Prosch 1

Relative Theories: Why College Students are Morally Adrift

By Heather Prosch

Introduction

I ask the question, “why are college age students morally adrift?” not to accuse society or

to point fingers. Most problems demand answers through the course of blaming someone else.

No matter who or what caused a problem, humans point to others in an effort to take the blame

off of themselves. This practice has been around since the beginning of known history. In an

effort to remove any negative attention from ourselves, we divert the attention to anyone else

who we feel is more logically suited for the blame than ourselves.

For example, in the Bible, the creation story cites Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.

Eve has been tempted by Satan, disguised as the serpent, and Adam has followed her example of

eating of the forbidden fruit. When God questioned them on their sudden change in their

behavior towards Him, Adam pointed the finger of blame at Eve when he said, “The woman

whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate” (English Standard

Version, Gen. 3.12). Eve turned and pointed the blame right back at the serpent by saying, “The

serpent deceived me, and I ate” (English Standard Version, Gen. 3.13b). These verses show how

the Biblical representation of perfect humans, derived of perfection, sought to put the guilt of

their own wrong choices on someone else. No one had told them that their actions were “wrong,”

but they instinctively blamed someone else so as to avoid whatever they thought would happen

to them because of their choice to eat the forbidden fruit. In the end, nothing was gained by each

one blaming the other, and they all three suffered some sort of consequence as a result of their

individual actions.

Prosch 2

My research, therefore, seeks not to find who society can blame for the actions and

beliefs of young people today. Rather, I seek to understand and explain how young people

understand their world today, in order that conclusions can be drawn to persuade them to

reconsider their moral beliefs so they can better themselves and society by not living selfishly. I

will accomplish this by examining several moral theories which can shed light on current beliefs,

as well as look at answers to questions posed to college-age students concerning their beliefs.

While this book calls for close examination of many perspectives concerning morality, I

will be looking at each perspective from my own personal Christian perspective. The temptation

story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden comes into play because it is the first time a

human being made a choice of free will. The result of them yielding to temptation caused the

downfall of not only themselves but also the entire human race for the rest of life on earth. I am

not merely researching the moral downfall of young people because I want to know why they

make the kinds of choice they do; it is important to recognize that all moral choices made today

are made because each person chooses to make them. Regardless of whether or not they have sat

down and thought through a code of morality they will abide by the rest of their life, humans all

make decisions that are influenced by their beliefs. I have observed that the majority of young

people today make choices based on whatever the greatest good for themselves will be. This can

be described as nihilistic behavior because there is no one accepted belief as truth; all terms and

conditions of morals are allowed as possibilities of interpretation, but one can never be touted as

the objective truth. Figuring out the reason behind this phenomenon is the reason I am examining

this issue more deeply because many people embrace Christian-related religions; yet do not

apply the principles of their religion and instead make nihilistic decisions every day.

Prosch 3

It is vitally important to consider the validity of the statements concerning the beliefs of

college-age people as they compare to the Bible because society appears to be growing more and

more critical of the Bible in particular and I want to know why. The solution I present in the end

of this book will primarily be based on a Biblical perspective because of what I have seen and

come to believe concerning the Bible. My personal opinion will be a large part of my discussion

throughout this book as I look at ways the Bible’s moral teachings can lend to society today, as

well as give examples from a literary perspective with correlations to my knowledge of the

Bible. My ultimate goal is to help challenge my peers to consider where they get their system of

morality. Are they able to defend their belief system? What has shaped the way they believe

today, and why? Examining different moral philosophies will help as I look at the reasoning

behind college student’s moral thinking.

Prosch 4

Chapter 1: Moral Theories

In order to get off on the right foot, I think it is important to understand a basic definition

of morality as I will be writing about. Several moral theories have been developed in the past and

continue to lend guidance for the proper definitions of various types of philosophical beliefs.

