3 ms·
When looked at over a timespan of centuries and across a wide variety of cultures, most of society's morals seem rather arbitrary to me. Many westerners fail t
by Xcelerate 10y ago
When looked at over a timespan of centuries and across a wide variety of cultures, most of society's morals seem rather arbitrary to me. Many westerners fail to consider exactly how much culture and environment influence the "morality du jour". We (as voters) act as though we want moral absolutism, but we can't even consistently decide what is or isn't moral over a few decades. And while most people feel as though we keep moving toward "better" morals, I'm not so sure; I imagine this kind of sentiment has always been present.
Until everyone in the world agrees on one brand of morality, we must preserve the ability to discuss and debate it. No group can place themselves into the "we're clearly right" box, because historically, that hasn't turned out well, despite the best of intentions. Losing friends over a difference of political opinion is less of a concern than ending up in a society that got morality "wrong" because of an anomalous groupthink feedback loop.
- HillaryBriss 10y ago> We (as voters) act as though we want moral absolutism, but we can't even consistently decide what is or isn't moral over a few decades. Maybe this is debatable or plain wrong, but, to me, it looks like traditional sources of ethical/moral authority (mostly religious) in America have lost most of their power, their influence, their credibility. But, as you say, we still want a powerful moral authority or ethical guidance system. And it appears that we have increasingly turned to the US Supreme Court for answers and validation. Unless it disagrees with us, in which case we write about how corrupt and stupid it is.