When we speak of “Morality” we think of the difference between right and wrong, the difference between the good and the evil. We use morality to justify our actions and decisions. More often than not, people impose their morality on others and expect them to act in the way they find fit. They believe that the idea of right and wrong is universal. In her essay “On Morality”, Didion contradicts this theory and believes that everyone can have different ideas of morality based on their own perception.
To make her point, Didion uses the examples of Klaus Fuchs and Alfred Rosenberg. Fuchs was a British traitor who leaked nuclear secrets to the Soviets, and Rosenberg was the Nazi administrator of Eastern Europe, where the Germans committed their most heinous and most murderous acts during World War II. Both of them claimed that what they did were morally appropriate. She …show more content…
We think that all actions are sound as long as they don’t hurt another person. But then we see people like Adolf Hitler. The man murdered millions of people. Yet, he had a bunch of supporters who helped him with these inhumane acts. But he did what he did in the name of morality, in the name of ‘respect for the greater race.’ The central idea of this essay is that morality depends largely on perception. What one finds wrong may not necessarily be seen as inappropriate by another. “I followed my own conscience.” “I did what I thought was right.” Didion questions the reader how many madmen have said this and meant it? Didion doesn’t believe that these men shelter themselves under the illusion of morality but actually believe their actions are moral and justified. Maybe we ourselves have said it before and been wrong. Our conscience isn’t always the best judge of things. But the concept of morality makes it okay to just be impulsive and do what we think is correct in the