Here's the crux of the matter: Do we act according to rules because we believe in the rules, or because we're afraid to get caught breaking them? Which is stronger--morality or fear? Or, perhaps, are they're one and the same? How much of sin is plain stupidity? And, if enough folks committing a transgression are caught, does the wrongdoing, eventually, lose its burden?
Sin, we know, is in the eye of the believer and certainly over the centuries what may or may not be immoral has changed drastically. We perpetually push at the edges of sin so that
what may have been a punishable offense a few decades ago is now accepted behavior. Heresy is no longer a crime. Divorce is the norm. Theft, if large enough (think AIG bonus) is encouraged.
And going from the social to the single, how often do we amend our judgments of behavior according to the individual? If Fred Dinglewanker drinks a bit too much every time there's a family reunion, aren't we prone to say, "Oh, that's old Freddie! He's been that way for years!" A strong worker who steals office supplies may be admonished but probably will not be fired. In Washington DC, where I used to live, the former Mayor, Marion Barry, has managed to skirt the law for decades and get re-elected to one public office or another. His supporters admit his shortcomings--including being caught smoking crack with a prostitute in a hotel room--but maintain that his efficacy as a public servant is more important that his transgressions. Nevada's governor, Jim Gibbons ("I haven't had sex in 15 years!"), has been involved in so many sex and/or money outrages that it would be hard to catalog them all, yet he too gets relected. Conversely, the Speaker of the House in Utah recently resigned because it was found that 25 years ago, he had sat naked in a hot tub with an equally unclothed, of-age teen-aged girl. And here in my very own backyard, a man got 15 years for killing a cabdriver while another man got 40 years for fondling and sexually abusing a woman.
Ah well. Relative morality and adaptables rules of behavior are too much for this simple mind, particularly on the Sunday morning Daylight Saving Time kicks in. I think I'll behave oddly today and blame it on the lack of sleep.
And going from the social to the single, how often do we amend our judgments of behavior according to the individual? If Fred Dinglewanker drinks a bit too much every time there's a family reunion, aren't we prone to say, "Oh, that's old Freddie! He's been that way for years!" A strong worker who steals office supplies may be admonished but probably will not be fired. In Washington DC, where I used to live, the former Mayor, Marion Barry, has managed to skirt the law for decades and get re-elected to one public office or another. His supporters admit his shortcomings--including being caught smoking crack with a prostitute in a hotel room--but maintain that his efficacy as a public servant is more important that his transgressions. Nevada's governor, Jim Gibbons ("I haven't had sex in 15 years!"), has been involved in so many sex and/or money outrages that it would be hard to catalog them all, yet he too gets relected. Conversely, the Speaker of the House in Utah recently resigned because it was found that 25 years ago, he had sat naked in a hot tub with an equally unclothed, of-age teen-aged girl. And here in my very own backyard, a man got 15 years for killing a cabdriver while another man got 40 years for fondling and sexually abusing a woman.
Ah well. Relative morality and adaptables rules of behavior are too much for this simple mind, particularly on the Sunday morning Daylight Saving Time kicks in. I think I'll behave oddly today and blame it on the lack of sleep.
No comments:
Post a Comment