This New Morality…

With some satire but more of soberness one observer had this to say: “It looks like this new morality is about the same as the old immorality.”¹ We hear both loose and thoughtful talk about what is and isn’t moral. And some would no doubt go so far as to say that morality is a matter of personal opinion or personal preference. But obeying only laws or standards or commandments we agree with, and indulging in anything we want to, is obeying no law but our own. And going in that direction could lead to absolute lawlessness⎯and in absolute lawlessness we couldn’t live at all. Doesn’t the answer, after all, lie along these lines: Whatever diminishes life, whatever impairs the mental or spiritual or physical capacity of people, is basically wrong. Whatever contributes to ill health, to unhappiness, disease, loose or lawless living, or an unquiet conscience⎯whatever pulls people down to a lower level⎯isn’t all such basically wrong⎯or even immoral? When we make life less, when we deliberately damage something precious that we can’t replace, isn’t there a moral side ti all such? There are some things that are precious, priceless, irreplaceable, and if someone acquires such habits, or partakes of such things as to impair any part of his mental or physical or spiritual capacity, or to neglect or abuse himself, his love ones, or his opportunities in life, isn’t there a moral issue in it? Ignoring the experience of the past is a cause of much concern, because great civilizations have indulged and debauched themselves into decay, and because there are eternal values and eternal truths⎯among them the sanctity of the home, of marriage, chastity, faithfulness, the integrity of family⎯and clean and honest conduct. These are still basic to health, to happiness. To inner peace, and to the good and safety of society. And despite all rationalizing, when the so-called new morality is essentially the same as the old immorality, w may expect essentially the same consequences⎯as the past has so often proved.