What is "morality"?

[iBrian]

Morality is one of those concepts that we all have an accepted understanding of - but the moment you try to define it in any way, the meaning is hard to capture.

I've found myself thinking a lot about morality recently - about how we react to it, and make personal judgements of what constitute's moral and immoral action.

But what actually defines morality? Is it an entirely cultural phenomena? If so, is it actually separate from religion?

And, ultimately, what is morality anyway?

 

[WHKeith]

Wonderful discussion topic.

For myself, I use the word "morality" to embrace behavior--generally within a cultural venue--that is enforced within a religious context. I use the word "ethics" to cover behaviors within a social venue that are enforced solely within a personal and nonreligious context.

My favorite illustrative story on this question: Back before the late 18th to mid-19th century, the inhabitants of many Polynesian islands were quite relaxed about sex. In some cultures, young teens were encouraged to experiment sexually with their friends. On most islands, women routinely went bare-breasted; breasts were thought of as feeding organs for babies, and did not seem to have any sexual aspect at all. On the other hand, for many island cultures, kissing was an absolute taboo. I don't know whether there was a religious aspect to this; so far as I can see, they simply thought that rubbing mouths was unspeakably dirty...not in a sexual way, but in terms of the mouth being physically unclean. (They were right, BTW. The mouth is the second dirtiest place on the human body, in terms of germ count, and the human mouth is the dirtiest, again in terms of germs, in the animal kingdom!)

Then along came the European missionaries who were horrified at all of that wicked fornication and nudity. The natives were taught the Gospel, and the women forced to wear dresses. They were also taught shame. Kissing, though, was fine, as long as it was done in the proper social context.

This seems to be a good example of how moral behavior in one culture/religion can be construed as immoral in another.

As a footnote, I read an article in a boating magazine a few years ago. It seems that more and more rich American and European tourists are visiting the South Sea islands in their expensive yachts, and causing widespread scandals by going topless or nude on their boats and on the beaches. (The article included a few photographs that would not have been out of place in Playboy.) The Christian, God-fearing natives of these islands are shocked at this immoral behavior, and their governments have protested to various embassies.

It appears to me that each religion defines morality in terms of essential survival and culturally inherited behaviors that come eventually to be enforced by religion--"Thou shalt not. . ." The interpretation of certain specific behaviors as immoral can be extremely widespread; such behaviors appear to have solid social reasons for being--murder and incest being two. Others, though, appear at best to be hold-overs from much earlier cultures, and which are frozen in place by religious doctrine.

For instance, in cultures that maintain a strict observation of Islamic law, it is immoral for a woman to appear in public without being accompanied by her husband, her father, or another male relative. This probably derives from the need in nomadic patriarchal societies for the husband to be sure his children are his, and possibly, as well, reflects a need in those societies to protect what is viewed as a scarce resource--marriageable women. This view of women appears to be indifferently supported by the Quran, but is a powerful moral issue in many countries, one indorsed and held nailed in place by religious interpretation.

When I was a fundamentalist Christian, one church I was a member of for a time taught that drinking alcohol--even a glass of wine--was sinful. I don't recall that it was ever denounced specifically as "immoral," but Bible verses were used to condemn it. ("Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging, and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise." Proverbs 20:1)

Now, fundy though I was, I didn't go along with this interpretation. I did NOT believe the official explanation for all of those Bible verses that seem to condone drinking--water into wine at Cana, "Do this in remembrance of me," "Take thou a little wine for your sometimes infirmities..."--as referring to "grape juice," as that church taught.

I didn't drink myself; still don't. I never have liked the taste of alcohol, and I dislike on principle the idea of losing control. But my decision not to drink back then was essentially an ethical one, NOT religious, and even as a fundy I never upbraided someone else about his having the occasional drink. I never thought drinking itself to be immoral--though a lot of people do commit both immoral and unethical acts under its influence!

In the view of that church, quite possibly I was guilty of immoral behavior—not doing my best to save my brothers from the sins of demon rum—while engaging in what I thought of as ethical behavior—“it’s your decision, your responsibility, and not my business.”

 

[emong]

Societie's Definition: It is knowing the difference between right and wrong as it relates to the society in which you live. Given that, it's boundries are always in flux.

In Religion, it would be based on the provided conscripts of the Diety involved.

For me....it is a point of view you are born with, be it moral or amoral.
And I don't believe it is alterable. I believe each individual has his own set of morals which guide him to do what he does. Just as I believe there are born murderers and those who are incapable of the act under any circumstances.

