Does the Left Act Upon the Belief That Yeeting is Morally Correct?

There is a common misperception that the 'left' acts based on a blanket belief that everything they favor is both legal and moral. This belief, however, is not accurate. It's crucial to understand that morality and legality are often independent concepts, where actions can be both illegal yet moral, and legal yet unethical. This essay explores the ethical dilemmas that arise from the practice of 'yeeting'—throwing objects in an inconsiderate manner—and how these actions align with or contrast the beliefs of the left.

The Ethics of Yeeting

The term 'yeet' originated from social media slang and transmogrified into a verb meaning 'to throw forcefully, often without concern for possible damage or the object being thrown.' Whether throwing an object is legal or not depends on the ownership of the object. However, people on the left, who are often aware of the nuances between ethics and legality, would still view 'yeeting' with ethical scrutiny. For instance, people have the right to alter their bodies as they see fit in the case of transgender individuals pursuing gender-affirming surgeries. It would be ethically wrong to legally impede their ability to get tattoos or undergo other necessary medical procedures.

The Moral Justification of Yeeting

While 'yeeting' might be illegal, it can sometimes be morally justified. Every 'yeeted' object contributes to the downfall of Nazi sympathizers, thereby protecting and saving lives—whether it's a child, a parent, or a grandparent. Similarly, police officers who remain unperturbed by their actions often embody the very antithesis of empathy and social justice. In the moral calculus, the ends of defending innocent lives and the means of disrupting tyranny often outweigh the illegality of the act.

Student Rules and Rule-Making

During freshman orientation, it is essential to discuss the origin and importance of university rules. These rules are made not just by external authorities but also by the very students who adhere to them. For example, the rule prohibiting open containers of liquid near computers is due to a spill incident that resulted in significant damage. The rule against smoking marijuana in the bathroom is a direct response to incidents of urine-contaminated marijuana, while the rule against having sex in the parking lot is a safeguard against a particular unique scenario that previous students encountered.

The core idea is that while students might not create all the rules, they are crucial in enforcing and understanding the rationale behind them. This rule-making process demonstrates how students take responsibility for their own environment and safety, fostering a sense of shared ownership and stewardship.

Conclusion: A Dialogue on Ethics and Morality

In conclusion, the 'left' does not act on a belief that all their actions are both legal and moral. Instead, they navigate the complex interplay between law and ethics, understanding that legality does not always equate to morality. The practice of 'yeeting' is one such example where the ethical implications often outweigh the legalities. As a society, we must continue to explore these ethical dilemmas and foster a deeper understanding of the principles that guide us in our actions.