OCR Text |
Show 8 WEDNESDAY, MARCH 22. THE DAILY UTAH CHRONICLE 2000 Definitions of Morality Evolve With Society Editor Morality is variable. It is not inherent in human nature, but a reflection of a society's popular standards. What is mora! in one culture, take mercenary vengeance in the Middle Ages for instance, may constitute the most heinous crime in another society merely a few hundred miles or a few hundred years away. Steven W. Rose's assertion in his March jo column that morality "exists in and of itself and cannot be changed to fit human whim" is ignorant. What is morality if not a reflection of a culture's perceptions? American views on sexual morality in particular are rapidly changing. The traditional American opinion that "sexual activity outside the chosen bonds of marriage is immoral and should not be practiced" is ouidated and invalid. Puritans put women to de?.th for such activities, but currently Eighteenth-centur- y enforced tews ailow it between two senting adults. This legal modification can only be attributed to a social fall from grace if we y continue to judge society by i8th-cent:r- standards. Our laws evolve parallel to our society's standards, and one must not leap to the conclusion that society is immoral just because she or he disagrees with the direction of its evolution. Marriage today does not necessarily imply morality, nor does its absence imply immorality. Marriage is merely a traditional, religious and legally recognized promise between two people of the opposite sex. If cohabitation and sexual activity between unmarried couples are "now more prevalent than ever in our society," perhaps it is not due to mass social immorality but to the fact that more couples are finding the tradition unsuitable long-standi- NCAA ANSMAL RSGHTS continued from paqe 7 continued from page 7 player, the NCAA should retain the current rule allowing four years of free from interference, so too do the animals have the right to be given this equal consideration. Whether the government reflects these beliefs is another issue entirely. Duncan states that he "agrees with the princiadvocates fight against." ples that animal-right- s He tells us, however, that human beings are the first priority. I would agree. Human beings are my first priority, to be sure. Just as the American North in. i860 felt that, while white people were their first priority, black people should be granted the same rights as them. Believing that humans are the first priority doesn't interfere in any way with the belief that animals have the same right to live, breath and die free from deliberate human intervention. I find it immensely frustrating when people tell me that they agree with what I believe in, and yet don't take small,- - simple measures in then" lifestyles to reflect this belief. Someone who believes that we shouldn't destroy the earth makes the simple decision to reduce, reuse and recycle resources. This person would drive less or not at all) and make the least impact possible on the planet. Those who believe in human rights spend their dollars more wisely. They don't purchase products from the Gap, or other corporations which (ab)use child labor. The person who "agrees with the principles that animal-righadvocates would not eat meat (produced in fight against" factory farms the suffering is apparent), would playing eligibility in Division I. Making these changes would not harm college basketball in any way. Not only would it cut down on the d incidence of scandals, but it's simply more in line with economic realities. History has shown us that if you try to undcrpricc a valuable commodity, it will soon be gone from the legitimate market and will instead be traded underground. The same thing has happened with the NCAA. By refusing to compensate players closer to their true worth, the NCAA has allowed many 'of its best players to be subvened and paid under the table. As you're watching the NCAA basketball tournaments, try to keep in mind that the players are not being (legally) paid for their performances. Is it because they don't play great ball and electrify the crowds? Or is it because the NCAA exploits athletes in exchange for a tantaliz-ingl- y small chance at playing in the NBA? Personally, I think it's the latter, and I'll show you 6.2 billion reasons to believe it too. money-relate- - con- ts "Why don't they nuke a commitment to each other and get married? Differing reli- gious beliefs, rocia restraints, economic hardships and legal refusal as in the case of homosexuals are a few valid res sons, but none of these cases seem particularly "promiscuous' by nature. Furthermore, beyond the realm of sexual morality these couples nay not appear any morally different from the classic married, heterosexual couple. How, then, does the absence of marriage imply that they are unfit parents? It doesn't. These new, morally healthy families are just indications of a changing society, continuously melding cultures and beliefs and abando:ing unsuitable traditions. Reducing the adoption issue to ;:he aspect is necessary because they are