Morals and Contradictions

The biggest difference I’ve noticed between the U.S. and Asia after spending years in the U.S. as an Asian student is that Americans tend to talk about and debate social issues more than we do in Asia, even when those issues aren’t directly tied to their life and survival. Not to generalize or say everyone is like this, but in Asia, conversations often feel more centered around financial concerns like taxes, housing, or welfare. In the U.S., though, polarization seems to show up more around social issues such as with things like gender, discrimination, the environment, or broader questions about life itself. Of course, Americans also care about economic issues, and there’s definitely economic polarization too. But compared to Asia, where financial value is mostly the only concern of people, there seems to be a stronger emphasis here on social and human values. When I look back at some of the controversial issues I encountered during my time in the U.S., I realized there are many people who actively care about issues that don’t directly affect them, and they do it mainly because of their moral beliefs and justice.

I used to feel quite frustrated with people who did not care about any issues that weren’t directly connected to their lives or benefit, but I think having people who care deeply about their society is clearly a good thing. However, because of this culture, I’ve noticed that conflicts that arise when people apply their own moral standards to others are more common. And when that happens, contradictions tend to emerge pretty naturally, which I believe is part of why what people call “hypocrisy” shows up more easily in these discussions.

The first time I really started thinking about moral standards in a serious way was in my junior year AP Language and Composition class. We discussed George Bush’s stem cell research speech, and that was when I first came across the controversy around the ethical status of embryos. In Asia, unlike in America, Christianity does not function as a dominant cultural or political force, so even though I had had a debate about the abortion timing before, it was the first time I was exposed to the idea that embryos created through IVF could be considered full human beings. During my research, I noticed I saw  contradictions in groups that strongly oppose the destruction of embryos for stem cell research. Regardless of the potential benefits this research could bring to humanity, and regardless of the fact that unused embryos are eventually discarded after storage, they still consider it ethically wrong to intentionally destroy them because they define embryos as “human life.” From a Christian perspective, all human life is considered sacred, including embryos created through in vitro fertilization. However, as someone who is not religious, when I think about what gives life its value, I tend to define it as any being that has a brain. Even if an embryo has the potential to become a human, in my own ethical framework, it does not hold the same moral value as a human being until the brain is formed and there is at least some level of consciousness, the ability to feel, think, or recognize. Before that stage, even after implantation and during early cell division, I see it more like plant life in a biological sense: alive, but without consciousness or ability of recognition. In that sense, I also tend to consider animals, which already have brains and consciousness, as holding more life value than embryos because they actually think and feel.

From that perspective, I find it contradictory that some people strongly oppose the destruction of embryos for research that could potentially lead to major medical breakthroughs such as curing Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s disease, while not expressing the same level of moral concern toward killing animals—which in my view, already has a higher level of consciousness and are capable of continuing to live and act as autonomous beings, unlike embryos that are eventually discarded unless they are donated.

There is no right or wrong because they are just different moral frameworks. Those who oppose the destruction of embryos are defining life through an ideological lens, while I lean toward a framework that prioritizes biological consciousness and the potential benefits that scientific research would bring to humans. However, I believe this debate also reveals something broader. When people try to restrict others' choices based on their own moral values—such as limiting what embryo donors can decide to do with unused embryos—they also create a precedent for others to impose different moral values on them in return. In other words, the more we expect others to live according to our own ethical framework, the more likely we are to be judged or constrained by someone else's. This would create a cycle in which competing moral standards continually clash with one another, making polarization increasingly difficult to avoid.

The embryo debate was the first time I noticed this pattern, but it certainly wasn't the last. I later encountered the same tendency in a completely different context.

Earlier this year, I was studying for an upcoming exam using AI. I was in my dorm using a language model to help plan my study strategy and a friend criticized me for using AI; they argued that I was using technology that consumes large amounts of water in Africa, and accused me for being selfish, not caring about people in Africa or about the environment at all. After that, I started to be perceived as someone associated with AI use in certain friend groups, particularly among peers who strongly opposed it on environmental grounds.

