Category: Moral

‘Conscience Hath a Thousand Several Tongues’

‘Morality – like velocity – is relative. The determination of it depends on what the objects around you are doing. All one can do is measure one’s position in relation to them; never can one measure one’s velocity or morality in terms of absolutes.’ This quotation by novelist David Gerrold highlights the inherent nature of morality as being relative. Moral relativism – the notion that morality persists with respect to cultural circumstances, societal paradigms and historical context – undoubtedly forms the foundational pillars of society as its dynamic characteristics remain parallel with the inconsistency of varying moral systems. I’ve aligned myself with this perspective from a very young age. Moral absolutism, per contra, I’ve neglected, as its quiddity remains rationally fallacious and distant from ideals of the modern milieu. It requires principles that emit no exception as it emphasises that there are only single definitive viewpoints and answers to all ethical questions. Indeed there were times when I questioned the verity of moral relativism but all evidence throughout history and across literature asserts to the perpetuity of relativism. Society is fabricated on morality and with changing time comes the changing conscience of different cultural and religious groups in society. It is this very fluidity in context that alludes to moral relativism as being the central perspective on morality.

Some of you may ponder what is morality, anyway? Perhaps understanding the core characteristics of morality and its quintessential facets will allow you to cognise the relative nature of morality. However, in the words of Joan D. Vinge ‘The contradictions are what make human behaviour so maddening and yet so fascinating, all at the same time’, thus I present to you a compilation of what morality is not.

Morality is not black or white – it remains grey. To say it were black or white you must find definitive standards to which all moral acts can be aligned. By extension, you must consider all morals now to have always been moral. For instance, consider cannibalism – a practice exercised and deemed moral by various communities including the Neanderthal primitives, South American Incas and 18th century Fijian tribes. Studies by anthropologists from the University of Pennsylvania show that cannibalism was practiced by 34% of base cultures. If morals were absolute, the relevancy of such an ideal must prevail amongst contemporary cultures and the context of the act must be neglected. However, it isn’t. This analogy fails to persist.

Morality is not an ideal that remains constant – it remains variable with the progression of time. Each era invites a new palette of societal morals that are an amalgamation of previously reigned principles and newer ethics. Namely, morality runs parallel to evolution.

Morality is not divorced from the happenings of its epoch. Notably, history evinces that shifts in epochs govern one’s individual moralities as well as the overarching moral concerns of society. Simply, the relativistic nature of morality is the key ingredient underpinning its ability to transition with time reflecting the very essence of human nature.

Morality is not a universal identity; something apparent in the relativistic representation of morality throughout classical literature and its appropriations.

Because morality is not black and white, not an ideal that remains constant not divorced from the happenings of its epoch and not a universal identity – morality is not absolute. Morality is relative. It is this, which I wish to convey.

It was from the tender age of six that the undeniable poise of moral relativism was brought to my attention. I had seen the The Voyage of Life painting series at the National Gallery of Art. I remember viewing them in awe but then they meant little to me as neither did I appreciate them nor was I able to comprehend their intrinsic significance. Nonetheless, looking at them now the paintings clearly depict our changing personal moral senses as we progress from childhood to old age and hence assert that morals undergo modifications.

It is also crucial to note that morals are a mere reflection of the historical context from which they have stemmed only to be cemented by globalisation. For example, the secular morals of the postmodern era were a reaction to orthodoxical modernist morals. This evidently conveys the inherent dynamic nature of morals as being directly influenced by the traits of their respective generations. Progressing generations too, are marked by shifts in time. This mutual evolutionary link between society and morality highlights their interdependency and confirms concepts of their coexisting character. Thus, it is this very link that verifies morality to exist in relation to historical context. Over a century ago, Charles Darwin supported this claim in his 1871 book The Descent of Man stating, ‘I fully subscribe to the judgment of those writers who maintain that of all the differences between man and the lower animals, the moral sense or conscience is by far the most important.’ His Theory of Evolution proposes that morality is a by-product of evolution and the primary constituent underpinning the progression of periods. It is this undivided nexus between evolution and morality that channels my sentiment to consider morality to be culturally conditioned.

