LITR 4232 American Renaissance 2010 final exam—Answers to Question B2

Jennifer Martin

Mosaic Morality

          A topic like morality is so sensitive it is difficult for people to discuss without passion and unfortunately without judgment. The mass of people that put morality into a box and label it moral absolutism angers and exclude people leaving people divided and without a common understanding of how to deal with complex issues. The same is equally true about the mass of people who extend moral relativism to everyone they meet. In the end nothing is accomplished, and while people may not be as angry as they are with moral absolutism they become a flaccid group of people without action toward anything moral or otherwise. Little understanding is gained and no action is made when either side functions out of these kinds of morality.  No one wins, if anything everyone loses. Morality can only truly be understood and then applied when there is a mixture of both views within the scope of complexity. After all, complex problems involve complex solutions. I envision a mosaic when I consider the vastness of morality. The collaboration of views, opinions and feelings must be considered when morality is discussed. It cannot be censored and it cannot be casual. It is an element that exists to keep humanity from destroying itself and therefore must be taken seriously and applied carefully.  When I consider the readings that illustrate this point I think “The Wound Dresser”, “The Gettysburg Address” and “A House Divided” highlight the duality of morality best. All of these works are about war and neither of them fully champion or disavow the practice of it. They approach war in the shades of grey in which it lives both necessary at times but with horrific consequences.

          “The Wound Dresser” by Walt Whitman is an excellent example of morality as it applies to the moral dilemma of war. In the poem Whitman describes “the mightiest armies on earth” of “unsurpassed heroes” and “sieges tremendous”. However, “while the world of gain and appearance and mirth foes on; so soon what is over forgotten and waves wash the imprints off the sand”; Whitman is eager to cast off the ephemeral and focus on the eternal pain of war “where their priceless blood reddens the grass the ground”. In this piece children are asking Whitman for tales of valor, bravery and romance and what he gives them is an up-close account of what really happens on the battle field or the price of war. He does not condemn the act of war or those who decided to create the war he simply gives the reader a fuller description of war that paints an ugly yet sublime scene. His last lines; “I sit by the restless all the dark night, some are so young, some suffer so much, I recall the experience sweet and sad” evoke the image of beautiful youth among staggering death; this is a dual image of war within the dual sides of morality.

          “The Gettysburg Address” by Abraham Lincoln does the same thing that “The Wound Dresser” did for Whitman. Lincoln takes the issue of war and cannot place it in moral category either. It is neither active nor passive but simply a reality in which both sides work within a crucible of moral complexities. He is both supportive of war but genuinely affected by the price that was paid. This is keenly evident in the second paragraph when he says, “We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live”.  That same point is hammered home again in the short speech during the last paragraph. “The great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain”. Again Lincoln acknowledges not only that the cause of the war was an important one but also the tragedy of the outcome of it. Both are valuable to him and both are necessary.

          Similarly, Lincoln does it again in his “House Divided Speech”.  The country went to war over slavery and slavery remained a highly divisive issue. However, when working around the moral question of slavery he does not point the finger; he simply realizes that without unity of opinion regarding slavery there will be no end to the problem. His point in all of the heated views on that issue revolved around a biblical quote which he said at the beginning of his speech. “A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved; I do not expect the house to fall; but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other”. This quote is an elegant response to the very issue of morality and how people should employ it. It is not one side or the other but rather a compromise of both.

          The coming together of both sides is what makes morality difficult. Neither side wants to bend to the other side; however, neglecting to do so almost always ends in stalemate or tragedy. If morality can be combined with both sides offering their best elements that compromise can be realized and a better path can be taken.  Without a compromise of ideas there is nothing left but destruction. Destruction leads to fragments, broken people and broken ideals; pieces without a purpose.

          The beautiful thing about mosaics is that it takes pieces and makes them useful again; it creates art out of chaos. Pieces can be molded and fitted together with the right design in place. People are capable of taking something a real as war with all its moral divisiveness and turning it into something that can be unifying if a compromise is designed to employ it.  Moral mosaics can be produced if there is a compromise between moral absolutes and moral carelessness.