 

[WHKeith]

Mm. I agree with the social definition--knowing the difference between right and wrong, though what constitutes right and wrong will clearly be different in different cultures. I respectfully disagree that the personal definition is not alterable.

To use myself as example, once again. When I was a teenager, and on up through my '30s, I was incredibly up tight and straight-laced. I was a virgin when I married at 27. For me, sex was ONLY permissible within the context of husband and wife. And, believe this or not, I'd held this view since my teen years when I was a nominal Presbyterian without much at all in the way of religious faith or knowledge. The idea of taking someone to bed who wasn't my wife was shocking--I would have said "immoral." I did use the Bible and the overall background context of my Judeo-Christian culture as support for that position, but without really understanding it. [To be absolutely truthful, a lot of my sincere moral stance on this issue might well have been an unconscious cover-up or a face-saving device for me; I didn't think at the time I would EVER get a date, or induce a woman to like me!]

In my wild old age, I've loosened up a lot. My wife and I both are polyamorous, and we both have had a number of others as lovers, some long-term, some not. I entered this lifestyle--immoral by the standards of my culture--some months before becoming a Wiccan; within the Wiccan context, "All acts of love and pleasure are my ritual," as our Charge of the Goddess states, and there is nothing shameful or wrong or immoral about sex or nudity or the body.

I once felt very strongly that public nudity was immoral--a temptation to immoral behavior. I now host hot-tub parties at my place with crowds of pagan friends lounging around in the nude. I occasionally perform ritual skyclad--nude--with others. The Wiccan "Great Rite" celebrates sex.

So my personal interpretations of what is moral and immoral have changed quite dramatically, thank you!

And . . . I cannot believe that someone is born a murderer. That would completely rob the whole concept of personal responsibility of any meaning whatsoever.

 

[Susma Rio Sep]

What is good and evil?

(Note to moderator: If this post is against the rules, let me know; in the meantime please delete it.)

http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/showthread.php?t=406

11-13-2003, 11:42 PM

good and evil revisited Post #7
Susma Rio Sep
Junior Member

Joined: Nov 2003
Thomas narrates about the monk seized by a demon, compelled to make one of three choices, and choosing to drink:
Quote:


The liquor is strong, and the monk unused to strong drink. He quickly becomes intoxicated, loses self control, slaughters the goat, and rapes the woman.

The moral? There is no such thing as a 'lesser evil' because we cannot forsee the consequences of our actions.

This story appears to teach that there is no way out of certain situations, and that we just have to be resigned to unforeseen forces of one action leading to another and another.

Is it a story to make us adopt an impassive attitude and eschew all sense of decision and responsibility?

For me, the monk makes the right choice and he will be acquitted of slaughtering the goat and raping the woman, should such events follow – i.e., if I were a rational God and not a robotized one.

The monk can foresee that he might lose control, then kill the goat and rape the woman, but he might not, and with greater probability. Since he is a monk, he should already have been conditioned to be normally well-behaved even when induced to a drunken stupor.

The idea that alcoholic intoxication leads to violence is not really so true. I would suspect that normally well-behaved people will not turn unruly when intoxicated; the trouble is with people not normally well-behaved. There are phases of alcoholic intoxication, though. But I think that the labs will prove my contention.

Evil is for me the choice of an emotional satisfaction or drive to the harm of another. Thus in many instances to satisfy the emotion of envy a person destroys the good name or obstructs the advancement of others. Another example, to satisfy the greed for more oil one country invades another. Still another, to satisfy libido one forces sex on another, whereas he should ask humbly and patiently; and be disposed to take no for an answer.

The kind of evil above is an essential evil in mankind. Then there is the evil that is proscribed by society, in accordance with what society thinks to be for the good of the whole social body; even though later in more enlightened times with changed circumstances the advantage imagined to be obtained should no longer exist. For example, one should marry first before having sex, that is the rule then and still binding in many societies.

Nowadays, however, with the science and technology of contraception practically failsafe for knowledgeable practitioners, sex without marriage is no longer evil in the estimation of the general Westernized public -- but just observe the demands of justice in regard to parties bound to the contracted duty of monogamic fidelity.

I would like to hear from Thomas or Brian more situations where a moral choice has to be made; I like to analyze the situations in my own conception of good and evil. Many such moral stories-situations are not really impossible to resolve on the basis of my theories.