Nevertheless, if morality was absolute then regardless of the context of an act, if it is deemed moral once, it must always be deemed moral. Speaking with reason, I have found this to be profoundly flawed. Evaluate the tradition of foot-binding practiced in Eastern Asia from the 10th to 20th century. Or consider bloodsport, an extreme sport held for entertainment across Roman amphitheatres in the 4th century. Or assess the regulation of leisure driven executions in 7th century Western Europe. Upon their performance, these acts were considered moral. If morality was absolute, then the foundational traits of the acts should be accepted openly in a modern context. However, they are not. This undeniably emphasises the prevalence of moral relativism.

Notably, the evidence for moral relativism extends to literature too. Specifically, the reimagining of William Shakespeare’s 1592 historical play King Richard the Third (KRIII) by Al Pacino in his 1996 docudrama Looking for Richard (LFR) expresses the dissonance and dichotomy between the morals of their respective epochs. Shakespeare caters for his Elizabethan audience by subscribing to their attitudes concerning providentialism and the Great Chain of Being. Contrastingly, Pacino directs LFR with a temporal focus to align with the secular morals of his postmodern-American audience. This variance in the foundation morals presented counters absolutism. Further the following opinion in LFR’s opening vox populi, ‘I’ve read it [KRIII] aloud and it made no sense because there was no connection made.’ is one I personally comply with. It transparently displays the irrelevancy of Elizabethan mores to contemporary cultures and evinces relativism. While Shakespeare explores morals associated with pre-determination, Pacino portrays profane principles. It is through this discrepancy that the certainty of moral relativism arises.

All in all, via a close analysis of morality through history, our evolutionary traits and morality across literature, it becomes most certainly evident that morality is relative. I wish to conclude with the words of Martin Luther King Jr. ‘The time is always right to do what is right’.

Note what he says governs our perception of what it is to do right. Time.

Reflection Statement

Studying Margaret Atwood’s persuasive speech Spotty-Handed Villainesses has significantly influenced my writing decisions and the style of my persuasive speech ‘Conscience Hath a Thousand Several Tongues’ in which I’ve expressed my perspective on moral relativism. In an attempt to convince her audience of the misrepresentation of women in literature, Atwood opted to write a speech as the primary objective of a speech is to convenience. For the like motive of persuading my audience, of academic demography, to consider morals to be relative I have also written in the form of an esoteric registered speech.

Atwood also uses a range of structural features to communicate her attitude including periodically varying her paragraph and sentence length. For example, ‘So does the novelist. But the critic starts on Day Seven.’ Through reading her text it became evident that the shorter a paragraph or sentence, the greater the emphasis placed on its core concept. I’ve emulated this structural choice across my writing wherever I aimed to make an impactful point. For example, my following truncated sentences, ‘Morality is not absolute. Morality is relative. It is this, which I wish to convey.’ provides relief from the prior dense content and acts to accentuate my thesis.

Furthermore, through her use of hypophora, Atwood is able to effectively reignite the audience’s attention by posing a rhetorical question and then addressing it with her stance. Likewise, to convey my opinion I have implemented hypophora as I ask my responders ‘Some of you may ponder what is morality, anyway?’ My use of inclusive language, ‘you’, explicitly addresses my audience and assists to captures their attention. I’ve then judiciously responded to the rhetorical within the context of relativism. By mirroring Atwood’s use of this technique I am able to stress my subject and encourage responders to evaluate their definition of morality. Moreover, Atwood is able to create controlled emphasis through the application of repetition and anaphora. She specifically applied this technique upon defining a novel and commences multiple paragraphs with ‘Novels are not…’. Via this she had conjured a sense of validity for her points and pathos within her audience. To evoke a similar sense of pathos within my responders I have also utilised anaphora upon defining what morality is whereby I begin several consecutive paragraphs with ‘Morality is not…’. By adopting this technique I have been able to meaningfully direct my audience to consider my justification for moral relativism.

