When I was in eighth grade, we had to do a mock trial for social studies class. As some of my peers may remember, the premise for said trial revolved around a Native American ceremonial mound that remained in a Wisconsin town. The town was struggling economically and wanted to build a new historical center. The problem was that they wanted to build this center on the land currently occupied by the mound, and the case was to determine whether or not they should be allowed to do so.

For me, the answer to this question was an obvious no. The mound is a living piece of history, and while the town officials argued that the historical center would represent Native history, these promises reeked of colonial fraudulence. After nearly everything has been taken from Native Americans throughout our country’s history, it isn’t right to bulldoze what remains. So, imagine my surprise when my class voted almost unanimously to destroy the mound because “the defendant had a better argument.” I remember one classmate asking if there was any real reason to keep the mound, besides morals. 

Morals being seen as a “fake reason” has disconcerting implications. If we, as a society, think this way, how can human rights effectively be protected? If morals don’t count as reasoning, will people decide there’s no real reason to give help to people in need or preserve a culture’s history? No real reason to stop destroying the environment? 

It’s concerning that things like these require “factual” reasoning outside of morals to be considered good or worthwhile. Scientific evidence is important and should be provided to support conclusions, but concepts that naturally fall into more ethical grounds, and thus require ethical reasoning as evidence, shouldn’t be discredited. For example, in the mock trial, the defense would have required some kind of scientific study suggesting that the mound would somehow stimulate the town’s economy or improve water quality in order to justify keeping it. Is it really that far-fetched to suggest that preserving Native historical landmarks is ethically right, and that that is a viable reason to keep the mound?

Also, many people who think like this don’t do so because they’re truly looking for scientific validity. They do it because they don’t value something they can’t use or exploit. To the town officials, the mound’s existence has no value or benefit because it has no use; it doesn’t do anything to help them. If we as a society can’t look beyond this type of reasoning, we may be in hot water. Many of the problems, big and small, that are faced in the world today will require morals to solve, and will require people in power to think beyond their own interests or what is most beneficial for themselves. 

Without morals, there would be few barriers to prevent human rights violations or protect the environment. It’s unwise to neglect this criteria of reasoning entirely when these issues are so prevalent. Additionally, incentive to preserve historical and cultural artifacts will no doubt be lost if morals are not considered. If people in power don’t consider them useful or important, they’ll find no reason to keep these physical records of our history. This may seem inconsequential at first glance, but having the moral incentive to preserve history preserves morals themselves. If historical events are erased, we won’t be able to learn from our mistakes or make reparations.