Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Johannes Pilch who wrote (580282)	6/2/2004 6:09:20 PM
From: Kevin Rose	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Ok, so the founding fathers were a moral man who, faced with an immoral world, did the best he could. Well, not all of them. Some were definitely pro-slavery. And many, if not all, were anti-right-to-vote, supporting the narrow view that only well-off white men should be allowed to vote, which is probably why the Constitution did not contain any mention of a 'right to vote'. So, did they see a pristine view of morality, and just weren't able to obtain it? Or, given their opposition to suffrage, did they simply maintain faith to the morality of the day? Hindsight morality is pretty easy, usually. It is the here and now morality, much less the future morality, that is the problem. Is there some oasis of morality that we see in the distance, yet cannot reach? Or, is it that we are all on a 'path to righteousness' where we, as a society, grow in our realization as to what is right and wrong. In the day of the founders, women's suffrage was not only not an issue, it was pretty inconceivable. Equal rights for minorities was unheard of. Native Americans were seen as godless, evil, and bloodthirsty. Crime and poverty became rampant in the cities of the North, followed by massive corporate and civic corruption. Yet, for the majority of the people of the time, this was just "the way it was". Minorities, women, and Indians needed to "know their place". Crime and poverty was expected amongst the "lower classes". Corruption was a way of getting things done. The 'morality of the day' tolerated this state of what we recognize today as immorality. So, the question is, are we in the same situation? How can we be sure that our current view of morality is that pristine one that our founding fathers saw in the distance? One problem is that different peoples and cultures have a different view of morality. Jews and Muslims don't eat pork, and think it is immoral to do so. Christians believe that working on Sundays is disrespectful of the Lord. Vegans believe that eating meat is immoral. Everyone's got their own opinion. So, is morality the sum of these beliefs? What if they contradict? As we've established ad nauseum, I do not see homosexuality as immoral, but you apparently do. So, what is the 'ultimate' morality? Christian? Jewish? Muslim? Vegan? Buddist? This is why I believe that morality, which I believe does not exist in a vaccuum or an 'ultimate state', evolves. As we understand the world, and the differing viewpoints of those in it, we synthesize our view of morality. In America in years past, interracial marriage was seen as immoral and illegal. Today, it is accepted. An evolution of our outlook on morality. Some say that morality is an absolute. I don't see how that can be, given that society changes and evolves, and faces new issues with each generation. We may have a 'sense' of morality, when things feel 'right' or 'wrong', but as far as their being a single set of rules that pin down the moving morality target, I'm not seeing it. Especially when you see the clashing morality of different groups that all seem to think that THEIR concept of morality is an absolute. I will agree that Jefferson and many of the founding fathers were very wise. My assertion is that they were wise not because they were moral, but because they recognized that the definition of exactly what is moral is not immutable.