The novel “Of Mice and Men ” by John Steinbeck tells the tale of two men, George and Lennie, who are opposite, but they travel together, unlike other migrant workers. When settling into a ranch near the Salinas River, they find themselves among many lonely characters, one being Curley’s wife. The two men discover that the pleasure of companionship is not to be taken granted for and is truly a pleasure. Steinbeck teaches us that one cannot fully understand happiness without first knowing sadness.

Throughout the novel, many of the men on the ranch are lonesome in their way. However, Steinbeck better portrays the theme of loneliness by analyzing the only female character Curley’s wife, who is not allowed to speak and suffers from isolation. In the novel, the men try to hide their loneliness, but Curley’s wife acts very flirtatiously since she is lonely and powerless. All the men on the ranch fear her as she is married to the boss’s son, and Curly treats her as a possession; therefore, the men will not speak to her. For example, Curley’s wife is identified through her husband’s name, indicating that she is not independent but is instead in possession of her husband. By being the only female on the ranch, she may appeal as a strong leader, but in reality, her gender distances her from others on the ranch. She has no one to relate to or even communicate with, making her life miserable.

Furthermore, when Curley’s wife confesses her feelings to one of the guys at the ranch, she exclaims, “I’m always alone…You can have a conversation with individuals, but I can’t with anyone besides Curley. Else he gets frantic. How’d you like not to converse with anyone?” (Steinbeck 85) Determined, Curley’s wife seems desperate to have a friend to talk to like any other human. She is willing to go out of her way and even have trouble with her husband to relate to and talk to someone else. Curley’s wife’s willingness to speak with someone is why she got killed. For example, Steinbeck reveals the fact that the only way she can communicate is by flirting with the other men on the ranch when one of the guys exclaims, “She got the eye.” (Steinbeck 28) The men ignore her when she wants company but call her a “tart” and a “bitch” behind her back. Curley’s wife being continually left out and treated like property made her think that she must be sexual just to get noticed.

Additionally, she was compassionately showing off her body to start a conversation. This resounding theme of loneliness demonstrates how Curley’s wife is one of the loneliest among the others on the ranch. Her noncommunication separates her from the others on the ranch.

Through the novel, Steinbeck demonstrates that a victim of loneliness will often have a never-ending search to fulfill a friendship. Having no one to talk to or relate to, being trapped in life, and being a possession are all held accountable for Curley’s wife to live a miserable and lonely life. In our society today, people are still mimicking those during the time of the Great Depression. Like Curley’s wife, many people, primarily teens, are being put down by others because they may be a bad influence or not wanted nearby. The actions of one towards another can cause suicidal thoughts, just like Curley’s wife. Initially, the kindness and desire for company resulted in her death. Therefore, people asking for unwanted attention can get into serious problems.

The award-winning mystery novel ‘The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time’ was published in 2003, authored by Mark Haddon. It is an excellent read for teenagers as it uses a diversity of characters to promote reader engagement through interesting language.

‘Christopher explaining why he likes prime numbers which represents the way he thinks’

The novel shows the world of Christopher Boone, a 15-year-old boy who is excellent at maths but finds people confusing. In the novel, Christopher finds his neighbor’s dog, Wellington, dead. Despite what his father, Ed Boone, says about not getting involved, he decides to investigate the death and in doing so, discovers the truth about his family.

The novel celebrates those who are different through the character of Christopher which helps readers understand that some people are different and we should accept people for who they are. By giving Christopher characteristics like those who have Asperger’s Syndrome, it helps readers understand that just because people act differently, doesn’t mean that they have a disability or anything is wrong with them, they are still human. They just see the world differently.

An example of this is when police officers arrive at the scene of Wellington’s death. Christopher grows agitated when the policeman begins to ask him questions too quickly, seeming to associate him with the murder. Christopher curls up into a ball and when the officer tries to lift him to his feet he hits him. He hits him because he thinks the officer is accusing him of the murder. He also isn’t good at communicating with people and so didn’t like being asked all the questions.

The language that Christopher uses throughout the novel helps us see that he is not like you and me, but he is still special. The language he uses is appropriate for teenage readers as it communicates the messages of acceptance and tolerance, allowing Mark Haddon to express diversity in society.

