Thursday, May 8, 2014

Our morals are on display

  

What are we to make of a society where kicking a cat is the worst imaginable crime (except possibly expressing negative sentiments toward black people in a private conversation) while killing a baby is a form of empowerment? A century ago they would have thought us monsters. Today we think that they were the monsters. At least that's what our guardians of public morality insist on telling us.

Today we burn dead babies for heat and send out SWAT teams after cat kickers. In 1914, they would have ignored the cat and they had no SWAT teams, but they would have made every effort to save an endangered child.

Perhaps they were monsters. Or perhaps we are. 

Public morals reflect the shape of a society. Today more households have pets than children. So it's only natural that many value pets more than children. Morality follows emotional attachments. Love has become the ultimate arbiter of public morality today. And that has its consequences in more ways than one. Our morality is love, not family.

In 1940, 43 percent of all households had children. By 1960, that number was up to 44 percent. Today it's around 20 percent.Meanwhile 63 percent of all households have a pet. 40 percent own cats. Or as some like to put it, the cats own them. There are more cats in America than children.
What are we to make of a society where kicking a cat is the worst imaginable crime (except possibly expressing negative sentiments toward black people in a private conversation) while killing a baby is a form of empowerment? A century ago they would have thought us monsters. Today we think that they were the monsters. At least that's what our guardians of public morality insist on telling us.

Today we burn dead babies for heat and send out SWAT teams after cat kickers. In 1914, they would have ignored the cat and they had no SWAT teams, but they would have made every effort to save an endangered child.

Perhaps they were monsters. Or perhaps we are. 

Public morals reflect the shape of a society. Today more households have pets than children. So it's only natural that many value pets more than children. Morality follows emotional attachments. Love has become the ultimate arbiter of public morality today. And that has its consequences in more ways than one. Our morality is love, not family.

In 1940, 43 percent of all households had children. By 1960, that number was up to 44 percent. Today it's around 20 percent.Meanwhile 63 percent of all households have a pet. 40 percent own cats. Or as some like to put it, the cats own them. There are more cats in America than children.



Societies that place a low value on human life can survive as long as they have high birth rates. If they have low birth rates and use household pets and pornography as substitutes for the biological reproductive instinct... they have no future. They will not survive. They will die alone and the civilization that succeeds them will have many children, few pets and will kick their surviving cats.

That isn't a matter of debate.

A society that cannot survive is not moral or amoral. It is irrelevant. To its own people however it is inherently immoral. No virtue of a society can be worth its destruction because that will also destroy the virtue in question. A society that chooses extinction can never be moral, because the thing that it chooses to die for will not carry on its morals. That's a simple matter of everyday evolution.

  






No comments: