Enormous burden.
Morality, entirely a function of the beliefs held by a given society, does not reflect absolutes of nature. The basic moral tenets that most Americans hold to be true have not in past always been held to be true; will not be held to be true in the future; and are not held to be true by all other societies today.
Pragmatism aside--don't break the law because you will wind up in jail--I say "screw morals," and follow four guidelines in determining what is and is not acceptable behavior.
1. Your first loyalty is to your family; you are obligated to act in their best interests.
2. Your second loyalty is to yourself; you are obligated to act in your own best interests.
3. Your third loyalty is to your friends; you are obligated to act in their best interests.
4. If you have satisfied the first three, and you can be of assistance to a stranger with no penalty, you should take action.
The implications of that approach are complex, especially when you get into moral hot-button issues such as capital punishment, abortion, religious freedom, and the like. Under my pragmatic approach, the question of morality as it relates to those topics is almost irrelevant; the only question that matters is, how do the four guidelines instruct me to act?
Moreover, the guidelines are not passive or light. They require that you take action; in other words, they do not permit you to sit idly by and watch others flounder if there is something you can do to help, within the constraints of the guidelines. That is an enormous burden, equal in many ways to the burdens imposed by traditional morality or the required behaviors of various religions.
Pragmatism aside--don't break the law because you will wind up in jail--I say "screw morals," and follow four guidelines in determining what is and is not acceptable behavior.
1. Your first loyalty is to your family; you are obligated to act in their best interests.
2. Your second loyalty is to yourself; you are obligated to act in your own best interests.
3. Your third loyalty is to your friends; you are obligated to act in their best interests.
4. If you have satisfied the first three, and you can be of assistance to a stranger with no penalty, you should take action.
The implications of that approach are complex, especially when you get into moral hot-button issues such as capital punishment, abortion, religious freedom, and the like. Under my pragmatic approach, the question of morality as it relates to those topics is almost irrelevant; the only question that matters is, how do the four guidelines instruct me to act?
Moreover, the guidelines are not passive or light. They require that you take action; in other words, they do not permit you to sit idly by and watch others flounder if there is something you can do to help, within the constraints of the guidelines. That is an enormous burden, equal in many ways to the burdens imposed by traditional morality or the required behaviors of various religions.