There is some coarse language used in the book, mostly by Christopher’s father. However, Christopher never uses coarse language in the novel and while used infrequently, when it is used it adds essence to the story as it shows that not everyone is perfect and sometimes people get angry. Sometimes the language is used towards Christopher because he doesn’t understand he is aggravating others given he is not very good with others’ emotions or picking up on cues. An example of this is when Christopher is investigating the death of Wellington, even though he isn’t supposed to be, and his father finds out. He gets extremely mad at Christopher and swears at him.

“The novel celebrates those who are different”

Mark Haddon has written the book cleverly as it is written with short, sharp, and sometimes confusing sentences, consistent with how Christopher thinks and expresses himself. This helps us understand how hard it can be for people like Christopher as they don’t know how to feel emotion and it can be difficult to express themselves. This makes readers feel sad and sympathetic for those people, showing they are great people with interesting personalities but they just don’t know how to express themselves. From this, we learn that some people think differently and expression of emotions can be complicated.

When Christopher finds out the truth about his family he feels he can no longer trust anyone, including his father. He isn’t good at interpreting emotions and doesn’t understand why his father did what he did or what his father is feeling.

The novel The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time has some themes and events that are only suitable for mature audiences. However, I believe it portrays the diversity of our society and so the themes and messages that Mark Haddon is portraying are relevant to most teenagers’ day-to-day lives. Accepting others for who they are is a key lesson for all teenagers.

I believe that teenagers should read this novel as it is a well-written, easy-to-read, interesting book that will extend a teenager’s knowledge and understanding.

What morality means is how we attempt to define what is wrong or right of our actions and thoughts. It also indicates what is good or bad of being who we are. There are multiple types of morality. There are moral standards, with regard to behavior. Moral identity, someone who is capable of right or wrong. The final one is moral responsibility, referring to our conscience. We ensure morality in society for fair play and helps individuals to be good for society to be good. Morality has to do with death and cause. Death in mortality is indicating the number of people died in a certain area. The cause of mortality indicates what was the reason for the impact. Mortality effects are daily decisions.

George action of killing Lennie was morally wrong. Lennie does not realize what he is capable of doing and for that, he is being dangerous to others and himself, but George killing Lennie was not acceptable because murder is still murder, and it benefits consequences. There were multiple solutions George could have saved Lennie. If George had not killed Lennie, he could of help Lennie control his strength. George should not have given up on his dream about owning land, because he was capable of achieving his goal with Lennie. If Lennie was still to live George should have taken him to authorities to plead his case and perhaps the Judge would understand the situations since Lennie has a mental disability and he would be put into a mental facility. Overall Lennie did not attentional killed anyone and George should have recognized how it was.

A person from history that went against popular thinking and actions was Martin Luther King Jr. King wanted African Americans to have equality since society was against the idea of equality. The vision king had for the world was having the same rights and privileges no matter what you are. Today in the present, king influenced a plethora of people to speak out what is right or wrong. King ideas inspired many movements that were successful and revolutionary that did not need any violence. He influenced individuals to be in peace with others without caring for anyone ethnicity. The impact did not just affect adults it also affected children that want to be respected as any other human. Martin going against popular thinking and actions was an amazing impact on society today.

The issue of individual rights versus social responsibilities as a citizen has long been a hotly contested issue in American philosophical and political life. The average American citizen is brought up in an environment imbued with Libertarian and Kantian notions of natural born individual rights. These natural rights often come into harsh contact with what others say are the burdens that all citizens must share as members of a just society. In modern times, this “tug-of-war” over where we draw the lines on who has the right to do what, can be exemplified in the debate over mandatory immunization for people residing in the United States. Fears over vaccinations and their speculated possible health consequences has given rise to a movement of individuals who are refusing to vaccinate either themselves or their children. These “anti-vax” individuals are contributing to a rise in public health concerns over the spread of dangerous diseases. According to the CDC the United States is undergoing an outbreak of the measles virus with numbers of reported cases causing 2019 to see the highest number of cases since 1992 (CDC). With the rise of reported incidences of virus spread, many are wondering how those who are anti-vax are able to get away with not having to be immunized to possible health threats. For their part, those who are anti-vax claim that they are well within their moral rights as individuals to refuse vaccinations. However, in reality they are not. There is no moral justification for a person’s refusal to undergo vaccination. As an unvaccinated person, you are a health threat to the sustainment of the society, absent legitimate medical exclusions there is no justification to refuse.

