Stanford students possess an intellectual vitality. Reflect on an idea or experience that has been important to your intellectual development. (250 word limit.)
I am a self-proclaimed cultural fanatic. But even more so, a morality freak. Concepts of right and wrong never fail to engage me as does diversity. Having traveled a good deal in recent years, I have hybridized these two obsessions and a new fixation has arisen: The Cultural Basis of Relative Morality.
For years I was a staunch believer in absolute morality, a standpoint only fortified by my Christian upbringing. However, investigations of diversity formed observations and, from those observations, questions. Lots of them. For example, why was spitting on the ground "wrong" in America but routinely acceptable in China? The answer here was simple: Culture. But that raised yet another inquiry: Can there be moral variation within a uniform culture? It is this that piqued my interest. How can right and wrong vary based on the individual? How is it that "Thou shalt not kill" is preached daily and yet our pastor's son is a soldier?
The answer is context. Every action has a time and place that deems it moral or immoral in context, a concept otherwise known as relative morality. Initially this sounds like an excuse but it is undeniably practical. Absolutism is predictable and mankind has consistently proven itself to be anything but predictable. Perhaps it is ideal but relative morality is necessary as circumstantial variances form the basis of diversity. Nonetheless, absolutism unites us in humanity. Now a new issue has emerged: Which is more important, diversity or humanity? For what is humanity without diversity?
Does the essay make sense and is it even slightly convincing? Also- are there too many questions? They fit fine before but now it seems a little like a rhetoric overdose.. I had some trouble cutting an original essay down to meet the 250 word limit and am not quite sure that it flows/is cohesive anymore :\ Please help!