Y'know something Unclewest... Everyone is dancing around the issue of what constitutes "morality"....
But it's pretty self-evident that moral codes, like historical accounts, are written by those who dominate any opposing or contrary perspectives, even if the opposing view constitutes the greater majority. (The Taliban provide a perfect example of a minority imposing their "morality" upon the majority).
Secondly.. what constitutes morality is constantly evolving along with our modernity. Societal acceptance of an unwed mother is current times bear no resemblance to when our nation was founded. Yet, there is evidence that many colonial marriages were out of "necessity", or shall we say "propriety", with children often being born only months later.
Or we could consider how moral tolerance has "theoretically" grown more restrictive and restrained, as in the case of the tender age of 14-15 (or younger) no longer being considered appropriate for marrying off the daughters. Or whether children should be put to work, or put in school.
So thus, it's both the rate of change involved in evolving moral codes, as well as the direction in which those changes occur. And personally, I believe the average conservative is more afraid of the rate of change at the fringes, than they are of a complete overthrow of the current foundation of morality.
The question is whether or not certain standards of morality, as I understand you to perceive it, are an essential foundation for modern society, or civilization, and at what level those basic moral values become counter-productive to maintaining civilization. And then it's a matter of deciding whether that morality should be codified under some legal statute, or left unwritten, but popularly enforced. Or in the case of Virginia's sodomy laws against oral sex (even with the willing spousal unit), codified and not enforced.
Personally, I believe there is minimal level to maintaining good order. Unfortunately, others will disagree with me, so I have the burden of convincing sufficient quantities of people over to my view of morality, or be forced to tolerate their's.
The prevailing "moral code" is always going to be "tyrannical" to some segment of society. The question is whether their proposed alteration to that moral code enhances the perpetuation of civilization, or contributes to its unraveling.
And that is the way of democracy. You can't legislate morality, but you can "propagandize" your moral values to others in order to bring them over to your side.
Hawk |