Susma Rio Sep

Thanks for your patience.

Susma Rio Sep

 

[Chronicles]

Thanks for the reply, Bill - much appreciated that you relate to us your personal experiences - especially through such a cycle of different faith systems.

You've also made made me realise that I've not widened this subject into that of "ethics" as well, which was an intention (I think a distinction can be argued - wait until I'm armed with a dictionary at home before I justify that, though. ).

Susma Rio Sep - I have been meaning to post up some examples of how morality is dealt with in child development within psychology. It's certainly illuminating how moral distinctions are made and classified.

My old psychology books are in teh loft, however, and not easily accessible - but I need them to track down the name of the man involved in the study of morality in child development. Any psychologists here would probably be able to locate the name quite easily, but until then, I'll have to wait a little while first.

I've got some kids clothes to put up in the loft very soon - I'll try to take a sneak peak at my old books and come down with a name I can research properly on the internet - then post the results here. Should be quite interesting when I do.

 

[Susma Rio Sep]

children and morality

I confess that I have had a hard time also teaching my two kids about morality. They are now both of an age when they can think for themselves and conduct themselves responsibly, at least to not get in trouble with the law, whether directly from acting against the law or indirectly on the complaint of their neighbors.

Modesty aside, and by God's mercy and grace, and with trembling that He might not take it kindly to my 'boasting', I think my wife and I have done a good job turning them into well-behaved and productive members of society.

Looking back again, it was not really such a hard time.

My wife and I are conventional people of Christian background. We are faithful to each other, worked for a living and still are doing so, and keep out of trouble; and maintain politeness if nothing else with our neighbors. Luckily for us, or by God's grace, we have lived always in 'decent' neighborhood.

Looking back again, I now see that I have always taught my two kids, a girl and a boy, to observe negative directives in life, instead of positive ones. First don't, then if you still have the time and trouble, then you can do the "do's".

So, they have learned from me the first of all negative directives of living in society:

“Don’t do to others what you don’t want others to do to you.”

Then to be more specific, I have taught them about the three big don’ts of living among fellow humans:

1. Primum non nocere.
2. Deinde non nocere.
3. Ultimum, semper non nocere.

Susma Rio Sep

 

[Quahom1]

Children and morality two

Two parts to morality exist (in my opinion). The morality of the day, and the moral code of conduct.

If I believe in anarchy, then no rules exist, but that which I make for self, and of course I would be a potential conflict of interest to my neighbor. Even in an anarchist environment there are rules (power/gold rule (he who has the power or the gold, rules absolutely)), which means I might cease to exist, if he was stronger than me, and no sweat off of his nose.

The problem with this way of thinking is simple, mutual annihilition. I want what you got, you want what I got, we fight. If we are equal in strength, and reserves, stalemate, or we kill eachother.

Survival of the fittest, or strongest, or smartest animal.

However, even animals have some sort of moral code. A beastial sense of honor, if you will.

And of course the Judaic/Christian Bible refers to this. (Paraphrased -would you give stones to your children to eat? Of course not. So if you provide your children with bread, how much more will God provide you and yours...)

There is an absolute moral code of conduct, that separates Man from animal.

It has nothing to do with current beliefs in "taboo" subjects which change with the wind, rather it is base on the basic golden rule.

"Allow me (and mine) to exist, and I will allow you and yours to exist."

That is the base moral code of conduct. Everything else is like layers of an onion, of which we as a community agree to mutually uphold.

Jesus tried to get us to go one better, and the Wiccans preach a similar tote: Harm no one.

I made it simple for my kids. Treat everyone as though they had a bit of you in them, because they do. And being that you respect yourself, you must therefore respect the life in them.

There have been tough times with them (particularly dealing with being raised in both the deep south and the very north of the US), where morality issues conflict even to this day. But considering others as part of ourselves, seems to have smoothed a lot of the potential conflicts away. And I think they are much stronger and gentler for it.

I had a son who saw me on TV in the news, during the Haitian operations (repatriating the refugees to their island home), and his comment when I came home was "How could you touch those filthy people..., let alone treat them and hold them."

My response was, "What if it were you, the Haitians were touching treating and holding, though you were filthy, tired and starving? How would you feel then?"

Being a teenager, he walked away (to think about it). Found him later wiping his eyes, and admitting he would be grateful.

Isn't raising children great?!

