You don't specify right doings that are designed to prevent or correct prevent wrong doings, but I suspect you have some ideology that covers it. Right?
I would leave people with the choice of how they want to behave as long as they don't do wrong things to others. The "to others" is implied in any societal rule. As long as they don't do wrong to others, how they conduct ourselves is none of our business. Speaking of business, you know how excessive or rigid regulation hurts business. It's the same for people. Excessive regulation chokes people, too. People need to be free to find their joy as they see fit, just so long as they don't wrong others in the process. Society may want to provide some role models or self-help books or whatever to help people choose best among the array of non-wrong options, but it shouldn't have any rules. Society is richer and more successful when people are creatively results oriented, not following a little book of rules.
To continue with the regulatory metaphor, a smokestack is appropriately regulated when you say that no more than x amount of this stuff and y amount of that stuff is allowed out. It is inappropriately regulated when you say that you need to install this gizmo and that gismo and clean them every 24 hours. The first approach defines what's wrong and the second defines what's right. The first is much more successful, cost effective, productive, etc. So IMO is it with regulating human behavior.
I think that's one of the differences between a religious and a secular perspective--the religious perspective is inherently authoritarian. It prescribes as well as proscribes. That may be a bigger gap than whether lying belongs on the list or not.
Besides, all other things being equal, a short list is more easily implemented than a long list. Including both rights and wrongs is too redundant and unwieldy.
Karen |
