Opinion

 You’re getting ready for your day and picking out an outfit. Right when you think you’ve found the perfect combination from your closet, you stop to think– what is everyone else going to wear? For most, this is a universal experience, ending in half of your wardrobe on the floor and an outfit that just feels wrong. In order to eradicate this frustrating pattern of behavior, we first have to understand where exactly it stems from. In other words, we have to ask– why do we do the things we do? Yes, it’s a cliché question with a million answers, yet it is one of the most important things for us to self-reflect about. According to Saul McLeod, “This change (in behavior) is in response to real (involving the physical presence of others) or imagined (involving the pressure of social norms/expectations) group pressure” (McLeod). Psychologist Stanley Milgram elaborates, “For many people, obedience is a deeply ingrained behavioral tendency, indeed a potent impulse overriding training in ethics, sympathy, and moral conduct” (Milgram). What McLeod and Milgram are explaining is the concept of conformity, obeying an authority, whether direct or imagined, resulting in behaviors or choices that don’t exactly represent our true self and values. The morning clothes conundrum is a rather harmless (though inconvenient) manifestation of this, but it can escalate to an extreme degree. 

In George Orwell’s Shooting an Elephant, we are presented with a story about choosing between our own moral convictions and overriding them due to external pressures. Our narrator is a white police officer in Lower Burma, often subject to insults and disapproval from the people of the town. As part of his duties, he protects the town from an elephant disturbing the peace and hurting the townspeople. When he finds the elephant, however, it is peacefully eating on its own, not interfering with anyone. The narrator is now torn between shooting the elephant while denying his personal values, or leaving it be and making himself look even worse in his audience’s eyes. In the end, succumbing to the pressure, he kills the elephant. Orwell presents an example of how individuals are willing to sacrifice their personal values in the pursuit of aligning themselves with those in perceived positions of power, while Milgram and McLeod explain why this behavior is so common.

Regardless of who you are, you’ll likely be faced with a scenario in which you have to make a similar decision. Though you may not be deciding the fate of another’s life, Milgram and Orwell’s texts should prompt us to think– how unique am I, and everyone for that matter? When we make decisions, how much of it is really our own desires vs. external expectations that drive us to behave the way we do? In America right now, the actions of ICE have caused mass chaos and political upheaval. When I see daily updates on what new horrific event has happened, my heart breaks. I am filled with a mixture of outrage, fear, and sadness. Yet, before I decide to post about it on my Instagram story, I hesitate. I often find myself worrying about what people will think when they see the display of my stance on this issue. My hesitation, and often complete abstinence from speaking out for what I believe in, stems from the intense desire I have to please others.

In the deep dive of my motivations for my choices, I discovered that most, if not all, of my decisions are influenced by the combination of external pressures and my intense value of group cohesiveness and fitting in. Though it is not inherently harmful, making decisions with the intent of blending in with the majority can become dangerous, as seen in Milgram's experiment and Orwell’s dilemma in Shooting an Elephant. Because of my realizations about the true factors that motivate my behavior, I’ve become more mindful and intentional about the choices I make. Am I wearing this outfit, posting this picture, (insert any behavior here), because I think a lot of people will like it? Or am I doing so because I feel it’s a reflection of who I truly want to be? Decentering the opinions of others and focusing on my own values has greatly improved my happiness, confidence, and general quality of life. In such a critical time in our lives, whether it be socially, personally, or on a much larger scale, it’s essential that authenticity becomes the driving force of everything we do. So, next time you find yourself changing your outfit a million times, I encourage you to question why you feel you have to. When the answer is to fit in or please others, I urge you to boldly decide to ignore that voice pushing you to stray from your own values; it may be the first step in becoming the person you were always meant to be. 

Why do you hate me? 

I mean, you experience all the things Black people give you, and you still don’t see us.

You don’t see me, so why do you hate me?

We share our music, our language, our hairstyles, our vibe; we share our world. Yet you still don’t see me. 

You see the color of our skin, the tight curls and coils that sprout from our head, and live for our music. 

You see the dances we make, the sound and our talent that lay in your wake.

But to you, you simply just take. Your ancestors took whatever they pleased, whoever they pleased, and now you continue to take my people for fools. 

“Sharing is Caring.” I’m sure we all have heard this phrase, and to our parents out there, I’m sure this was used plenty of times. A great saying for what it’s worth, teaches not only kids but people that sharing something directly links to empathy and kindness. But when does that line cross from love and empathy to disrespect and misunderstanding?

The lack of effort, understanding, and respect leads to a guaranteed negative perception of Black people and continued social inequality in both a political and social context. 

Why are you allowing racism to become so normalized? As much as I would like to say this surprises me, it has not. The human race's morality is all sorts of complicated, and with the ever-growing media, it has gotten worse. 

We outsource our morality to authority figures and systems, something called delegated responsibility.

Future policies and systems from the past influence social inequality, creating an unequal distribution of things like housing, jobs, health, and more in today’s generation. Technically, Black people are “free,” but policies always have a loophole, and these loopholes restrict the freedom of African Americans from 1865 all the way to 2026. 

These laws and policies are considered the “norm” for society, which influences human behavior to not actively question it. We are not angry enough; we are not doing enough to bring change. Just look at our president right now. Different era, same font. How much longer do we bring our world to entire ruin?