 

[iBrian]

If I believe in anarchy, then no rules exist, but that which I make for self, and of course I would be a potential conflict of interest to my neighbor. Even in an anarchist environment there are rules (power/gold rule (he who has the power or the gold, rules absolutely)), which means I might cease to exist, if he was stronger than me, and no sweat off of his nose.

The problem with this way of thinking is simple, mutual annihilition. I want what you got, you want what I got, we fight. If we are equal in strength, and reserves, stalemate, or we kill eachother.

Survival of the fittest, or strongest, or smartest animal.

However, even animals have some sort of moral code. A beastial sense of honor, if you will.

I think you've hit a proverbial nail on the head there - indeed, self interest could destroy us, but at our biological heart is an animal hard-wired to exist in social groups.

That socio-biological hard wiring means that as an ape we will ultimately form a group consensus on what is considered right and wrong within our own social environment - and hence we have the start of a sense of culture: not in our artistic expressions, but instead the foundations upon which such expressions can be deemed acceptable or no.

And that would be precisely why the human animal has formed so many different cultural sets on this earth - precisely because the nature of the morality such societies are built upon is entirely relative, simply sharing the common factor of looking after the interests of the larger group.

 

[Susma Rio Sep]

Sedate humdrum life

By God's goodness and mercy, my wife and I have always led a kind of sedate humdrum existence, never any so morally challenging decision to make.

Birth control by artificial contraception, easily decided whatever religious mentors say otherwise.

But abortion, now that is one question that by God's mercy we have never had to face. And I don't know how I would solve that one, if and when I face the problem.

Killing someone even by self-defense, so far I have not had to face this kind of a situation either. But I hope that I can just disable him -- now sometimes even that is not enough.

Kill in a just war? Never been conscripted by compulsory draft, luckily or by God's goodness. I am totally against war and violence, though.


I can make a confession here: I am not troubled with smoothing edges or cutting corners in small moral questions if I can get even with the 'establishment.'

One example, in the supermarket the price of a jar of peanut butter was mistakenly priced lower. So I took the opportunity of buying two on the occasion. Why? Well, does the 'establishment' return to us the over-price which was also erroneously placed?

So, I am not troubled by compensation morality -- that's my term for the chance to get even, even though it is formally immoral.


Again, our life is so sedate and humdrum, we are lucky to be spared difficult moral choices.

What do the Spaniards say about "pecadillos"? And St. Paul says something about taking a little wine for the sack of the stomach. I drink what my friends and family members bring in their visits with us; but I don't buy drinks myself even for their visits. I don't condemn either in any way alcoholic beverages within limits.


Susma Rio Sep

 

[juantoo3]

But what actually defines morality? Is it an entirely cultural phenomena? If so, is it actually separate from religion?

And, ultimately, what is morality anyway?

This is a very interesting question.

I am no authority, my knowledge is limited on the subject, so I suppose what I have to say is as much in the form of a question as well.

It seems to me morality has its roots in shared survival. Spread the load across the group to better insure each individual has a chance, with the ultimate aim at increasing "the herd". With no morality, anarchy would be the rule. Anarchy by definition cannot flourish. It would be the "house divided against itself (that) cannot stand". Morality then would have been the natural and obvious adaptation of any tribe, which is why even the animals seem to practice an elemental morality (especially the herding animals).

Since it seems to be shown by recent archeological finds, that Neandertal and Cro-Magnon coexisted and cooperated, it would seem reasonable that there was some form of elemental morality even at that early stage in human social development. The question raised by this shifts to: "was morality a conscious or instinctive" reflex? Another question raised by this same discovery comes from the general agreement that some basic "religion" existed even then. So, "does morality stem from religion, or does religion stem from morality, or are the two separate developments?"

Perhaps I have already answered my own questions, if even herding animals exhibit an elemental morality. But formal expressions of morality seem to be what form the basis of formal religion. This, over time, became the "Thou shalt nots..." Especially as religion became the venue through which political power became expressed.

 

[Quahom1]

The question has been answered...by us.

(An observation)

Looking back on all of our comments, it is quite apparent that we all have the answer to the morality question. We just express the same thought in slightly different ways.

All of us recognize (pridefully so), that we are each unique, each one of a kind. Yet as important as each of us is to ourselves, we recognize the fact that in order to ensure survival (both personal and of our kin), of the species, we place priority on the needs/good of the many, instead of on self. We do this conciously, because we want continuation of our form of life.

This part however, we diverse on, concerning whether it is hard wired or cerebral.