These moral theories in particular will never grow old because they define the ground rules for

important ways of thinking. In other words, no one can believe in a moral basis without tracing it

back to having roots in at least one of these moral theories. I will define the following theories:

Kant’s Categorical Imperative, Utilitarianism, Altruism, and Egoism. These theories are called

Normative Ethics because they examine the right or wrong actions behind the principles of

certain beliefs. I will examine the basic ideas behind these three moral theories and look at what

American society’s young people are currently saying and the theory which best reflects their

chosen moral code. This is important because current belief trends can be tentatively traced back

to moral theories.

Immanuel Kant’s moral theory begins with the basic understanding that because we are

rational humans we have worth in and of ourselves. Our moral worth is directly related to our

ability to reason; this means that we all have the same duty as humans to treat each other equally.

In his textbook Environmental Perspectives, Professor Roger Ebertz explains how Kant

subscribes to an ‘ends-in-themselves formula’ which states, “Always treat every human being,

including yourself, as an end-in-itself, and never treat yourself or another human being as merely

a means” (213). When the question of what makes an action right or wrong is applied to this

theory, Kant’s position goes a step further by saying that right actions must be performed for the

Prosch 5

right reasons. “A right action is one that conforms to the principles of rational duty. A morally

good person is one who performs the right actions, not because she realizes it will make her life

more pleasant, or because she fears being punished for acting wrongly, but because it is the right

thing to do” (215). This means that one is always obligated to perform the right actions based not

on what he or she wants, but on a predetermined set of rules.

While the Kantian theory proposes that good actions are based on reason, it does not

address the issue of conflicting moral reasoning. For example, based on this theory, people must

never lie because lying conflicts with moral reasoning. However, what would be the ‘right’

answer during WWII when Nazi soldiers asked someone to turn over the Jews they were hiding?

Ebertz asserts how one who has reasoned to make the moral choice to protect the innocent lives

of the Jews in this scenario would then be in conflict if he or she subscribed to Kant’s moral

theory. By choosing to protect the Jews, he or she is claiming that it is morally right to protect

innocent people. If he told the truth and did not lie about where the Jews were hiding, he would

be following Kant’s belief, but would also be in conflict when asked to give them up (215).

A contrasting theory to Kant’s reason-based philosophy is defined as utilitarianism. This

belief states at its root that the greatest good in life is pleasure and happiness. This theory is

based on the idea that people desire many things, but they are all desired as a means of arriving

at an ultimate state: in this case, happiness. In other words, people desire money in order to have

what money can give, such as a car, which provides further ability for happiness by providing a

means of spending time with people. This further promotes friendship, which results in

happiness as the greatest good. Happiness is the desired result of something else being sought

after, rather than people desiring happiness as a means of gaining something beyond happiness.

Utilitarianism falls under the category of consequentialist theories, which are derived from

Prosch 6

examining the consequences of actions and basing the ‘rightness’ or ‘wrongness’ off of the end

results.

Practical application of the utilitarian principle involves treating others in a way that will

make them happy rather than unhappy. Normally, no one should feel happy if they get punched

in the face; thus, the right choice would be to not punch them. This analogy can go further in the

idea that if one person were about to cause harm to someone else, it would be right to punch

them in the face if that is the easiest thing to keep them from administrating harm to the second

individual. Ebertz says, “Utilitarianism also explains the reason why we should behave

differently in different cultures. What produces happiness in my own country may well produce

unhappiness in another, so I must learn the culture and adjust if I am going to do the right thing”

(211). Some critical aspects to this theory arise; however, because utilitarianism considers only

the consequences of actions to determine whether something is right or wrong. The medical

dilemma a doctor encounters when he discovers a healthy patient that is a perfect match for five

other unhealthy patients is a classic example found in many cases of critical reviews towards

utilitarianism involves the; the only problem is, the doctor will need to kill the healthy patient

involuntarily in order to take his organs and give them to the five unhealthy patients. This

scenario presents a dilemma for the utilitarian model because an opposing argument would

question why it is right to deprive the one healthy patient of his own happiness by killing him.

Altruism is the most opposing theory to the others I have talked about because it first

proposes action that will benefit someone other than the one taking the action. Rutgers

University Professor Robert Trivers explains in his article, “The Evolution of Reciprocal

Altruism,” how this is usually done at the expense of the person taking the action to benefit

another person, and no consideration is taken for the individual’s own safety. An example of

Prosch 7

altruistic behavior would be for someone to jump in front of a moving car to save another person

from being run over, with no thought of whether the first person would be safe or not.

