Quote:
Originally Posted by liamenator
...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.
|
I don't believe a government can dictate a standard of purity. If that was the case abortion and gay marriage would have no opposition in society. They have much opposition. I'm not sure if a person can define what "true purity" is outside of a religious tradition. If you don't have a strong religious well to draw from everything is suspect and therefore you can't say anything is absolute.
What I'm talking about is a "practical" purity. It does change over time as the values within society change. Today it is shameful to have sex with children, hit your wife in public, masturbate in public, use certain racial words in mixed company, ect. You know it is a societal standard if both liberals and conservatives find some action shameful. In some parts of the world it is shameful if you let your daughter/sister live after finding out they have been dating. Societal standards can be wrong. The problem with their absence is that it puts a great pressure on authority(government) to fill the gap. That means more police and jails and less freedom. Years ago we had a consensus on most things and people conformed to that consensus because of there strong desire to be accepted by the group. Today we lack consensus on most things and suffer with more government because of it.