A Difficult Concept of Morality
Warning: this may ramble.
The Individual thinks, "I am strong." The Individual thinks, "I am smart enough to handle Activity A. I am wise enough to handle Situation X. It is my right as an individual to partake of Activity A and involve myself in Situation X as much as I like."
None of those statements may, in and of themselves, be wrong. But often the Individual's choice to indulge that right is socially irresponsible. The Individual projects his (or her) own strength onto those around him. Or the Individual just doesn't care.
While the Individual may be strong, and may be able to handle intellectually or emotionally difficult things, the majority of those observing the Individual probably aren't. Who will tell them, "Don't do what the Individual does"? Who among the weak will accept their weakness in the face of the strong?
In short, the concept is this: Something may be logically right in an ideal world, but it is a responsibility of the strong not to lead the weak into activities and situations they can't handle, even if it's simply by example.
I think this concept may be easier to explain in cultures where the community is placed at a higher value than the individual, but it's a bit difficult here in America. I've encountered a lot of "free thinkers" arguing against stricter moralities based on admirable ideals, and their arguments were logically compelling. Unfortunately, I don't believe any of those ideals can be realized while man himself is so woefully imperfect.
I might also phrase it like this then: A strong moral code isn't about finding a way to live your own life well, rather it is about finding a way to help others live well.
The Individual thinks, "I am strong." The Individual thinks, "I am smart enough to handle Activity A. I am wise enough to handle Situation X. It is my right as an individual to partake of Activity A and involve myself in Situation X as much as I like."
None of those statements may, in and of themselves, be wrong. But often the Individual's choice to indulge that right is socially irresponsible. The Individual projects his (or her) own strength onto those around him. Or the Individual just doesn't care.
While the Individual may be strong, and may be able to handle intellectually or emotionally difficult things, the majority of those observing the Individual probably aren't. Who will tell them, "Don't do what the Individual does"? Who among the weak will accept their weakness in the face of the strong?
In short, the concept is this: Something may be logically right in an ideal world, but it is a responsibility of the strong not to lead the weak into activities and situations they can't handle, even if it's simply by example.
I think this concept may be easier to explain in cultures where the community is placed at a higher value than the individual, but it's a bit difficult here in America. I've encountered a lot of "free thinkers" arguing against stricter moralities based on admirable ideals, and their arguments were logically compelling. Unfortunately, I don't believe any of those ideals can be realized while man himself is so woefully imperfect.
I might also phrase it like this then: A strong moral code isn't about finding a way to live your own life well, rather it is about finding a way to help others live well.