For those of you who have no
clue (and there seems to be a lot) morality is defined as an 'an
individual's behavioral limits'.
We live in a society where people are constantly blaming others for their behaviors. I don't know if it started with the infamous 'twinkie defense', but people are constantly saying that they're victims of something instead of standing up and addressing their own behavioral code violations for what they are - a lack of control over themselves.
Attempting to foist off one's personal code of behavior onto another is morally wrong. Society needs to get along. Since it is made up of many individuals, the normal behavioral limits of a group is called ethics. Legislating morality - reducing personal behavioral freedoms of all which previously had not been a crime or had been widely tolerated by a particular society - DOES NOT WORK. It was tried in the 1920's with Prohibition.
An emphasis should be placed on personal responsibility rather than trying to get everyone to goose-step to the same moralistic drum. The typical knee-jerk reaction of the ignorant is to get state and federal legislatures to outlaw all sorts of previously legal behaviors about which they object, citing 'bad examples' as an excuse.
It wouldn't be so bad if those who advocate imposing strict moral behavior by law on the society at large were perfect at maintaining their own moral code. But they don't and the end result of forcing one morality on us all is to make criminals out of innocent people. The price of freedom in this country is tolerance of others. Seems to me that many religions preach this. The trouble is that religions force an impossible morality on people and basing the morality one wishes to force upon a public body on those impossible standards is unrealistic.
Why do I say it's an impossible morality? Simple. Only a very, very few can ever keep it fully and wholly for the duration of their lives. The rest of us would rather live happier lives.
Personal responsibility - deciding what you watch, what you read and what you do and taking the credit or blame for the consequences thereof - is the key. You can't decide what I do, or say, or think. You are not me. I accept the credit or the blame for what I do instead of pointing to a twinkie and saying the surgar made me do it. Or the devil. Or society. Or my neighbor. Or affirmative action. Or male domination. Or whatever excuse seems to be handy.
If more people did this simple thing, we wouldn't be having this talk about morality. And I will fight against any attempt to force a morality onto society by act of law. The United States was founded by a group of people escaping persecution for their moral behavior (look it up if you don't believe me). The pendulum swings the other way now so that the few (and there are fewer of you than you think) who believe they are morally superior (in itself a morally unstable position) will tell those they think are immoral how to act and thus destroy the very thing that makes the United States strong.
Finally, let's look at some recent history. Tell me, how does what we are hearing from our self-appointed 'morals police' differ from what the Taliban advocated in Afghanistan? Different religion, same refrain. I see no moral difference.
I guess that makes those who advocate changes in behavioral law morally no different than those whom they called terrorists. Thus the United States will complete its hypocrisy by adopting a system of law which places religious repression upon its society.
How does the line go? I have seen the Enemy, and we are him.
We live in a society where people are constantly blaming others for their behaviors. I don't know if it started with the infamous 'twinkie defense', but people are constantly saying that they're victims of something instead of standing up and addressing their own behavioral code violations for what they are - a lack of control over themselves.
Attempting to foist off one's personal code of behavior onto another is morally wrong. Society needs to get along. Since it is made up of many individuals, the normal behavioral limits of a group is called ethics. Legislating morality - reducing personal behavioral freedoms of all which previously had not been a crime or had been widely tolerated by a particular society - DOES NOT WORK. It was tried in the 1920's with Prohibition.
An emphasis should be placed on personal responsibility rather than trying to get everyone to goose-step to the same moralistic drum. The typical knee-jerk reaction of the ignorant is to get state and federal legislatures to outlaw all sorts of previously legal behaviors about which they object, citing 'bad examples' as an excuse.
It wouldn't be so bad if those who advocate imposing strict moral behavior by law on the society at large were perfect at maintaining their own moral code. But they don't and the end result of forcing one morality on us all is to make criminals out of innocent people. The price of freedom in this country is tolerance of others. Seems to me that many religions preach this. The trouble is that religions force an impossible morality on people and basing the morality one wishes to force upon a public body on those impossible standards is unrealistic.
Why do I say it's an impossible morality? Simple. Only a very, very few can ever keep it fully and wholly for the duration of their lives. The rest of us would rather live happier lives.
Personal responsibility - deciding what you watch, what you read and what you do and taking the credit or blame for the consequences thereof - is the key. You can't decide what I do, or say, or think. You are not me. I accept the credit or the blame for what I do instead of pointing to a twinkie and saying the surgar made me do it. Or the devil. Or society. Or my neighbor. Or affirmative action. Or male domination. Or whatever excuse seems to be handy.
If more people did this simple thing, we wouldn't be having this talk about morality. And I will fight against any attempt to force a morality onto society by act of law. The United States was founded by a group of people escaping persecution for their moral behavior (look it up if you don't believe me). The pendulum swings the other way now so that the few (and there are fewer of you than you think) who believe they are morally superior (in itself a morally unstable position) will tell those they think are immoral how to act and thus destroy the very thing that makes the United States strong.
Finally, let's look at some recent history. Tell me, how does what we are hearing from our self-appointed 'morals police' differ from what the Taliban advocated in Afghanistan? Different religion, same refrain. I see no moral difference.
I guess that makes those who advocate changes in behavioral law morally no different than those whom they called terrorists. Thus the United States will complete its hypocrisy by adopting a system of law which places religious repression upon its society.
How does the line go? I have seen the Enemy, and we are him.
