Bgrinna,

I think the issue of morality has to be addressed objectively, before it can be understood socially, otherwise it becomes a very powerful tool of social control.

Good and bad are not a cosmic duel between righteousness and evil, but the basic biological binary of beneficial and detrimental. The 1/0 of sentience. Even bacteria sense this.

It is from this basis that all the higher order emotional, social and cultural impulses, desires and clues arise, like love, honor, trust, respect, responsibility.

Yet because communities need a basic structure of do’s and don’ts, laws and cultural behavior, in order to function, we tend to see it as handed down from above, rather than having evolved upward, in the first place.

The problem is when we treat these social ideals as absolute, it leaves little room for further evolution and growth. So there becomes this conflict between the organic social energies pushing out, as these civil and cultural forms push in. Not to mention intolerance for the whims/traditions of other groups.

So if we think of these social forms as necessary expressions of the community, but not necessarily absolute and universal, then we would better relate both the tensions between desire and judgement, as well as the cultural nodes of different communities within a larger network. Organisms growing within their ecosystem.

Governance is not bottom up. Desires are. Government is the executive and regulatory function, like the central nervous system. That’s why we need for morality to be understand as a process of decision making, not just a set of rules.

Yes, government is the arbiter of our desires, the referee and it can be easily influenced by base appetites, over long term plans, much as our politicians are bought by the ones controlling the money, not by any broad, long term vision of society, but assuming morality can be determined as a set model only means those who set these rules can claim theistic authority, over the arguments of others. “Divine right of kings.”

Regards,

John