Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
It is interesting that the morality of liberals are by themselves unworkable in a society. Loyalty and authority are necessary in order to have a society. Excessive amounts will conflict with harm and fairness but, a lack of loyalty and authority will cause extensive harm and unfairness. The phrase "there was no king in Israel and everyone did what was right in their own eyes" comes to mind. It is the theme and warning of the book of Judges.
Purity is the most undervalued of the five. Lack of purity is the reason why we have to lock our doors when we go out today and we keep our children on a much shorter leash then we had when we were children. When society loses its consensus on what is shameful the government has to make more laws and exercise more authority to substitute for our lack of purity. This in turn creates more conflict with harm/fairness and loyalty/authority.
|
...But that purity of yesteryear you speak of, may not in fact represent someone else's sense of purity. Perhaps children had a longer leash in the past, but other persons in society were on a much shorter leash. Minorities - racial or gendered, spring to mind. Did the predominant social views of those in power during that era, who dictated the terms and understanding of concepts like purity and shamefulness, and thus lead to wider spread oppression of those outside the circle of power than we have today, represent "true" purity?
What is "true" purity? Is there even such a thing? To you it means something, but to others it means something quite different.