The other day I was getting in line at the airport. I got in the back of the line, as one does. However, my dad decided to sneak ahead and cut in front of someone who wasn’t paying attention. As I was giving him grief for that, a lady cut even closer to the front than my dad had. He pointed her out, justifying his actions with the excuse, “Hey, at least I didn’t cut as bad as she did.” This raised the question in my mind: when did other people become our moral standard?

Everyone has a moral compass of some sort. Most humans have a similar moral compass as each other. Those who don’t are usually labelled sociopaths. The question is: where do morals come from?

Americans believe that compassion for the underdog is a good thing, however the culture of India does not promote this same concept. Americans think that murder is wrong, yet ancient Aztecs believed it was perfectly fine, if not even good, to sacrifice humans. With such a variety in morals all over the world, do moral absolutes, a moral that applies to all humans at all times, even exist?

A common belief today is that everyone creates their own morality. I might think it’s immoral to curse, yet my friend might think it’s just fine. According to popular culture, I shouldn’t “force my morality” on my friend by telling them that cursing is wrong. Everyone has their own morals and should be allowed to do what they want. Right?

At initial glance, some people might consider this good. They would rally behind the idea that you can’t force your morals upon someone. But what about someone like...Hitler. I know, I know. Everyone refers to Hitler in an argument about morality, but for good reason! What’s the difference between telling someone they can’t cuss and they can’t mass murder 6 million Jews? There is a difference of course: mass murdering 6 million Jews has a significantly detrimental impact on someone other than the person doing the action. That seems to be the defining issue for Americans when push comes to shove: you can do whatever you want until it starts hurting someone else.

It’s illegal to smoke inside public buildings because of the effects of secondhand smoke, but it’s legal to smoke in one’s own home. It’s legal to own a gun and shoot it, but not to shoot it at someone. These are but two precedents where Americans follow this idea. If a congressman were to try to pass legislation prohibiting a certain action, he or she would have to show that it causing a negative impact on society.

But where did this idea come from? Why is it morally wrong to hurt others? (I’m not arguing that it isn’t, by the way. I’m just asking why it is.) If someone’s morality dictated that they could hurt someone else, would it be moral for them to do that? Why or why not? Think about it for a second and leave a comment. I want to know what people think on the issue, so I can write a follow-up article.