maintain their happiness and joie de vivre through the practice of culture and religion, be it cannibalism or shrunken skulls.  So for them, would cannibalism still be wrong?

Mark Twain, featuring his beautiful
moustache.

What I'm ultimately trying to express, is how easily the notion of what is wrong and right can be distorted.  Throughout this semester of blogging, I'll be here to exploit the contortion of morals.  I'll be here expressing my views on what is morally right or wrong about several controversial topics in society.

"The fact that man knows right from wrong proves his intellectual superiority to the other creatures; but the fact that he can do wrong proves his moral inferiority to any creatures that cannot."
-Mark Twain, "What is man?"

So really, what are morals?  By what are they defined?  By whom are they defined?  Who are we as a society to decide what is right and wrong compared to another a complete opposing society.  More importantly, what do you think?



References:
http://knowledgenuts.com/2013/10/28/the-culture-that-still-practices-cannibalism/
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/sleeping-with-cannibals-128958913/?no-ist=