To begin to understand why mandatory immunization it is not an infringement on a person’s rights we must look at some popular theories of morality. From a Utilitarian perspective people should be forcibly immunized in order to maximize the utility in the society. The reasoning goes that those who are unhappy with being forcibly immunized are outweighed by the greater society which is happy because there is less disease and chance of danger to the society. While I am not a utilitarian, from this standpoint someone who is anti-vax has no legitimacy to refuse immunization. The argument against this is that Utilitarian’s have no respect for a person’s individual rights. Utilitarian’s only care for what produces the greatest overall utility and thus they could hypothetically get away with horrendous moral atrocities. While this is true, Libertarians do care about and push for the rights of the individual and an argument can be made that they also would be in favor of mandatary immunization.

Libertarians have long been ardent defenders of what they see as your individual right to behave as you wish to behave. They believe in the Kantian notion that all of us are means in and of ourselves rather than just means to an end. Because we are means unto ourselves, this creates the idea of self-ownership. Understanding this, the question must be asked, if Libertarians believe that someone has the right to do as they please over their own personage how would there ever be a libertarian justification for mandatory immunization? The answer is found in the harm principle. Libertarians believe that you are your own master, but that others are their own masters as well. Because of this, that means that no person has the right to use their own rights to violate the rights of others who are their equals. An unvaccinated person poses a potential threat to those they come into contact with for two main reasons. Those who have vaccines are not necessarily fully protected by them in all cases and there is an additional risk to what is known as “herd immunity” (Chop.edu). In herd immunity there are members of a society who sometimes are legitimately unable to be vaccinated either by being too old/young or having a preexisting medical condition that excludes them from being able to receive one. That small percentage of society is protected from being contaminated by a supermajority of society that is vaccinated (usually above 90%). One way of thinking about it would be to say that those who are vaccinated protect the small number of those who cannot be (Sadarangani). Since an unvaccinated person simply existing and interacting with society in an unvaccinated state is a risk to the groups above it is not unreasonable to conclude that that is a violation of the harm principle. Adding further to this idea is the viewpoint of John Rawls with his Original Position theory. It is supposed in this theory that had we all participated in a blind determination of what our rights would be without any understanding as to whom we were in life, that we would come up with an unadulterated social contract. It can be argued that one of the things that a just society would agree to in the case of the original position would be to not allow those who are susceptible and weakest in the society (the old/young children that cannot yet receive a vaccine) to be allowed to come under harm by those who refuse immunization.

A third moral view on this subject can be found in the Aristotelian ideal that a society is supposed to promote the crafting of character and virtue in the citizenry that participate in it. From this view, those who are refusing vaccination are committing immoral acts. They commit these acts because it is contrary to what is found to be the “good life”. The question may be asked how a person knows what the good life is? Wouldn’t the “good life” be subjective? To Aristotle that answer is a flat no, because you must consider the good of your fellow citizens through practical wisdom. According to Michael Sandel in his book Justice: What’s The Right Thing To Do? “Aristotle defines practical wisdom as ‘a reasoned and true state of capacity to act with regard to the human good.’ … People with practical wisdom can deliberate well about what is good, not only for themselves but for their fellow citizens, and for human beings in general” (Sandel 232). This means that our lives are to be based off of what is good, and what is good can be found through reasonable deliberation as a society to find the virtue we wish to craft. The majority of the United States believes in preventative vaccination. Our top minds and thinkers have deliberated the possible consequences of vaccination, and science overwhelmingly indicates that vaccinations are safe. From an Aristotelian point of view, we should be forcing immunizations because the society has decided that they are a key to the good life, and it is a virtue we wish to pursue.