To give an extreme example of altruism, the Bible most correlates with altruistic actions

in many different ways. In the New Testament, Jesus Christ suffers and dies on the cross and

tells his followers before his death that he must die so that they can be saved. “Thus it is written,

that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance and

forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem”

(English Standard Version, Luke 24.46). In other words, he took the punishment that everyone

else deserved, knowing it would be best for others in the long run even if he initially needed to

suffer on the cross.

Altruism’s only negative connotation appears to be the fact that the one making the

sacrificial choice typically must suffer for it since it is an action being taken in order to avoid a

negative action being suffered by another person. The egoist, for example, could take advantage

of someone who is willing to suffer for them and willingly accept the other person’s offer in

order to avoid suffering himself. For example, a rich individual displaying altruistic sympathy is

approached by someone who truthfully tells them he is homeless and cannot provide food for his

family. By following the guidelines of altruism, the giver may suffer financial loss himself due to

needing the money to provide for his own family.

Another contrasting theory to utilitarianism is egoism, which is similar except that it calls

for the greatest happiness of the person doing the action rather than the person who it will affect

the most. This philosophy focuses on protecting the self above all else. Whatever will cause

greatest individual happiness should be sought after, regardless of unhappiness caused to others

Prosch 8

in the pursuit of it. A balance should be in place for a society to be able to function and enjoy

life. While a society in which no happiness is allowed would fail because of a lack of enthusiasm

for life, happiness should not be considered the highest standard by which to judge right or

wrong behavior. A balance needs to be understood in order not only for the majority to thrive,

but that the individual is not exploited in the process. This happens when a morality is accepted,

allowing all people to enjoy life through not only making choices that will make them happy, but

also taking care to make others happy as best they can through their actions.

Prosch 9

Chapter 2: Current Clues to Relative Trends

From my observations, egoism seems to have picked up speed in the last several decades

as individualism has grown and the personal desires of people trump their consideration of

others. Throughout my college years, I have participated in many classroom discussions in which

my peers and I discussed various moral issues. The subjective ideas touted by the majority of my

classmates tell me that young people today believe egoistically. One such discussion concerning

the conscience and morals happened not long ago.

My class was seeking to understand whether people had control over their consciences or

if it was something sub-conscious, in which people acted without making a moral choice. One

classmate sat thinking for a minute before he began, “Well, see…I don’t believe there is one way

of doing things that is either right or wrong. I mean, I think we can all make good choices…I

don’t look at the world as being black and white. It’s kind of like, well…like grey. Everything

fades together and mixes together.” When questioned about whether or not it was wrong for

Hitler to exterminate the Jews based on what he thought was right, this classmate squirmed

uncomfortably. “Well, it was wrong for them to be killed if they were innocent…” His voice

trailed off. Within thirty seconds, he realized he had never considered the opposite side of the

“grey world” he believed in and had to admit that there are some things that should be viewed as

black and white, or right and wrong.

I recall another discussion in which we were again discussing Hitler’s ensuing destruction

of lives during WWII. I sat in silent shock as I listened to a classmate argue that because

Heinrich Himmler was seeking the good for the best of society he was doing good because he

was taking action towards what would create a better race. My classmate concluded by saying

Prosch 10

that Himmler was a good man because he was seeking the best for society. This argument,

representing exactly the same idea as the first example, shows the dangerous mentality that

society will continue moving towards if young people are not challenged to think twice about

morally right and wrong choices in what they consider to be a subjectively grey world.

Each of the moral theories I have portrayed are important because they all lend a

perspective to different options of interpreting right and wrong actions. In some cases, actions

based off of each of these theories can be morally right. In other cases, the actions can be morally

wrong. Consideration must happen whenever a moral decision is made. It cannot be simply

based off of one moral theory each time because each has its flaws. When young people choose

to make decisions off of their egoistic thinking, they can create harmful situations for others

because they are operating off of what is best for themselves as individuals and not considering

any consequences that could affect others because of their actions.

