Analysis Of Glasser's Which Morality?

4 Pages 983 Words

After the “sweet story of a late-in-life love affair,” and the 1960’s as “years of moral redemption,” and an arsenal of delightful words such as “justice,” and “fairness” are deployed by Glasser there is a lack of examples related to the morality of freedom to illustrate Glasser’s beliefs. The Bill of Rights is good, it protects civil liberties, so does South Africa and Nelson Mandela as referred to from the article “Love at the Top…”of course these are moral, but Glasser fails to buttress this standpoint with any other hard evidence, fact or an illustration other than the lone article of its morality at work. Glasser is without doubt tied to this version of morality and leaves his article saturated with emotional appeals and nearly void of clear examples of exactly how “democracy, freedom, justice and fairness” operates in a freedom based society. The reader is left drilled, worn-out and board with repeated adjectives suggesting freedom is the greatest institution of morality without adequate information to truly be persuaded.
Similarly, the coldly presented authority which constitutes the majority of the article has several adverse effects on the reader as well, though they are much different. The Taliban, 1950’s Mississippi and Jesse Helms are all examples in the text characterized by “brutal, state-sanctioned violence and terror,” “rigidly imposed… codes.” These examples are found in an over abundance in a pile of negative words such as, “chillingly,” “sinful,” and “transgressors,” seemingly forcing more of an adverse connection in the reader to authoritarian morality. However, Glasser’s interpretation is so extreme and melodramatic the reader is forced to question Glasser’s validity on the subject. The reader must doubt the picture Glasser portrays for two reasons, Mohammed Wali, an Afghan who commented on the stoning of the adulterers, was “very happy because the rule ...