Somebody is always clamoring for “moral reform.” Often it is not so much that people are evil as that they should be better. There is an assumption of social entropy _ a golden age has given way to silver and so on down to the low clay age we inhabit.
The simplest morality, of course, is the golden rule. But that is easily warped by time and circumstance _ what I wish to do unto others is different if I am well-fed or starving. And all bets are off if two opposing traits _ say rich and poor, boy or girl _ meet one another. What each wishes for or from the other may have no congruence at all.
Moral codes must vary with situation. It’s okay to hurt someone trying to kill me, or a loved one, or _ well _ so many exceptions. Is it a relative or a stranger? Is it for social stability or personal gain? And very quickly simple, strict, consistent morality becomes either mush or enforced tyranny.
The other thing I notice about many moral reformers is that they assume being moral should be a struggle against a bad inner tendency. And they usually project their own tendencies onto everyone. The sex obsessed think everyone else must be so.
Like most people, I consider myself moral enough, most of the time and within limits. I tend to be less concerned with reforming people who might be threats than simply keeping them under control.
Finally, I find moral reform a pretty dull subject and its proponents usually crashing bores.
HuntingtonHarborThoughts 