[sailaway21]

The debate over morality is somewhat hilarious in that, it is not really a debate over morality. Morality? You for it or agin' it? (g)

The real debate is not over morality itself but over the consequences of immorality. At the bottom line, we share far more in common than separates us regarding matters of morality. Those who are obsessively focused on the imposition of other's moralities upon themselves seem to fail to see the forest for the trees.

The real question is in the consequences of matters moral, not morality itself in any guise. Which person will say that murder, rape, robbery, stealing, lying, slandering, adultery, divorce, unmarried pregnancy, abortion, obscenity, or even swearing are inherently good and desirable? No one thinks we should have more of any of the above listed items. So we share a core morality. Where we differ on the matter is in the nature of the consequences for immoral behavior. Our opinions on those consequences may have evolved, or just changed a bit, but that doesn't mean that our morality has changed. With the exception of those people who somehow think that there should be no consequences to any immoral actions which does indeed threaten the very nature of morality itself.

What we experience in our present society is a bunch of spoiled immature children, regardless of age, who are unwilling to say, hey, I made a big mistake and I hope you and society will forgive me. And they then launch into a long diatribe on how their actions were justified. Those among the dreaded "morality police" are somewhat befuddled by their intense animosity and their need for validation of their "personal morality", ie...acceptance of the position that they've done nothing wrong or immoral. This befuddlement stems from their belief that we all enter the world as sinners and depart in the same state and that, if there is any hope of salvation for them it lies not in their moral scorecard. They tend to value the act of confession and contrition and then moving on with their lives, endeavoring to sin no more. We used to call such people well-adjusted. (g)

Now I happen to find the latter position a logical one that not only ascribes value to morality but also acknowledges the innate failings of the human condition. The former view of morality strikes me as immature and brings all matters of morality down to a personal sliding scale based upon whatever the current situation dictates. If that is one's position it I suppose it concerns me not over much but it'd be nice if the holder realized that should we all hold to such a position the end result would be anarchy and immorality where all distinctions of behavior become either impossible or mere relativism's.