Response to Becca

Becca asks, "Which do you hold to be more important to you: your morals or your personal relationships? Why?"

I'm not sure that these two things are mutually exclusive. I like to think that I'm able to find a balance between them. Morals are intensely personal and while I think it makes sense to gravitate toward those who share the same views as you, I don't think that you have to place morality above friendship. Tolerance is an important part of friendship because no friend is going to be exactly like you in every way. For example, I'm a vegetarian and I consider my dietarty choice to stem from moral and ethical reasons. However, only two of my friends also exclude meat from their diets. My morals and personal relationships exist side by side so long as nobody tries to push their morals on anyone else.

There are, of course, certain morals or values that make it almost impossible to have personal relationships with people. If you're a staunch Catholic, your best friend is probably not an atheist. There are too many conflicting values within that set of morals for a personal relationship to thrive.

If I had to choose between the two, however, I think that I value my personal relationships more. The fact is that humans are social beings. We want to have relationships with other people. Morals can't keep you warm at night or get you out of a tough spot. You may love your morals, but they can't love you back. This doesn't mean that you have to break your morals for your personal relationships. If the relationship is deep meaningful enough, the other person probably wouldn't ask you to change your morals in the first place. I think the best thing to do is accept that everyone is different and try to live side by side in the best ways we can.

My question is: do you think there will ever be a time when there is a set system of morals in society?