It is true that AI consumes a significant amount of water, and because of that I have also been interested in cooling technologies for AI data centers that can reduce the amount of water and electricity required. However, what I found myself questioning at the time was why those who are living in buildings that consume on average around one million liters of water to be constructed, weekly shopping for clothes that require approximately 2,500 liters of water per item, and frequently eating beef, which emits around 15 tons of CO₂ per cow, are applying what I perceived as a “selective application of moral standards” to my use of AI. It felt as if there was a lack of awareness of just how much environmental impact is already embedded in simply living a modern human life—living in buildings constructed by humans, wearing clothes produced in factories, and consuming food prepared through industrial systems. From that perspective, unless one is willing to return to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle and give up all the privileges of modern human society, I found it difficult to see consistency in singling out my use of AI as a moral issue.

Given the assumption that AI development is inevitable as long as human civilization continues, it seemed to me that if they truly cared about this issue, a more meaningful approach would not be simply criticizing individual usage or restricting one person’s behavior, but rather pursuing research—similar to what I was trying to do myself—into technologies that use water and energy more efficiently. That, to me, felt closer to what genuine “care” actually means.

This comes down to the same idea: individuals simply value different things. The friends who criticized my use of AI had decided that the water it consumes and the people affected by water scarcity in Africa matters more than the benefits they believed AI could provide. From my perspective, while AI’s water consumption is absolutely a real issue that should be addressed, considering the enormous amount of resources already consumed by everyday human life, the exam in front of me was a more urgent priority at that moment. And I do not know if anyone has the authority to determine which priorities should take precedence in someone else's life.

What I said to them was this: You shouldn't reject AI altogether based solely on “your” own belief. If, as you argue, the only morally “good” choice is never to use AI, then what happens if someone working in the AI industry loses their job because society adopts that belief and their family is put at risk as a result, can you still say that your position represents the morally right outcome for them? I believe that the human’s natural tendency tends to shift toward self-preservation and protecting what matters most to them when they face something that they’re desperate for. What frustrates me is when those who are not facing that same urgency fail to empathize with someone else's circumstances and instead condemn them for making different priorities.

There are eight billion individuals in the world, and with them come eight billion different personal convictions. The values people hold vary depending on the environment, cultures, or generation that they grew in. One thing I have realized from living in several different countries since I was young is just how deeply culture shapes the way people live. When I first moved to China in elementary school, I remember thinking it was savage that they ate rabbit brains. But from the perspective of vegans who believe eating animals is ethically wrong in the first place, wouldn't I seem just as savage for enjoying pork and beef? If killing animals simply for good food is morally wrong, then how different is eating pork from eating rabbit? Aren't both based on taking an animal's life for personal satisfaction? If I had never recognized that paradox, I probably would have continued judging other’s choices without ever questioning the inconsistency in my own. Experiencing different cultures led me to confront the realization like this, and looking back, it made me more open-minded and taught me how to respect values that differ from my own. Especially the United States, more than almost anywhere else, brings together people from countless cultural backgrounds. If we cannot acknowledge that people arrive with different moral frameworks shaped by different lives, then diversity, which should be one of the country's greatest strengths, will turn into a weakness by becoming a source of conflict instead.

So how do we reduce those contradictions?

I think it begins with recognizing that, despite what we may like to believe, none of us is as "good" for the planet as we imagine ourselves to be. Living in a modern human society inevitably means benefiting from privileges that other living beings on Earth never have. Once we acknowledge those privileges and accept that no one is morally perfect, we may become less inclined to impose personal standards on others whenever we notice their moral imperfections. If more people approached morality with that humility, I believe many of the conflicts we see today could gradually become less severe.

I don't believe that doing what I consider to be the moral thing automatically gives me the right to expect others to live by the same standard. The law defines obligations, but morality belongs to the realm of personal choice. If moral standards are ultimately individual, then perhaps a more consistent society is one in which each person chooses to live according to their own principles rather than trying to enforce them on everyone else.

And if those principles truly reflect what someone believes is ethically right—not simply a performance for others—then perhaps they do not need to be displayed or imposed at all. Quietly living by those values itself should be already meaningful. I hope for a world where everyone is free to pursue their own vision of justice.