Tuesday, November 24, 2009

"Amorality" is the new "Moral"

After thinking some more about my previous blog posting, I am reminded that there is no such thing as "amorality." Everyone has moral standards of one of sort or another. My attorney friend merely had a different and somewhat vague set of moral standards, but she still had them.

Hitler had his set of standards, as do radical Muslims and child molesters.

So, it is not a matter of morality or no morality, but "whose" morality. Which version of morality fulfills our needs the best? The "our needs" definition is part of the problem. Is morality to serve our own individual "selfish" needs? Our family's needs? Our community's needs? Our nation's needs? Or the world's needs. Obama's morality seems to be focused on fulfilling the world's needs. The child molester's morality is based on fulfilling his own needs. Biblical morality is based on fulfilling a definition of God's desires as understood through the prophets. Increasing numbers of us today seem to consider this standard a fiction.

The truth is, the Biblical standard of morality really does promote interpersonal and intergroup harmony, personal responsibility, respect, and tolerance - qualities that are lacking in the major competing ideologies of Islamicism and Communism.

Ironically, we have to be discerning (informed version of "judgemental") and resolute (civil version of intolerant) in order to maintain our collective moral values.

Who's morality shall we choose? Is our version worth fighthing for, or shall we let the new "morality" become the the standard by default?

1 comment:

Samuel Gonzalez said...

Nice post. I believe morality based on my Chrisitian beliefs. It doesn't make me perfect, far from it. But, I think its a good way to live. Did you hear about what Oprah wants to do?

Ckeck out my blog sometime if you haven't heard.