(My opinion from here on)

I suspect, both. Thus the concept of morality will eternally reinforce itself upon us, and the generations to come.

We cannot escape who and what we are...definitely products of "intelligent design", who considered every option we would consider, and insured a seed of concept would remain within us, regardless of what path our kind would take.

Susma, the philospher, I, Brian the regulator, Mr. Keith the wholeshot expert, all the rest of us, with a mirad of different thoughts, yet we all express a similar theme.

That is fantastic. That is so cool

 

[juantoo3]

This part however, we diverse on, concerning whether it is hard wired or cerebral.

(My opinion from here on)

I suspect, both. Thus the concept of morality will eternally reinforce itself upon us, and the generations to come.

We cannot escape who and what we are...definitely products of "intelligent design", who considered every option we would consider, and insured a seed of concept would remain within us, regardless of what path our kind would take.

Actually, I am inclined to agree. I suggested the "elemental" morality of herding animals in an effort to show a basic inclination demonstrated throughout creation. But the question skips the advent of rational thought, perhaps the singular most important step to raise humans above the level of the purely animal.The sciences have yet to demonstrate at what point rational thought began. I am inclined to believe that threshold was passed with the assistance of outside intervention.

If ancient humans were capable of spiritual conceptualization, as seems to be the general consensus, what gave them the mental capacity to make such conceptions possible? Was it a "happy accident" of adaptation? Or was it from some instance of intervention long lost to us and unquantifiable? Intuitively, I am inclined to lean towards the latter explanation, but I cannot support it.

Thank you for the support. This question may never be answered to our satisfaction within the span of our sojourn in this form on this world.

 

[gitano]

Morality is one of those concepts that we all have an accepted understanding of - but the moment you try to define it in any way, the meaning is hard to capture.

I've found myself thinking a lot about morality recently - about how we react to it, and make personal judgements of what constitute's moral and immoral action.

But what actually defines morality? Is it an entirely cultural phenomena? If so, is it actually separate from religion?

And, ultimately, what is morality anyway?

This is my first post on this forum. What a forum! Hello all.

To my current thinking, "what is morality" is an all important question. However, I have to say that to me, the question really lies in the notion of whether morality is ultimately relevant.

I posit that it is precisely the adherence to morality, that perpetuates the single most destructive emotion known to humans: guilt.

The morality taught by monotheistic systems induces considerable guilt within people. This guilt bubbles over without people recognizing it and they become insane. They start twisting reality at every turn to fit their reactive notions of what is right and wrong. They then conspire to enlist others to "see it their way". Whole societies are created, maintained and expanded this way. The circle of false righteousness starts and is loath to ever stop.

 

[Phyllis Sidhe_Uaine]

Zdrastvuitsye, hola, shalom, salaam, Dia dhuit, namastar ji, hej, konnichiwa, squeak, meow, :wave:, gitano.

Phyllis Sidhe_Uaine

 

[CSharp]

Re: Morality

What if there is an objective basis for morality that man has simply misinterpreted?

Look at man and animals. What is the real difference? Isn't it the ever increasing desire and increase in effort spent trying to change what is? What if "morality" is simply "reality"?

One of the problems with the creation/evolution dialogue is that neither accounts for matters apparent tendency toward disorder. What if our increasing "intelligence" -- our "progress" -- is nothing more than a tiny blip in the universe's transition from order to chaos?

Look at the ten commandments. Aren't they simply instructing man to accept what is? Don't kill, don't take, don't even want, and don't shop around for a God that serves you i.e. your desire to have what isn't.

The more "intelligent" man gets, the less he seeks to understand and the more he seeks to alter reality to suit himself. And the more endangered he becomes. But just try to convince him he'd be better off letting things happen according to universal laws instead of his ideas about how things should be. He'll laugh in your face.

It always amazes me that evolutionists ignore the very "laws" science depends on and creationists ignore the omnipotence of their Creator. Science thinks it can do better than the universe that's been operating just fine, without man's help, forever and ever, while religion thinks it can do better than a Creator with the exact same credentials.

What is, is. If you do "this", "that" happens. Whether the "this and that" are created by universal laws or by universal laws that are self-aware, what difference does it make? What are the chances that we know better than these laws, how things should be? I'm guessing the chances of that being the case are pretty slim.

Am I making sense to anyone?

 

[CSharp]

Apparently, in my effort to carve my post down to a reasonable size, I rewrote it so many times that it makes no sense to anyone but me, eh?