Based off of several interviews with young people in the United States that are recorded

in Christian Smith’s book, Lost in Transition: The Dark Side of Emerging Adulthood, a large

percentage of them do not even understand the concept of morality or what it means when

applied to their belief system.

… (Emerging adults) told us that different cultures believe and teach very

different things morally, and that morality therefore is nothing more than

subjective personal opinion or cultural consensus at any given point in time. What

people take to be morality, in these emerging adults’ view, has no real, objective,

natural, or universal basis outside of people’s minds. Morality is purely a social

construction” (27).

Prosch 11

This quote displays the prevalent thought among young people that morality is based on any

different cultural tradition anyone chooses, and is subject to change at any time. Depending on

whatever the young person chooses to believe, they will accept it as true and usually fail to

examine it more deeply in order to see if it can be held up to the standards of what right and

wrong morals are defined as. Interestingly, the dictionary definition of morality is exactly the

opposite of this.

Unfortunately, the definition of morality can be confusing today because young people

fail to understand right and wrong, often reducing the meaning of it down to their own individual

understanding of it. Right and wrong are not accepted as having one foundation on which all

actions are accorded to be right or wrong; today’s common belief is that right and wrong can be

mixed together and still be good, that positive feelings dictate what actions are right, and

negative feelings dictate what is wrong. Others use the issue of the consequences they will suffer

after the action to determine the actions they choose to do based not on whether they think the

action is wrong but whether or not they will get caught and need to suffer the consequence

afterwards.

It may be helpful to think more deeply about the terms right and wrong. In the Old

Testament of the Bible, Solomon, the King of Israel, asks God for wisdom when he says, “So

give your servant a discerning heart to govern your people and to distinguish between right and

wrong. For who is able to govern this great people of yours?" (English Standard Version, 1

Kings 3:9). Solomon is not just hinting that he is afraid of making a wrong decision as king; he is

saying that without help from God, he will not be able to do right.

Prosch 12

The thought process and belief system in college-age people today is important to

consider on a larger scale because it lays the foundation for the societal practices which will be

established for the future. For instance, because relativism today calls for each viewpoint to be

considered as equally correct as an opposing viewpoint, who is to say that murder is not right to

some people? Who sets the standard for what we as a society establish or change concerning

laws of the land? One hundred years from now, who is not to say that murder is only wrong if

the victim was a valued, contributing member of society?

Prosch 13

Chapter 3: The Hunger Games

With these developments in mind, I thought one interesting perspective of current

society’s moral views might be seen through the eyes of literature. Recently, the wildly popular

trilogy The Hunger Games was released. The plot structure to the fictional story by Suzanne

Collins has young people being put into an arena to fight to the death for the enjoyment of the

rest of society. Because of the similarity in context to the barbaric practices in ancient Rome of

gladiators fighting to the death in front of hundreds of cheering audience members, this story is a

chilling read when considering that it is set in the future. For an older reader who understands the

underlying moral themes of altruism and egoism in the story, the book can leave one haunted

with the thought of society being reduced to everyone cheering for children to hunt and murder

each other. For the younger reader who has perhaps not been exposed to the moral dilemmas

presented in the story, he or she may simply consider the glory and excitement of being part of

the fictional society’s nihilistic practice of murdering others for self-preservation.

The horrific portrayal of brutal narcissism as seen in The Hunger Games gives rise to the

important question, ‘who defines the standards for what a member of society really contributes to

be considered valuable?’ Governments can define certain standards of behavior through laws in

order to protect life and help everyone to function in the most beneficial way possible as a part of

the greater community. If people do not abide by the law in place, they are punished with

consequences which the government has established through their laws.

If the common belief of young people today is to believe whatever makes them feel

happy, there is no defining rule to say that something that makes them feel happy goes against

the best interest of society as a whole. Therefore, if it makes someone happy to commit murder,

Prosch 14

by this formula they would be able to argue that the egoism seen in The Hunger Games is good

and that they are doing right by celebrating murder because it allows them to experience the

greatest happiness. Currently, society calls these people sociopaths. Hopefully it has become

apparent why evaluating the thought process of young people is important. By ignoring it, we

could very well be setting our future generations up for disaster if we continue to teach young

people that anything goes as far as what they want to believe.

