Search from here!

Just What IS "Morality", Really?

If we really stop to think about it, "morality" is something that is rather 'fluid', and is 'subject-to-change', as cultures and societies evolve and learn and make improvements through education, legislation, outreach, and other social programs intended for the 'greater-good'.

So, while there is very probably a "deeper morality" which should be considered "sacred" or otherwise 'cast-in-stone' and rigid enough that it should never change; we know the "everyday morality" we deal with changes frequently, and sometimes quite rapidly, and often with little or no regard for potential ripple-effects on society at large.

As humanity has shown over the past, the morality of yesterday is certainly not the same as the morality of today.
Likewise, the morality of today is not the same as what will be the morality of tomorrow, right?

I think the BIG QUESTIONS might be:
"Which way will we choose to go?"
"Who gets to define the 'new morality'?"

Some of the commentary in the initial article I read about this teenage girl and the school seem to sum up what I believe we are experiencing. 

In my (humble) opinion, we seem to be going through a "phase-shift" in certain philosophical sentiments toward myriad aspects and factors of profound significance in the fabric of society. 

According to the article, this student felt that the male teacher might be 'behaving inappropriately', by looking "very hard" in order to tell she was bra-less, as the top she wore was not see-through, etc.

The article did not cover many details about the (alleged) male teacher or his particular take on the situation (other than to say he allegedly reported that he felt "uncomfortable") so it is difficult to understand that aspect; but my guess is that he would likely be considered "normal" (by most interpretations and definitions) if he did happen to notice, perhaps because the clothing might not have entirely hidden the fact she was bra-less.

So, do we take up a debate on "who is morally appropriate" and "who is not morally appropriate"? 

Do we know (with absolute assurance) that the female's intentions had nothing to do with 'being sexy' or otherwise 'sexually attractive'? And, if her intentions were for sexually related self-attention, first we probably should ask: "Why?" (is she suffering emotionally?). Is she being "morally inappropriate"? Is it "inappropriate" for females to want to attract males? 

Do we know (with absolute assurance) that the male teacher is not suffering from some kind of emotional or psychological syndrome, or other (perhaps even 'sexually-related') 'disabilities or dysfunctions'? And, if he is, do we hold that against him if that is "who he is"? Is he being "morally inappropriate"? Is it "inappropriate" for males to be attracted to (and look at) females?

Of course, this is not the place for that debate. I only want to bring attention to some of the difficulties I believe we will face when we begin to expose the Truth (with a capital "T") of what we might see in those mirrors of ours, y'know? 

We seem to be getting more and more "wrapped around the axle" about some of these things, and I think it's confusing the heck out of many people; children, especially.

 Click image for imprinting on T-shirts, mugs, and more!
Nobody is perfect...everybody has 'human nature'...humanity is fallible...people have feelings...let's be real.

The GOOD news is that the Truth (with a capital "T") will set us free! 

Just sayin'...


Scribbling Geek said...

I think "morals" ultimately are a set of theoretical guidelines that aim at a harmonious society. Unfortunately, most people forget that they are but guidelines. They also hurl the word about too liberally.

w1z111 said...

Thanks,SG...I agree.