Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Morality and the Social Order

Expand Messages
  • dick.richardson@rocketmail.com
    Morality and the Social Order Social Order requires very little defining, for it is its own definition. Either a society is functioning well enough and
    Message 1 of 1 , Oct 3, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Morality and the Social Order



      Social Order requires very little defining, for it is its own
      definition. Either a society is functioning well enough and reasonably
      harmoniously or it isn't. If they don't then they collapse and
      there is no social order. Why would a person want social order or want
      social collapse? That is for each of them to say, for only they can
      know that. My own feelings about that is that it is far more
      advantageous, and interesting, if social order exists. And for the
      reasons stated. Morality does not enter into it.



      But, we each and all operate and conduct ourselves by some criteria,
      some personal principles, and that takes place with the society. It
      does not take place in a vacuum. Where do these personal principles
      come from? I can only speak for myself, and you are welcome to speak for
      yourself. But for me they have not come from anywhere; they are just
      there, inside. I did not buy them, and nobody gave them to me. I notice
      too that throughout life they have been modulated here and there to
      some extent. But most of that was done at a very early age. But, is
      this packet of personal principles called `MORALITY' ? Well,
      call it whatever one will, it does not alter what it IS by calling it
      something; no more so than sight is altered by calling it sight.



      I have heard it said by SOME religionists (not all of them) that
      without a religious belief system there would be no morality and people
      would not have these principles. Maybe in their case it is true, and
      that without their package of beliefs they would have no moral
      prerogative. But that is not for me to say, but rather for them to
      say. But what I can say for sure is that I and no doubt billions of
      other people would also say is that one does not need a religion to have
      principles and morals. Moreover, I see no need for them to use that as a
      justification for them having one. Neither do I see a vast sweep of
      evidence which suggests that the activities of religionists is far
      superior to those of non religionists. More often than not it seems to
      be the contrary. But invariably only bad news makes the news.



      This is also a question which I was asked on a radio interview, much to
      my surprise at the time. How can one have morals without a religion. I
      was quite shocked in fact. It struck me as one of the most stupid
      questions ever asked. If somebody is of the opinion that they have moral
      principles because there is somebody up in the sky pulling strings, or
      that they got them from a book; well, let them live with it. Maybe they
      need it for that purpose. Maybe that is why religionists are
      `good' – for some later reward. Are they `good' ?
      So many of then seem to hate each other.



      I also often hear it said (usually by teeny-boppers) that love is all
      you need. As though being in love were some kind of moral prerogative
      or a choice even. What has love got to do with morality and
      principles? NOTHING. Moreover, we need many things; food, water, a
      place to live and raise the children, and so much more. Love is not
      all that one needs. Also. It should be obvious to all that love can
      sometimes play skittles with peoples principles and hurl them out of
      the window. But not necessarily so.



      But, in order for a society to work then one truly must have principles
      and use them; and even if some of those personal principles conflict
      with what the mass of society wants one has to grin and bear it. It is
      not a case of forsaking ones principles but simply a case melding with
      the society without disrupting it for no good reason. But where do
      these principle comes from? Well they have certainly not come from any
      book or any being floating around in the sky. The simple fact is that
      I don't know where they come from, all I know is that they are
      there. But maybe this not knowing where something comes from is the
      problem for some of them. Maybe it is a case that they MUST have and
      answer for everything. And their religion being that answer for them.
      But they certainly DON'T come from religion and morality and
      principles seem to do better without them anyway. And they are also
      unconditional of reward.



      rwr







      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.