Do we no longer know what morals look like?
or
Do we just no longer care?
Two very important questions. Together, they are both true some of the time, neither are true all the time, and anytime either are true, society suffers.
One should be perplexed at the thought of how either of these questions can be true in an advanced and intelligent society such as the United States. Of course, the argument can be made that intelligence has little to do with morals. Centuries ago, societies held morals above the man-made laws of the land primarily because morals consideration come first in the thinking process. It is always the morals of a society that create the belief systems of the leaders who drafted the laws that set the legal boundaries established for a society. If a society is immoral, the laws that they pass will also be immoral. In those cases, the immoral society is destined to fail due to the widespread lack of trust evident to all members of the community. As an example of our decline, in some jurisdiction, it is currently viewed as legal to allow the harm of a viable fetus of a healthy woman, yet it is against the law, in many jurisdictions, to even whip a non-violent animal.
Are not both acts morally wrong? Yet one is legal.
If any given person holds one of these acts as morally apprehensible while the other morally acceptable what does that say about that person’s belief system?
Can the same person believe it is immoral to safely separate children from their parents while also believing it is perfectly fine to physically remove a healthy child from a healthy woman’s womb resulting in the child’s planned death?
Recently, we were able to view a national job interview where the candidate was accused of an immoral and illegal act. The available facts were brought forth, witnesses were questioned, and the candidate was cross examined by a committee of people. The results showed no clear evidence to support the accusations. In a moral society, an unsubstantiated accusation would be held to be without merit. It would be understood that all people are to be treated as innocent until proven guilty by facts, but not in today’s America. Many of this man’s opponents and critics, if the candidate would have been them or a loved one of theirs, would have wanted fair treatment; but solely on his moral beliefs, the government committee, treated him as if he were guilty. This case was a public one but make no mistake, cases like this happen every day in boardrooms throughout the country.
Do we know longer care about treating people morally fair?
Do the facts and evidence still hold any substance of order?
Every day you hear people blaming the presence of guns for the high level of gun violence in the world. Yet, many of these same people who scream and posture to make gun ownership illegal depend on armed security to be with them around the clock.
It would seem that the protection of one’s security is morally right for everyone; not just those who can afford a personal security detail.
In today’s society, we seem to rationalize morals to our whims instead of living to moral standards. The difference is clear. When I am allowed to rationalize my personal moral code; no one has the “right” to question my beliefs. They become relativistic to the individual not to the truth as it pertains to the events in question. The facts and the truth no longer matter. On the other hand, if I must live to a moral standard, a level much higher than any one individual, then society has a say in what is perceived as moral or immoral. Each member of the society relies on one another to keep the society grounded in the truth.
