Understanding Moral Issues

Polygyny as a moral issue is of no concern; but it is in the realm of subjugating — men in the case of polyandry— women and children, just as in the potential of subjugation in a monogamous marriage. It is, of course, often argued that polygamy as well as homosexual marriage, has little effect on the great house that our founding fathers built and is not worth the prevailing dissension, in spite of the religious moralists fear that the house of God is in shambles because of these abominations — without equally targeting the abomination of the divorce rate.

On the other hand, common sense moral law would stipulate that any departure from the good of society, however seemingly private, exploiting the weak and defenseless is the business of society. Other than criminal abuse cases, protecting the weak in private enclaves of marriage between a man and a woman — admittedly difficult to ascertain — that may involve other means of psychological fear or conditions bordering on enslavement, it is nonetheless imperative that draconian inquiry or laws be forged — as was the case for Utah to enter the union — to violate so-called privacy. This is no different from the ASPCA intervening in behalf of abused pets, provided a tangible lead is furnished to alert officials.

Most of us believe that because of the concept of free will that we should “let live” those who choose a lifestyle as long as essential principles of law and tranquility are not disrupted; many, however, transcend this to the disruption of personal beliefs and conscience. For instance, the social wariness concerning homosexuality should not be a religious issue, particularly when there exists cogent conjecture that Jesus himself and his disciples could well have been of that persuasion. At any rate the religious argument is irrelevant. What should be the concern in this country — what with the power of persuasion in the media, particularly of entertainment — that not all enter this lifestyle freely but are trapped by physical make-up and forlornness and appears to be on the rise. One cannot argue with choice if it is made rationally and free of fear, but how can one tell without freedom of information? The same holds true for the “moral majority” who could very well be voting out of fear and misinformation.

In addition, choice can be dangerous if it is contaminated by false gods and circumstances. A young woman in poverty contemplating abortion, might not be an agent of choice so much as victimized by “no other choice” compulsion. A young, slim lad frustrated in the slow development of muscle and bombarded by machismo in film and sports might convince himself he is gay, blocking out alternatives; a fat, ugly lass never on a date might presumptively commiserate with another of her condition and engage in the only lovemaking available. Is it not the duty of a moral society to broaden alternatives for those thus victimized?

If, however, the house of our founding fathers is undermined by the sheer weight of devious choices, there should be a defining preemptive action to stop the tsunami of quaint, individuated values. For instance, what if the right to bear arms got out of hand to the degree of the wild west? What if hunters became an overwhelming majority and wiped out wild life as the gun freaks of the bison era? What if abortion became so widespread in the name of choice that the American population began to implode? Or worse, gays became the mainstream? What if the American majority became Islamic or Christian right? Or the corporate realm ruled the nation by edict from a court of billionaires, leaving fair labor, small business and the family farm in its wake ? Or the current political bias of a professional army can do no wrong caused a military coup? What if redneck Mississippi or waspish Massachusetts became the center of American politics? Is it not conceivable that the fever pitch of sports could degrade into violence for its own sake? What if the advertising and entertainment industries continued the runaway train toward total Dionysian destruction? Would there then be a call for the confrontation of moral issues, lest the house of our fathers crumble?

Copyright © 2004 Richard R. Kennedy All rights reserved. Revised: January 4, 2005.

http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com