Thursday, September 22, 2011

The Evolution of Morality

“A man does what he must - in spite of personal consequences, in spite of obstacles and dangers and pressures - and that is the basis of all human morality” (Winston Churchill). A person’s morality stems from the natural instinct to survive. After all if something helps a person to continue living then how could it be wrong, right? However, that is only the base for morality, and as a person progresses through life they change their moralities to fit their own needs. If a man did not change his morality to fit his actions then he would go insane believing he is evil. In, The Book Thief, by Markus Zusak the dilemma of morality and how people twist its meaning is present. Among the characters Liesel, max, and the people in general all have moral compasses that guide them.
In 1939, Germany’s morality took a plunge for the worse. The ideas of right and wrong went from white and black to gray and black. Everyone thought Germany was evil, except for Germany. Even the young and innocent were not safe from the change in morality that Germany went through. As a young child, Liesel, clearly sees the difference between what is good and bad. When she steals her first book she feels bad about taking it from another person who will most likely be looking for it. Liesel understands that what she did is bad, and it is this reason that she is nervous to show the book to Hans. After Liesel steals her first book, and does not receive punishment, she begins to question what exactly is good or bad. Eventually, Liesel manages to twist her morality to fit to her new lifestyle. When she is hungry Liesel steals to help herself. Instead of continuing to suffer by believing stealing is wrong, Liesel does what is only natural, she changes her morality to continue living.
Changing morals to survive is natural and is usually done without conscious thought, however when someone is told something enough times they begin to believe. As a young kid, Max, is never afraid to back up his moral beliefs physically. He says that he is willing to die fighting what he believes in rather than let the Nazis tell him what to do. This moral value leads him through most of his young life. However, when Max is forced to hide in a small basement within his own country he is completely demoralized. Between being told he is a villain by Nazi propaganda and feeling like one by leaving his family, Max starts to believe that he is completely inferior. His moral belief that everyone is equal slips away and he is left with nearly nothing left to guide him in life.
It has been determined over time by many of the greatest thinkers that morality is not decided by any one person but by society as a whole. In, The Book Thief the people generally accept that killing is bad, however they also agree that war is necessary. Where Morality is concerned the difference between these two things is a very thin line. However, for some reason the people see a difference in the two types of killing. Killing outside of war is completely evil, while killing in a war is morally acceptable. Death, the narrator, points out the flaw in this reasoning. Killing is still killing and to say otherwise is almost comedic: “When I glanced back at the plane, the pilot’s open mouth appeared to be smiling. A final dirty joke. Another human punch line” (The Book Thief). When it comes to war, the morals of society change and they accept death almost as a joke.
The concept of morality is ever changing to fit the needs of the people in order to keep them sane. In, The Book Thief, three different people with different moralities are shown adapting their moral beliefs to suit their needs. Whether it be stealing, equality, or death each moral belief is bound to change.


10 comments:

  1. Okay cody, one good thing about this is i like your viewpoint of how our morals can change without conscience thought. This i do believe in. However, you suddenly shift your thoughts towards the question, "is killing moral?" this is probably part of the book, however, i feel this doesn't fit your thesis all that well. my question to you is, After Max is left without his moral beliefs, how does he cope with this? what morals does he then accept?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Cody,
    This was really well writtena dn I liked the quote by Winston Churchill at the beginning of you post. Also I liked how you explain Liesel's change of morals. However, you didn't say anything about a postitive change in Max. Was tere one? Did he change his morals to fit his new lifestyle? And finally a personal question, what is your opinion on killing in combat vs. just killing, which is moral? Are either of them? And if so what makes the moral? Why are they diferent?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Your first quote is very insightful; i believe people consider others 'selfish', however we all need to be selfish for ourselves sometimes. It’s not immoral to think of yourself, you’re the most important person in your own life. "As a person progresses through life they change their moralities to fit their own needs", is it really our morals changing, or our perspective on life in relation to our environment?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Cody, I like your point about killing in war as opposed to murdering someone. While as a whole killing someone in war is considered by many to be morally okay because they are just 'doing their job.' However, what do soldiers feel when they kill someone in war? Many of them still feel guilt and feel like they've done something wrong. That could be an interesting topic to get into. Also, I like how you related the post to real life through the quote from Winston Churchill, and talking about war.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Cody, as always your work inspires me. First I'd like to say that I agree with your idea that people change and adapt there morals as the situation calls for it. This connects to another point you made about how people think it's morally just to kill in war but killing outside of war is viewed as awful. I would agree with this as well. However, do you think it's okay for our troops to be killing over in the Middle East when in fact we aren't techniquely at "war" over there?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Right at the beginning I liked the quote from Winston Churchill. It grabbed my attention and was very relevant considering he was a very influential figure at the time. I really liked how you raised the point that people twist their morals to fit their lifestyles. One thing I disagree with is that you said the people only felt justified in killing during combat, but what about the mass murder of Jews? I think you could have mentioned that a little more to clarify.

    ReplyDelete
  7. fresh post cody, i thought the part about how we change our morals to survive was interesting. i agree and disagree. i think their are two kinds of people, those who change their morals to benefit themselves, and those who stick to what they believe in. i think nazi germany fell under the first category, while liesel and her family fell under the second one. if it wasn't for the second group of people i think the world would be a very different place. what do you think?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Agreeing with Tucker, it's very insightful to say how our morals change so we can fit survival. And do you really think that Germany's morals turned negative? Did you happen to even question any good from them? Young German's, trained to be Nazis, were shaped by politics and society to think what was right and what was wrong. If we put a child in a room all day and repeatedly told him false and hurtful statements about a person, the child would grow to hate them with no choice. Their morals where misunderstood, wrong, but couldn't be helped once set in.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Right when I saw the Churchill quote, I knew this was gonna be a good post. Although you said you couldn't focus, I liked this post a lot. You introduced a background that transitioned well into the plot of The Book Thief. Also, your point on morality being an ever changing subject is kind of upsetting, but true. Morals WILL be ever changing and possibly for the worst. When a crazy tyrant is introduced to the picture (who happens to be an amazing public speaker), morals may plummet even more.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I think that you could have used more quotes and evidence from the book to support the points you made. Also the conclusion was really short and could have had more depth to it. Overall though it was very good and i liked the point, agreeing with everyone else, about how our morals change. There are always different aspects that come into our lives and influence our morals and they are always changing.

    ReplyDelete