Prosch 15

Chapter 4: The Giver

In her novel The Giver, Lois Lowry depicts a society where the old, sick, and supposedly

“worthless” people who are unable to contribute to society are done away with. Everything is

perfect because no one needs to sacrifice anything. They all do just enough work so that they are

all happy, and all their needs are provided for. This utilitarian society in The Giver is watched

over by a seemingly ‘big brother’ entity which makes sure everyone is doing their fair share of

contribution for the good of the entire community. No one has free choice because they are all in

subjection to the dictates of the rulers behind the scenes.

In The Giver, death is a phenomenon treated in a seemingly painless way. I find this

compelling because Lowry portrays a society in which murder has become an obscure term.

Death, called ‘Release,’ is applied to the elderly as well as to infants who are not meeting growth

standards. By using a euphemism and calling murder ‘release’ instead, a subtle hint can be seen

at brainwashing the society even further by calling it by another name to keep them from

figuring out that it is murder. Up until the point when Jonas becomes a receiver of memories for

his community, he has accepted the practice of ‘release’ as a necessity for the utilitarian push in

his society without understanding that it really implies murder. It is interesting to consider how

Jonas realizes it is murder as he watches his father, a designated Nurturer of infants, dispose of

the ‘inadequate’ baby. This is shown in the sentence describing Jonas’s memory of war.

With an odd, shocked feeling, Jonas recognized the gestures and posture and

expression. They were familiar. He had seen them before. But he couldn’t

remember where…Once again, as he had on the playing field, he felt the choking

sensation. Once again he saw the face of the light-haired, bloodied soldier as life

Prosch 16

left his eyes. The memory came back. He killed it! My father killed it! Jonas said

to himself, stunned at what he was realizing (150).

This shows the altruistic implications of Jonas’ horror he feels upon seeing his father’s barbaric

actions, even though he has grown up his entire life not knowing that murder exists. The quote

reveals how the concept of right and wrong has been written on men’s hearts by God as seen in

the Bible. “For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to

them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature have been clearly

perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are

without excuse” (English Standard Version, Romans 1:19). This verse means that no matter what

actions man decides are right or wrong, ultimately there is a moral code which humans must

answer to.

This verse would also imply that Jonas’ father, even though he had been taught that

‘release’ was right, deep down knew that he was committing wrong by murdering the baby

because God’s moral code was written on his heart. This was why Jonas, upon watching the

death of the baby, immediately knows right from wrong because of his conscience. One

interpretation of Jonas’ father is that he is simply a product of his society and thereby innocent

because he does not know he is doing something wrong. However, if this position is examined

thoroughly enough, it can be arrived at the conclusion that Jonas’ father is doing good by killing

the baby if he believes he is doing right. This is because, if his father is innocent by the fact that

he does not know killing the baby is wrong, then his actions cannot be evil because he believes

them to be right and good. Obviously, Jonas’ father believed he was doing right. Anyone who

considers this argument must realize the fallacy in this argument. If I eat poison and do not know

I am eating poison, the fact remains that I am eating poison.

Prosch 17

Jonas’ community was collectively conditioned to accept life without questioning

authority because they very slowly had their rights taken away while not even realizing it. They

ultimately ended up being a dull, unimaginative society that could not think for themselves and

only operated off of what they thought was best for the community as a whole. They were spoon-

fed whatever they wanted to think about or feel, in order to never create division between

themselves or offend each other. When society’s greatest worry is to not offend anyone, we can

be spoon fed to believe anything as well.

Prosch 18

Chapter 5: An Objective Moral Code

The idea of doing away with worthless people does not line up with the Bible because

God does not say to ‘do away’ with the seemingly worthless. He says to love and care for them.