All of these moral theories go to reinforce the idea that mandatory immunization of people living inside the United States is justified. Some may argue that it is a violation of their free will or their religious liberties, but as indicated through the Libertarian view there are already basic restrictions on just how free we actually are. As for religious liberties, the Supreme court has already set the precedent that the government has the right to put restrictions on your liberty in the name of public health in Jacobson v Massachusetts (Mariner et al). While it can be granted that there will be some exceptions to the rule, medical exemptions being the main one, there is no moral justification to putting others at risk because you disagree with being vaccinated.

As Cynthia is too young to be a mother, there are so many disadvantages to her and her child that they will encounter physically, morally, psychologically, financially, socially, and educationally. She hasn’t attained full physiological development yet, which will result in more serious problems. She might put herself at risk for stress, unhappiness, and worse depression, especially if her classmate did not take responsibility for what he did to her. Teenage birth has often resulted in long-term effects.

Physical- Teenage pregnant women have a higher mortality rate and sickness than young adult women, such as hemorrhaging during childbirth, hemolytic or severe anemia, prolonged bleeding, traumatic delivery, and impairment. Cynthia’s body is not yet ready to bear a child. Both of them might suffer from malnutrition, due to lack of nutrients in their body to share with their baby.

Moral- Her unplanned pregnancy at a very young age will cause her moral distress. Most of the teenager in this situation feels guilt due to damaging their family reputation, shame, and worries after the thing is happening.

Psychological- There is the possibility that she may experience postpartum depression, especially since she is not ready to face being a mother. This kind of mental sickness can lead to its severity that may affect her day-to-day activities or worse suicidal acts.

Financial- It is 100% certain that she is incapable of providing for her baby’s needs as she is still studying herself and relying on her parents for her own basic needs and education. She needs the financial support of her parents to feed her child.

Social- She cannot always join with her friends or classmates, which she is used to because she has already a huge responsibility to fulfill. Her social interaction will be limited because her child needs her more than her friends. On the other hand, she may also feel ashamed of herself for having an early child and for her mistake.

Education- Her education will be affected, she might stop studying for the meantime until after childbirth or forever. Even her own child may suffer from poverty which can also affect her child’s education opportunities.

Conclusion

Females should not have children at a very young age, in my opinion. Being a parent must be mentally, physically, and emotionally prepared for these situations. Having a child is not that easy. We have to think a million times before, we will do something unpleasant. Think about your future as well as your child.

When most people hear that a story involves a princess they assume right away it is just going to be about some pretentious girl who is in trouble and cannot save herself. People believe you should not look up to Disney princesses because they are not healthy role models and teach kids that they need some prince to come along and save them. However I beg to differ. I believe that Disney princesses are the best role models out there for kids. In a world where our children are being taught to aim for ‘jumping in muddy puddles’ with Peppa Pig and being ‘horrid’ like rebel ‘Henry’ is it not quite refreshing that Disney is producing animation at a deeper level?

“When the raindrops come tumbling, remember you’re the one who can fill the world with sunshine”- Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.

Snow White is a prime example of optimism: she endures so much at such a young age- her mother died; her stepmother plans to have her killed; she ends up lost and homeless and worse of all she has to wear a horrendous dress with ugly puffy sleeves. With all the relentless attempts of the Evil Queen trying to have Snow White killed, not once does she wish bad on her step mother or Grumpy – even though he is very rude and dislikes Snow White. Unexpectedly, Snow White says a prayer (the only princess to do so in the Disney princess franchise) before bed, she prays for Grumpy. This is surprising as the usual thing to do would be talking down about Grumpy or her stepmother and being upset. Snow White is different, instead she prays for them. Throughout everything she endures she holds onto hope that everything will work out okay for her: that her prince will come – not to save her but to enhance her life. Not once did Snow White worry that she could end up alone forever, she trusts that her prince will come when the time is right. And he does, and just at the right time as well. Snow White teaches us to have tolerance and forgive those who have done us wrong. If more people had morals and qualities like Snow White then this would be a much more bearable world to live in as we would see that you may have to go through some hard times to become the person you aspire to be and obtain the life you wish to have.

