"President Obama endorsed gay marriage in an interview Wednesday. The president has described his views on gay marriage over the past few years as “evolving,” but many believe he was just waiting for public opinion to catch up with him. Can someone's moral principles really evolve?
"Yes. While some of the growing national acceptance of gay marriage is the result of turnover—as older, more socially conservative people die off—there has been a significant amount of mind-changing among members of the American public."
Morality is not simply a peer reviewed process. It is a fact of nature. Morality is those actions and behaviors that lead to the good health and well-being of individuals and communities.
Our understanding of morality will be significantly impacted by the Supreme Court's acceptance of nationalized health care. Every behavior directly and indirectly affecting our health will eventually come under scrutiny.
Morality is those actions and behaviors that lead to the good health and well-being of individuals and communities. Behaviors that cause obesity are already being targeted by the Whitehouse. Smoking and drinking behaviors have been a perennial concern of lawmakers for more than one hundred years. But now all behaviors including the type of sex we have, the risks we take in outdoor activities, the foods we eat, and how often we bathe will be viewed for their moral value in ways not previously seen in human civilization.
Instead of each person for themselves, we are now essentially a socialist society. What other people do in their private life will have definite and quantifiable financial impact on all other people, and therefore it is now under consideration to regulate private lives. And since it is the purpose of government to regulate, it is only a matter of time before the government is watching and criticizing our every move.
The medical establishment will be turned on its head. No longer will doctors be allowed to let their patients get sick so they can milk the system for lots of money for expensive treatments. In the name of reducing health insurance costs, programs will be legislated that focus on preventative health care. Gone will be questionable commercial ingredients and foods prepared in a chemistry lab. Gone will be life extending surgeries for those who do not make an effort to watch their diet and exercise sufficiently. Gone will be the option to keep fetuses who will present a health burden to society.
These changes will not occur overnight, but they will occur over the coming decades. They will occur as new generations are faced with the health liabilities of their predecessors and are required to cover their costs. A new class warfare will arise between those who take care of their health and those who carelessly burden society with poor moral choices.
It is highly unlikely that the new health care laws will ever be repealed unless their is a total collapse of the present system of government. In some ways the new health care laws will be good for humanity as a whole, and in other ways it will be the end of the world for those who refuse to change their morality. As moved as many people are by this radical change, hardly anyone can yet perceive the full consequences of this decision.
The next few years will see new battle lines drawn. Groups of people who supported these laws because they wanted change will realize they made a great mistake. Groups who opposed these laws will realize benefits from the laws they were not expecting. If we can keep our passions under control, we will all likely experience one of the most important revolutions in the advancement of the human species, and which officially started today, June 28, 2012.
The concept of moral relativism has attracted attention to those looking to justify behaviors considered immoral by others. The argument states that morality is relative to each individual and no absolute authority exists. The primary argument against moral relativism is that a sacred doctrine, depending upon the religion, provides absolute authority on moral matters.
The truth is that morality has always been based on health concerns. Abraham got circumcised when he was 100 years old, and apparently that enabled him to have a son. So circumcision became a foundation moral practice in Judaism. Various foods would cause illness if eaten at certain times of the year, and so the basis of various morals concerning diet were established.
It goes without saying that killing people is generally unhealthy. The health concerns of the elderly inspired the morals of honoring one's parents. Sexual promiscuity eventually results in hard-to-cure genital diseases. Sex practices other than simple and gentle coitus will often cause physical injuries. Thus moral rules governing sex practices within a community were established.
Well-being is happiness based on health. Health is the absolute and underlying authority governing morality. A moral person steadfastly lives a healthy life.
Religions naturally incorporate healthy actions and behaviors into their dogma, as morality provides the happiness and freedom from suffering attributed to the Giver of Life. But so also do governments, fraternities, schools, long running and successful businesses, and other groups of people. Naturally, every family wants health and happiness, and so concerned parents teach morality to their children.
Whether people understand what morality is or not (and most do not), they instinctively know they must act in ways that promote health and well-being. It is the nature of the living to want to continue to live. Through trial and error, all living things learn the behaviors that lead to good health and well-being.
As long as life continues, morality will always be the central cultural theme. Even if a fad arises pretending that morality will conform to political preferences, in the end, morality will again be defined as the health and well-being of individuals and communities. We can fool ourselves, but we cannot fool nature (or God.)
Society lost its way on morality due to authoritarian leaders who bypassed the reasoning process, and who made moral decisions for others. Without explaining why certain actions and behaviors are immoral, decrees were made and written in stone.
Morality needs no judgment. It is not necessary to say, "this is good" or "that is bad." It is enough to simply teach good health and ways of being, which promote health and well-being. Instead of telling someone, "you shouldn't do this," the non-judgmental approach would be to encourage awareness of the repercussions of those actions. The corollary is also true; instead of telling people good things they should be doing, simply discuss the benefits and rewards of actions and behaviors that lead to good health and happiness.
The divisions of society along sharp lines, such as Republicans and Democrats, religious and atheist, and thousands of other sharply defined categories of behavior, are a sign that judgment has run rampant. It is judgment that ultimately destroys social order.
It does not matter what side of the divisions we find ourselves, the solution is to shift our focus directly to morality; that is, we shift from blame to education. We learn the ramifications of our actions, and then act according to what will produce the best health and well-being, both for ourselves and for the larger groups of which we are members. There is no need to allow judgment into our speech.