If God did not tell us to rid society of people who need extra help, is it not a little extreme to

think that taking matters into our own hands is okay? Does it not make much more sense to

choose to sacrifice for those who cannot sacrifice for others? This is where a different type of

utopia comes into play: through self-sacrificing for another human being, we are showing the

greatest perfection we are capable of attaining in this life: sacrificial love, as seen here: “Greater

love has no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends” (English Standard Version,

John 15:13). This does not necessarily mean to literally die for someone, although that has been

the case hundreds of times over the course of life on earth. ‘Laying your life down’ can also be a

metaphor in the sense that we are literally laying our own desires down in order to help someone

else and make their life better. This is the truest representation of altruism because dying for

someone else is the ultimate self-sacrifice that a person can make because they lose their own life

in doing so.

The idea of creating a perfect world in which nothing wrong ever happens has been

dreamed of and articulated through story-form by many people in several ways. One of the most

chilling large-scale attempts to create a real-world utopian society happened within the last

century when Hitler came into power in Germany. His utilitarian goal was to create a perfect

world by ridding society of those who encumbered the ability for civilization to advance. He

voiced his barbaric mentality when he said in Mein Kampf, “The sacrifice of personal existence

is necessary to secure the preservation of the species” (198). Hitler is implying by this quote that

those who do not contribute to the well-being of society must be removed. He carried out the evil

Prosch 19

thesis of this final solution by exterminating millions of innocent individuals in his attempt to rid

the world of those whom he personally despised.

Prosch 20

Final Conclusion:

Based off of the examples as seen in the moral theories and their different flaws, as well as what

is seen in the literary texts, The Hunger Games and The Giver, it can be concluded that all

societies, either real or fictionally representing the real, will continue to be flawed if they do not

view the world in a black and white sort of way, instead accepting a ‘grey’ mentality in which

any idea is accepted as objective truth. The Bible is the best way of looking at morality because

it lays the foundation for what are good and evil deeds: For example, one of the Ten

Commandments in the Bible is “Do not murder” (English Standard Version, Exodus 20:13). ‘Do

not’ means no ifs, ands, or buts of any kind. Many societies are in danger of forgetting this rule,

and others, by disengaging morals from the equation.

Hitler did not set out to kill millions of innocent people; he just wanted a perfect society,

and it just so happened that millions of people got in the way of that goal. Making his focus

something seemingly good, i.e. a quest for a perfect race of humans, removed much of the

necessary atrocity at the first thought of murdering millions. Literary examples representing

possible realities of societal thinking such as The Giver show non-contributors being “released.”

The Hunger Games shows murder of the innocent as a necessary punishment for past rebellion of

the districts, playing on the word ‘game’ in the title of the book and portraying the characters in

the story enjoying the murders being carried out. In order to not run the risk of eventually falling

for the same type of ultra-utilitarianism and forgetting the rights of individuals in the process,

young people need to stake a claim in a black and white moral code. Throughout the ages,

morality has been a hotly debated issue as individuals seek to advance many different images of

right versus wrong behavior. Only when the consequences of history are examined can today’s

Prosch 21

young people realize that owning their own objective truth is important in today’s subjective

culture in order for the lives of all people to be valued and protected.

Prosch 22

Bibliography

Trivers, Robert L. “The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism.” The Quarterly Review of Biology.

Vol. 46, No. 1 (Mar. 1971) pp. 35-57. The University of Chicago Press. Web.

JSTOR. Accessed 29/04/2012.

Collins, Suzanne. The Hunger Games. New York: Scholastic, 2008. Print.

Lowry, Lois. The Giver. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1993. Print.

The Holy Bible. English Standard Version. Wheaton: Crossway Bibles, 2003. Print.

Smith, Christopher, Kari Christoffersen, Hilary Davidson, and Patricia Snell Herzog. Lost in

Transition: The Dark Side of Emerging Adulthood. Print.

Hitler, Adolf. Mein Kampf. Internet Archive. May 2, 2012.

http://archive.org/stream/meinkampf035176mbp/meinkampf035176mbp_djvu.txt

Ebertz, Roger. Environmental Perspectives. Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt Publishers, 2009. Print.