the only couples to which the law does not extend the option of marriage, Thus, the recent legislation seems an attack on homo gay-righ- UNDERGRADUATE AND GRADUATE SICK AND TIRED OF THE TRASH YOU READ IN THE CHRONICLE? OK, WISE GUY (GAL) TAKE YOUR BEST... WORLDWIDE There's no time to lose, JENNIFER STAUFFER Sopncmors, Computer Science ever day of malnutrition. While the reasons behind those deaths are more political than anything else, the availability of more food globally has to have some impact. Meat is an inefficient use of resources, as the cow, chicken or pig eats food, wasting up to 90 percent of the protein, vitamins and minerals that are within food, I might add, that can be eaten by humans at a much lighter cost to the planet. It has been said that if Americans were to cut back on meat consumption by only 10 percent, there would be enough food freed from the industry to feed the starving of the world, year in and year out. It is clear that an animal-right- s agenda is not for of our the beneficial humans only immensely is hold for those it also who to planet, mandatory claim to believe in human rights or environmen-talisrn. great deal about the "tremendous human problems" that afflict our planet. I do everything within my power to prevent these problems. I am an activist before anything else, and as such, these causes are very important to me. However, when 6 billion animals are killed every year in America because we want to eat their flesh and use their bodies for experiments, the animal-right- s movement is the most obvious one in need. A victory in animal rights means a victory in human rights, feminism, environmental-ism- , human health and struggles. Yes, I care a It is the most global problem, and it is one we can win. ERIC WARD Senior, Stage Management R IN THE Tm la:vity of Uta'i Indrpcadcat a t" Student Vohr Sixer tlvc APPLICATIONS If 1 PURSUE JOB A MONIES AVAILABLE FOR STUDENT FUBLICAT AND INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITIES Funding is available for publications during the SUMMER 2000 to SPRING 2001 academic year. Applications for funding are available from University Union Room 240 during business'hours. THAT SPAN E Please note that priority will be given to printinglayout and mailtnq costs, and can ONLY be used for these purposes! ummim m applications CampusGareefCenter.com Friday March 22, 208 worlds largest campus job lair J 'T7 ...SHOT AT THE MOST POWERFUL STUDENT POSITION ON CAMPUS, OR FOR THAT MATTER THE GALAXY. FOR EDITOR IN CHIEF ARE NOW AVAILABLE IN ROOM 2o$ FOR THE 2000-209- 1 ACADEMIC YEAR. APPLICATIONS MUSI RE TURNED IN MARCH 241H AT 5:00PM ENTER.COM I he .JL JL JL JL t UlAil CHRONIC iJLE T Tm 1 ' for you, age, 40,000 children die not drink milk (also produced in factory farms this is exploitation at its most obvious), and would not wear fur (animals killed for their skin or vanity) or leather (a byproduct of the meat industry). The reader is probably thinking at this point that these simple decisions are too extreme that one can't ask people to "give up so much." But is this so much to ask when these decisions would benefit your health as well as the planet, and when these decisions would help the animals and help humanity? This brings me to the "human-rights- " argument. Duncan Moench makes it sound as though the use of animals by our society is necessary for the benefit of mankind. This reasoning fails to consider what the chief things that threaten our lives as Americans are. "Diseases of the heart" was the biggest killer of Americans in 2997, according to the CDC. In fact, six of the 15 leading causes of death are all significantly influenced by our diet and lifestyle choices. A healthy lifestyle requires he'ahhy food, for which a vegan diet is the healthiest. It is the stance of the Food and Drug Administration that a vegan diet, when properly balanced, is dramatically healthier than the standard American diet of high fat and cholesterol. Nutritional research reveals that even, a "properly balanced" diet of meat and dairy still pales in comparison to the health benefits of a vegan diet (read The Dietitian's Guide to Vegetarian Diets by Mark Messina in the J. Willard Marriott Library). Finally, from a humanitarian point of view, it is grossly offensive to eat. meat vhen people in our nation and other nations starve to death. On aver Edito ATTENTION ts sexuals, shrouded in a moral debate not vice versa. Homosexual couples exhibit no more immorality than other couples, yet they have fewer rights. Of course. Rose says "There is simply no justification for the extension of rights based on the argument of 'Weil. I was born that way," right? Maybe we should ask an African American or perhaps a Japanese American. Maybe a woman could shed some light on the matter. There's no doubt a homosexual could. That statement is the foundation of bigotry. A changing society is nothing to fear. Social evolution is natural and today's society is as morally based as any previous. If you hold on desperately to traditions: and old ideals, don't expect society to wait L nmm 5:00 m |