I'll try to avoid that in the future.

 

[Susma Rio Sep]

Improvise, revise, devise: that's intelligence.

CSharp writes:

The more "intelligent" man gets, the less he seeks to understand and the more he seeks to alter reality to suit himself. And the more endangered he becomes. But just try to convince him he'd be better off letting things happen according to universal laws instead of his ideas about how things should be. He'll laugh in your face.

That's why also I wonder maybe we would be better off like ants or worms or cockroaches. They have been around I think much earlier than us; and at least in the case of cockroaches will be around after the nuclear holocaust for which nations are stocking up radioactive materials -- to blow all of us to smithereens, rendering the survivors genetically defective to continue breeding withal.

Yet, I am an optimist, intelligence in man consists in his capacity to improvise, revise, and devise to make life easier and safer and more pleasant. The downside is the risk of greater danger in the mis-use of human inventions for violence and war.

Do you notice that things are not as bad as in the days of the cold war when a push of the button could spell worldwide disaster. Now we seem to be worried only about minor nuclear players like India and Pakistan.

What about North Korea? Another very minor player. The U.S. should exercise wisdom, it being the only super power and the strongest one in the whole history of mankind; it can afford to bend a bit. That is why I think that Bush guy is a disaster.

You and I, and all of us here, should continue talking about peace and good will among men and nations.

How's that for simplistic thinking. Nonetheless, solutions to problems are most of the time very simple, it just takes a bit of humility and accommodation.

If there is such a thing as transcendental immorality, I think Bush should reap the top prize.

If you ask me, I will say that our moral rules are myopic and subterranian. It is still in the peasant village stage of life.

Susma Rio Sep

 

[CSharp]

Yet, I am an optimist, intelligence in man consists in his capacity to improvise, revise, and devise to make life easier and safer and more pleasant. The downside is the risk of greater danger in the mis-use of human inventions for violence and war.

I am not at all optimistic.

The more "intelligent" a superpower is, the less likely the people in that superpower are to "back up". And, in my opinion, that is man's only hope.

You can't have Americans hauling their kids to soccer practice in their minivan twice a week and have peace on earth. People in other places have to die, in wars and of starvation and disease, to make this superpower's way of life happen.

To simply stop doing what they're doing isn't acceptable to Americans. They would gladly throw a party if someone found a way for them to keep all that they have without exploiting other human beings. But that isn't going to happen and they are too far removed from the source of their comfort to sacrifice anything which leaves only one way off this merry-go-round.

I don't know what the granddaddy of all "natural" disasters is, but it seems inevitable to me and must be well on its way, by now.

Look at the dinasaurs. They were too big, consumed too much and lived too long. They took more than they contributed. And they're gone. Call it God or call it nature, but whatever it is, it has a way of balancing things out. Whether one is scientific or religious there is nothing in either idea to suggest that man is immune to the universal laws that maintain the balance required to support this form of his existence.

It doesn't have to be "morality", as man understands it. But something keeps things balanced as if on the head of a pin. Science already understands that the basic physical laws of nature are so finely tuned that if any one of them were to deviate just a bit, life-as-we-know-it wouldn't be possible. There's a piece on the Counterbalance site about the Anthropic Principle. http://www.counterbalance.net/intro/purpodes-body.html

At any rate, cockroaches not withstanding, I don't think we're going to be "allowed" to "progress" much further and man, in my opinion, is far from willing to take the only other direction available.

I'm going to leave this as it is, in hopes it makes sense.

 

[Susma Rio Sep]

Cheer up

Cheer up, my good man, CSharp.

At least we are enjoying our simple pleasure of message exchange with the blessing of internet technology.

You observe:

To simply stop doing what they're doing isn't acceptable to Americans. They would gladly throw a party if someone found a way for them to keep all that they have without exploiting other human beings. But that isn't going to happen and they are too far removed from the source of their comfort to sacrifice anything which leaves only one way off this merry-go-round.

If it is any consolation to you, for being big and consuming extravagantly then the U.S. is slated for extinction like the dinosaurs.

My hope and prayer is however that it will be around for a longer time, and grow kinder and gentler as it continues in its military might. Is that a fool's wish? I don't think so; there are good men in the U.S., many.

If the end is coming to mankind, we now here must delay it as far as possible. In the meantime, say some thanks to the God above, for His indulgence allowing you and me to still engage in this simple pleasure of internet exchange.

Best regards,