’..

\ ~ _

'Ihe'UPEI SIN,"I!'m1rsday,'Apri3: 6.1978,- page 12

Since morality seems to be a concern of at least sate students attending U.P.E.I. , I am presenting afewofmyviewsonthe issue.

First of all, morality deals with what is right and what is wrmg. Because we U.P.E.I. students are rational beings, we are morally respmsible for our actions and have an

obligation to act in accord '

with moral principles that are valid. What these principles are exactly is quite impossible to state in this article, and to deduce from these ' principles rules of conduct would seem to be an impossible task, for it would involve a discussion of man's origin. Neverthe— less, we all act on some moral principles that must meet me criterim before they can be accepted as moral principles - that is, "they must be ratimally justified". I

A principle stated: "We must not-kill professors for keeping us late in class" would escape the need for immediate justification simply because we all realize that to violate this principle would be wrong. 'lhere is a large number of principles that are nOt nearly as simple to decide whether they are right or wrong, such as the principle, "pre— marital sex is right", or "premarital sex is wrong". A principle that deals with controversial issues must be reflected upon and studied for some time before an honest answer can be given to the question, "Is it right or is it wrong?" If a person denies that issues such as premarital sex, the use of contraceptives in general, or even abortion are issues in need of more consideration, they are simply kidding themselves. In fact, these above-mentioned issues are probably the

hottest contemporary issues that concern

students. If a perscn makes a decision on whether or not he will practise any of the above stated issues, he is making a moral decision. If a person makes this decision with— out properly justifying it, he is unaware whether the decision he has made

is the right one. 'Ihis person is deciding only what he wants and is acting not only contrary to reason but frequently in a selfish manner. 'Jhis sladmess in moral thinking is a result of a slackness in character in general. The pressures of peers, university ’ environment and society can cause people to , abandon moral thinking, and this is evident all around us. We are inclined to follow the crond, but it is good to remember that even if everyone in the world begins to

adopt the principle, "kill without reasm" , it is wrong. It is due time that we slowed down in our day to ’day lives, taking a rest from.the

‘ hustle and bustle common

to the "technological" age and start asking our— selvessone basic questions about the way we live and the moral problems that we come in contact with.

I would now like to deal with the much raised questions concerning the use of prophylactics by students. 'Jhe underlying notion cfpre—marital sex is the real issue of concern, of course, so all married students can breath a deep sigh. First of all, I would like to address myself to the anonymous writer of a previous issue of the SUN feeling free to direct hiJrSelf/herself to the Scuthport C.W.L. on behalf of all students. A I, along

with many others, did not

share his (or her) Views in the least, however, and I feel the writer was not fair in saying "we students of U.P.E.I." Anyhow, this is not my main criticism of your letter. In your letter you said, "We are open-minded people here

at U.P.E.I. and we don't

ST-PAT DISPLAY HAS

need you, or your league, to make our moral value judgements for us." Now all along I believed that. we were in fact open- minded at U.P.E.I. , but after reading your article I know there is at least me person here who isn't. You have no right to act on behalf of all students to shun contents from the C.W.L. of Southport the way you did. Also you are wrmg in saying that the C.W.L. are making any moral value judgements for us, for although their thoughts on the issue may seem a bit forceful, each individual must (in the end) decide for himself (or herself) where they stand on the issue in respect to the real meaning of life. In View of this fact, anything anyone has to say about a moral issue should be listened to tentatively; and who knows, we may even learn something! Immediately after the above-quoted statement you say, "Qaen your eyes and maybe you might see that you are no longer living in a society hung up on nineteenth century morality." 'Ihis state— ment says a lot about nothing! I don't know what you mean by "nine— teenth century morality". I would like to remind the writer of this article (and the readers) that morality is basically universal in time and place and is not smething that changes with the tide. If a moral principle can be rationally justified, it stands justified for all time. It is true that conditions arise that were not previously present that demand modifications to be made in the application

Wnot, some people (namely

LUCK

but in general, morals do not change and me is to be extremely cautious Men determining mether or not ‘cmditims of the/times are enough to cause diange in the applicatim of a moral principle. My last criticism of your article Concerns your positim on premarital sex. In View of your article it appears that you think premarital sex is morally permissible. If this is so, I am dying to see your justification for believing so. If you have a valid juStificatim, it will be the first one I have seen with regard to this positim that is so. I will refrain from cementing on whether or not premarital sex is morally permissible, for this is a. subject that each person can resolve if he truly wishes to find out the truth of the matter, and this article is hard' 1y the place for an inquiry into the problem.

I do have one belief , concerning the advertising of prophylactics in the SUN, being "they should not be!" My reason for this belief is simple. The advertising is propogandist in nature. It implies (at least suggests) that it is a oomrm morally permissible act to have premarital sex. I do not agree with this type of advertising. ‘Ihe ads serve no useful purpose, for I am convinced that any persons engaging in premarital sex have already taken the necessary precautions.

In concluding, I would like to say that I think

the C.W.L. of Southport was treated much too harshly by several writers of "letters to the editor"- Vhether you like it or

the Catholics on campus) were interested in what the Scuthport C.W.L. had to say about the- matter. '

Finally, I would like to remind one and all several points of importance 1 have already mentioned. We are responsible as rational human beings to act morallY and we have an obligation to determine' what courses 0 action are moral — and .ab0 all: Don't kid yourself! Be honest to your powers of reason!

Kevin Arsenault