There may be no difference in our positions, but simply in our interpretation of the word 'morality'. Rather, its use in the context of individuals and society.
I've argued with some of the zealots on the PGWB thread that morality is a shifting standard. Of course, the more religious ones come back with the "that's the problem with America today, those that believe that morality is variable". They missed my point that the morality of an individual at a moment in time is different from the morality of a society.
I believe that the chance of two people sharing the exact same 'moral code' in their heart is very slim, at least absent of an overly restrictive governing body. Everyone has slightly different takes on where the 'moral line' between good and bad is. This is not necessarily a bad thing, in that the difference between your moral code and your neighbor might be so slight as to be inconsequential, or at least tolerable. The issues arise when there is a wide difference. More later.
A society is made up of many different sets of moral codes, contributed by its citizens, culture, and history, which meld into an overall society moral code. There are definitely bounds that separate good and bad (let me instead call good and bad by the alternates 'acceptable' and 'unacceptable', to avoid having the discussion fall down any individual moral rat holes). However, my contention is that these bounds shift over time, location, and circumstance.
This shift becomes obvious by simply observing the history of the United States. In 1776, slavery was on the 'acceptable' side, whereas women's sufferage was not. Most times, historically, the shift is towards more inclusiveness (in mathematical terms, more of a union of the differing moral codes, rather than an intersection). However, there are often violent sways in the other direction; witness the Nazis, USSR, and Taliban.
So, back to the original point (sorry for the longwindedness, I do love to hear myself type). I believe there is a distinct difference in the meaning of the word 'morality' in the context of an individual as opposed to the context of a society. A 'flexible' morality in a human being is seen as a fault, whereas a flexiblity in society is seen as enlightment (by most). Your example of the snow scooping; I'll bet there is an exemption for the handicapped elderly person living on disability and food stamps. Surely, a society would neither require a wheelchair-bound person to shovel the snow, nor force a poor person unable to perform to pay for that service.
So, the right and wrong behavior being legislated does so with consideration to the varying moral codes of its individuals and the overall compassion/tolerance of that society. When there are those who attempt to take their individual moral codes and impose them on others, they have completely missed the point of America. America was founded on this basis of tolerance, which is really no more than a flexible society moral codes that adjusts over time for its citizens and circumstances.
So, laws are there to protect and draw bounds around the union of individual moral codes. When one group tries to implement a law that violates this methodology by attempting to impose a tenet of their morality on the whole, it weakens the American society. For example, attempting to prevent gay couples from receiving their equal protection under the law because they believe homosexuality to be immoral is, in effect, anti-American.
I was wrong to imply that all Republicans are part of this group that doesn't understand the Constitution or America; again, I am guilty of overgeneralization. I will attempt to more accurately describe who I'm aiming at in the future. However, I believe there are a great many Republicans who see what is going on, and say nothing, which is a real slap in Lincoln's face.
PS Thanks again for the civil discussion. It is a pleasant but unfortunately rare feature of SI nowadays... |
