Dear Friends,
It seems to me, there is a great difference between what is morality and what someone calls morality. Some of the most immoral philosophies ever devised by Lucifer himself were considered moral at one time or another. The Carthaginians sacrificed babies to Moloch, the Mayans polluted their drinking wells with the carcasses of their human sacrifices, and abortion is a progressive sacrament today, for example. Showing that, what is morality and what is called morality, often have nothing whatsoever to do with each other. What Mankind needs, is what Christianity along with other religions gave us, the definition of morality. Real morality is always based on the Golden Rule. Any so called “morality” that does not comport with that foundational ethos, is not morality, it is something else, something wicked.
There have been as many “moralities” as there have been cultures on the Earth. According to Herodotus, in some ancient place, all the women had to offer themselves to a stranger at least once in their life. It was done at the temple of Aphrodite. Apparently, homely women might have to wait there for days before some man, in his compassion, would sleep with her. Thus releasing her of the obligation. I suspect that would not be considered moral today… or would it? When a Scythian king would die, his servants and wives would be killed and placed in the tomb with him. Before the Raj, a man in India could burn his wife to death if she displeased him. A Brit, upon hearing of this tradition remarked, we have a tradition in Britain too… it is called public hanging. Ending that practice.
Pragmatism teaches us to judge an idea by its fruit. If an idea results in the deaths of millions, economic want and loss of liberty to the people, pragmatically, it can be judged as bad. An idea that results in the outlawing of slavery across the planet, a population explosion and widespread economic wealth, can then, pragmatically, be judged good. Thrasymachus’ “great men” believe in the first idea and loathe the second though. Since they are the elite, in most cases and places, they choose the first. Socialism, communism and progressivism, are just throwbacks to oligarchy, as Aristotle would have recognized it. He might have remarked on the genius of changing the name, to pretend it serves the people, when it in fact only serves the oligarchs. So, if a few, million, die, what’s the problem?
Systems of moral thought that require us to do to others that we certainly would not want done to us, are then by definition… perversions of morality. Despots that demand death in the name of morality, twist morality into its opposite, and thereby besmirch the good name of morality, corrupting the idea of morality in the minds of the people. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” becomes, kill the unbeliever, convert or heathen, to give some “Great Man” despotic power. No matter how aesthetic the life of the autocrat, he or she is a mere tyrant, no more, no less. They are merely more grandiose versions of Charles Manson. Any idea that is propagated by the sword, fear and despotism is one that serves Lucifer, not God. Only those moralities that preach the Golden Rule serve God.
We then, as sovereign human beings have a duty, not only to be moral, but to examine any morality our culture, preachers and teachers inculcate to us. How? By applying the Golden Rule. If that morality asks us to treat others in a way we would not want to be treated, then, by definition, it is immoral. The malevolent judgment and actions of others tempered with Reciprocal attribution. Which is never to project violence but is defensive only. Morality is not liquid, it does not form to fit the culture, it is rigid. Its shape is the Golden Rule. Those that would have us deform it, to suit their malign wants, always ask us to do violence to a “subhuman.” Whether a Jew, a Tutsi or an unborn baby, the need for a victim proves that so called morality… is immoral, or more appropriately, wicked.
Sincerely,
John Pepin