“Well there’s one thing. They can’t order me to stop dreaming.” – Cinderella

Princess Cinderella said these heart warming lines in the Walt Disney movie “Cinderella”. Similarly to Snow White Cinderella sets the example of keeping faith in hard times whilst highlighting how a good pair of shoes can change your life for good. Cinderella lives a life surrounded by people who live to torment her and let her know that she is not worth anything. She also lives in deep poverty yet she teaches the 14 million people who are currently living in poverty in Britain that pretty dresses cannot cover up an ugly heart. However throughout the midst of everything Cinderella holds onto a glimmer of hope that life has more to it than having to be at hand and foot for her step family. Her strength in faith allows her to embrace change, rather than become doubtful when she is approached by her Fairy Godmother. She reminds kids that miracles happen and dreams do come true if you hold on to them and do not lose faith. She shows the British public that poverty at times can actually be overcome.

“What makes someone special? I suppose it all depends. It’s what’s unique in each of us.” – The little Mermaid

Princess Ariel sets the example of tolerance in the movie “The Little Mermaid”. Ariel, like many of the other Disney princesses, is viewed as being different and believes in diverse things compared to the people around her. Ariel is forced to feel alone and isolates herself as she is never accepted by others and does not get along with her family: especially her older sisters. Even though Ariel is made to feel bad about herself she finds worth in every creature she encounters. In this regard Ariel could be compared to Saint Francis of Assisi who had a love for all creatures and had a special bond with them. This is a great role model for children today. She also cannot help who she falls in love with. Yet, there are probably many handsome and eligible mer-men more compatible to Ariel and they probably would save her a lot of trouble. However, Ariel knows that she owes it to herself to follow her heart’s desires as she had been kept at bay her whole life. Had she judged people rather than look for the good in them, she may never have found her one true love. Even though Ariel is an animated character her story can relate to real life situations. Some may deem it farfetched but Ariel can be viewed as a role model for the LGBT community. Recent statistics show that 1 in 50 people in the British population are now members of the LGBT community. Do they not deserve a role model? Yes. They do. Throughout the movie we witness Ariel’s father’s lack of understanding towards her. Which spurs him on to encourage her to destroy her dreams and aspirations. Ariel recognises that just because her father is older his view is not necessarily correct. This then gives a clear message to all children that it is good to be different and to accept yourself. Many members of the LGBT community may be made to feel like an outsider and felt ashamed for who they truly are. Ariel gives them hope for a future of tolerance.

“You think the only people who are people, are the people who look and think like you.”- Pocahontas

Walking a mile in someone else’s shoes is one of the hardest things to do in this day in age. It is especially hard if you are not used to wearing shoes and the weird Englishman’s shoes are pointy, uncomfortable and too big. Beyond Pocahontas’ skin colour, she reminds us to be righteous: it has always been hard for humans to always act lovingly towards one another. However the example Pocahontas sets for us is to stand up for what is right and recognise our own self-worth. However we must also recognise and embrace the worth in others around us. The example Pocahontas sets for us is that we should treat people the way we want to be treated as you never know what is going on in someone’s life. In contrast she also refers back to the theme of self love and how we should not keep everything bottled up inside. This is so relevant in today’s society where mindfulness and self- care are regularly promoted in society. Moreover, with recent NHS figures showing that 1 in 4 British girls are hit by depression at the age of 14 is Pocahontas and her self-worth not a brilliant role model to be promoting? Yes. She is. However, if you ever find yourself outside talking to a tree you might want to seek help.

To conclude, Disney princesses are the best role models due to their moral codes and inspiring qualities they uphold. We only have to look to Ariel who sees everyone as equal Cinderella and Snow White who hold onto hope in dark times. Even though the Disney princesses are shadowed under the umbrella of being ‘perfect’ they do help us uphold our moral codes if we look beyond their labels. Why don’t we not aim for a ‘happy ever after’ but a happy right now.