In an age in which a constant bombardment of ads fighting for a plethora of causes is ever present, how do we clarify the difference between a moral cause and an unethical one? With a variety of social networking sites available, any average Joe or Jane can share their opinion with the world. Any individual can express their passion for fighting against child labor in a third world country, or the need for more gay rights. However, while these causes may all be just, there are others who may believe that fighting for these causes is unethical and flat out wrong.
But who are they to question what is right or wrong? If one is passionately defending a cause, who has the right to stifle that freedom of speech? Should there be ethical considerations when expressing a raw and emotional point of view? These are the big questions that must be asked.
Undoubtedly, everyone has the absolute right to voice their opinions. With social networking sites available such as Facebook and Twitter, millions of users can share their values and opinions, regardless of class, race, gender or status. A person from Toronto can share their cause with a diverse scope of people throughout the world from Paris to Hong Kong.
Social networking has given people the opportunity to fight for social change themselves, despite not belonging to famous worldwide organizations such as World Vision or Free the Children. These websites become an open forum for people to discuss current world issues and make plans for social change. Even issues that may not command authority in international headlines have an opportunity to be exposed to the world.
However surprisingly, there are those who may oppose this open forum of activism. It becomes confusing when others begin to say that it is unethical to share these issues with the world. It would be understandable if these issues were to demonstrate hate or prejudice, but if these expressions do not offend others, why should they be suppressed? If one does not agree with a cause that another is defending, there is no obligation to believe in that same cause. An activist should not have to suppress his or herself in order to cater to the needs of others who may not agree with a given point of view.
Furthermore, activism is defined by the English Oxford Dictionary as “the policy or action of using vigorous campaigning to bring about political or social change”. It says nothing of altering your point of view for others. If in everyday speech we were required to censor our thoughts, our world would lack creativity that brings about radical changes. Our way of life would be stale and unchanging. For example, what kind of world would we live in if activist leaders such as Martin Luther King Jr. who fought for civil rights and Harvey Milk who fought for gay rights were suppressed before they even had a say? What if they gave up their fight because other people believed that their theories were wrong and unethical? What kind of world would we be living in today?
Our world would certainly not be as liberal. The truth is, not everyone is going to agree with your opinion as an activist. Some may believe that what you are fighting for is wrong and unethical; they may believe that you should stop campaigning for your cause in order to please them. The power of you, the activist, is to prove these people wrong. You have the ability to show the world an issue and rally people for social change. You have the tenacity and the strength to change those once doubtful minds. Don’t be afraid to express yourself. If it is a valid issue and you are passionate, no one can stop you in the pursuit of your cause. You, the activist, must perform and protest, and in turn, bring radical change to an irrational world.
