Last updated on March 1, 2016
Submitted By: Brent West, Accounting Major, Senator-at-large, SGA
My name is Brent West, an Accounting Student as well as current Senator-at-large for the SGA.
“A prime example of a waste-of-breath argument is any argument over a moral issue.” I came across this quote from your editorial and I respectfully disagree.
If we are to progress as a society, we must answer moral questions. In order to answer those questions, however, we must have moral arguments that are based upon sound logical reasoning. We would fail in our duty to find objective moral truth if we simply labeled such arguments “…a waste-of-breath…”.
You state also that “…morals vary from person-to-person…” and “Typically, a person’s moral argument is based on their own opinions…” but a person’s opinions are not infallible. To suggest that people’s opinions are infallible would be to say that someone is incapable of being wrong (and if that is the case, I would need my professors to correct some grades).
We open ourselves up to accepting whatever people do if we take a laissez-faire approach to moral arguments. With technological advances giving us the ability to design human babies to our liking, track our physiological data, and create weapons that could destroy regions in an instant, it is increasingly important that we answer these morally questionable areas with sound logical reasoning.
I understand that online discourse achieve little on these issues, but this doesn’t mean we should dismiss altogether the importance of these moral arguments. We, as students, will one day be in the workforce, moving forward and shaping the society we live in, a society that will have even more moral questions to answer in the future. The success or failure of our society rests on how we answer those questions, and that, my fellow peer, is no waste of breath!