We believe ourselves to be good while participating in harm anyway. TikTok, a popular app, and like most apps, negativity can spread easily when you’re behind a screen.

Kids, how many of you know Charli D’Amelio? Well, what about Jalaiah Harmon? I asked this question to my classmates, and as expected, nobody knew Jalaiah Harmon. We tend to take things at face value, and so the renegade dance that was created by Jalaiah (A black teenager) but got popularized by Charli (A white teenager) was a battle against Black vs White when many non-black users started crediting Charli for a dance she did not create.

 To make it clear, the lack of effort is what causes harm. It was her lack of effort to understand why people were upset. If she decided to credit Jalaiah in the caption in the first place before posting it, I guarantee that it would’ve caused a different reaction. 

Other races have a difficult time saying they pulled inspiration from the Black community. “Keep K-pop Korean” is a phrase that a lot of K-pop fans say. Except, the K-pop they’re referencing was never Korean in the first place. Just because the language is Korean doesn’t erase that their dancing, their clothing style, their hair style, and more importantly, the music was Black. In fact, it’s Black American culture from the ‘90s and early 2000s where many K-pop songs get their influence from. You believe that it's simply just a dance or just music that you’re participating in, but the refusal to understand Black people when they speak out against something that “isn’t a big deal” is the type of harm that contributes to the negative perception of the Black community. 

I say this to raise awareness, but my heart is not in it. I say this to provide insight, but why should I have to? This is something that has been said many times in many lives before me. Whether it's in books, newspapers, or journals, it was written. It has been said. I shouldn’t have to educate you. 

Morality complications continue to cage black individuals the way chains were used to keep slaves in place. Black people may not have slave chains, but police handcuffs seem like an upgraded version. Your justifications, your biases, and systemic policies continue to perpetuate this negative perception of my people. So yes, the Emancipation Proclamation declared slaves are free; yes, to the civil rights movement, but when are we ever going to be truly free of white supremacy? When can we ever experience true freedom? Until we're willing to honestly answer that question, the work isn't done. 

Think back to a time you were offended by another person’s actions. You might have thought that person acted immorally. But what are morals based on, anyway? One must grapple with this question to understand right and wrong. In the 18th century, German philosopher Immanuel Kant put forth a moral theory that has become known as Kantianism. Although controversial (as are all moral theories), it provides a fascinating perspective on the choices we make every day. I will use line cutting as an example of such a choice, arguing that cutting is immoral under the categorical imperative. For fear of spilling details, I will not describe the line that inspired me, but I assure you it is quite relevant to BE students. 

A line is meant to prevent chaos. Because the rules benefit everyone, standers do not consider themselves exempt. But cutters flout the rules. They exploit the standers’ patience and the resulting orderliness to get to the front unchallenged. They increase wait times for everyone behind them, just to shorten their own. So how might we assess this situation from a Kantian point of view? In his book Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant begins by saying that moral laws are “the rational part” of ethics, meaning they are true a priori. In other words, moral laws come from reason alone, not experience.  In this way, they hold for all people and circumstances, something required by “the common idea of duty”—that is, the concept of “ought”. Experience can only establish “practical rules,” not coherent moral laws. 

Through examining the nature of duty, Kant arrives at the categorical imperative, which tells whether an action is moral or immoral. An “imperative” refers to what must be done to reach an end. A maxim is a personal rule for action; according to Kant, a maxim is moral if it can apply universally to all “rational beings,” and an action is moral if it is “objectively necessary of itself.” Kant formulates (words) the categorical imperative in several ways; the first runs like this: “I ought never to act except in such a way that I could also will that my maxim should become a universal law.” To explain, I will apply this principle to cutting. First, the concept of “cutting” is based on the concept of a line. Without a line, “cutting” has no meaning. Similarly, “stealing” depends on the concept of property, and “lying” depends on the expectation of truth. Now, one might usually respect lines, but sometimes cut—for example, when the line grows too long, or when friends are farther up. As a maxim, this might read: “I will cut the line to avoid an inconvenience.” But try making this a universal law! Standing in line requires inconvenience—that is, entering at the back, rather than farther up. If everyone followed the new maxim, the waiting area might end up looking like a line or a disorganized throng, but in any case, it would lack the rule that makes a line work. No “line” could exist. Therefore, “cutting” itself would have no meaning! The initial maxim would be illogical because it is based on a situation that the universalized maxim would destroy. Hence, cutting is immoral.

Kant derives the second formulation of the categorical imperative from the first, and it runs like this: “So act that you use humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means.” Cutters violate this principle when—as I have already mentioned—they exploit standers’ patience. They use standers as mere “means to an end,” to use the common phrase. Kantianism demands that people be treated as ends in themselves, because of their status as rational beings. One may still use people as means while respecting them as ends. If one got permission from everyone behind them, one could cut. But the cutter makes no such effort, ignoring those who are far behind.

 I do not claim to fully understand Kantianism, nor have I fully explained here the logic and metaphysics behind Kant’s practical philosophy. I have not yet given a fair hearing to competing moral theories, such as virtue ethics, utilitarianism, and non-cognitivism. But we all make moral judgements—whether we understand or not! And if I have convinced even one person not to cut lines (doubtful), I suppose that counts for something.