Morality In Ken Follet's World Without End

I have felt hunger. At one point mommy never had a job. She peeled oranges and sewed people’s clothes in exchange to feed me. Some days she ate nothing, so I could have the money to go to school. Was it moral for her to starve herself? Kant’s formulation states, "Act in such a way that the maxim of your action could be willed as a universal law.” In other words, we should act in a way that our behavior or principle of action would be applied so everyone could follow. I believe this principle does not provide the average person with sufficient guidance for moral behavior. I find Kant’s formulation to be inflexible, abstract and inconsiderate.
Universal rules aren’t helpful because situations differ culturally, socially, geologically and economically. If any two situations weren’t the same, morality should be relativist not absolutist. Some may argue Kant’s formulation is based on practicality and objectivity. I argue there are no objective, universally prescriptive moral laws. In my opinion morality is relative. For example, Ken Follet’s[1], World Without End, centers on romance between Merthin and Caris. Caris and Merthin are in love, however both parties have separate agendas. For example, Caris loves Merthin but hesitates to marry him. In the relationship, Caris acts in a way to rebel the cycle of being enslaved to her husband …show more content…
To say morality is universal is saying notions of right and wrong are fixed every time. Although we see things with our eyes, we register insight differently. Our views and values are unique in how we register them and what we believe, is not reflected as Kant’s formulation would have us think. Robert Wright’s[4], “Moral Animal” claims our intuitive principles have no claim to inherent truth and should be distrusted. Wright states, "Human beings are a species splendid in their array of moral equipment, tragic in their propensity to misuse it, and pathetic in their ignorance of the