Now look here, I defend the morality
not
out of moral considerations, but out of
reasonable
such! Hardly more than 2-3% of the population has come to such positions, but the more intelligent inevitably must come to this view, because the conclusions from it does not differ much from those of various religions, only the approaches are different. In linguistic sense, I think, is good to remind you the meaning of English word "moral", which means teaching, lesson (where to be of good moral is moral
e
), so that the morality is a kind of system of rules, instructions about life (and linguistically these are just habits, customs, for the reason that in Latin "mores" is plural from the custom — recall the phrase "O tempore o mores!"). These rules are this, what the young ones want to learn. But ... it isn't that they don't
suppose
them in advance. Id est, I mean, that the people, as well as the animals, have
inborn sense of justice
, morality, because all want to be liked by the others (the little children and the animals, in addition to eat, want also to have somebody to play with, that is to make friends, not to quarrel). So that the
people are good by birth
(i.e. they try, as far as they can, to think about the others), the society is what makes them bad (forces them to think only about themselves)! Remember this, please, because this is the obligation of new morality: it must make the
society
more just for the people, must satisfy their expectations (that the bad will receive his punishment, and the good will be lauded, not vice versa).
At the same time in the contemporary society, as I have mentioned, is done everything else, but not to ensure some expected and justified punishment for those who have deserved it. More than this, in our time is insisted on successes in business, career, et cetera, which are all transient (according the religions) things, not on selecting of more moral personalities (and forget about the sex, it isn't important). Of course, in this world nothing is isolated, as I said in the beginning, so that one can't avoid to be egoist, but one has also no rights to strive only for dominance over the others (if not for other reason then because one, anyway, aims at this, i.e. exactly on account of this the morality must oppose to it, in order to force the given person to turn to the other side). While there were clans and families, and were many fights between different tribes and nations, there were reasons for selection and establishing of superiority, but nowadays the most important thing is ..., well,
preservation of the diversity
(and even creating of new diversities), what is another way to express again the assertion about tolerance. For this reason is considered as good whatever mixing between nations, between wealthy and poor, if you want, between intelligent and mediocre, and this is the new morality.
As if close enough to this view are ... the different sports, because there the personal expression is not related with ideas for hegemony, though there also exist various ways for remuneration of the winners. There are no immediate goals in this area but exist some abstractions, to win the given medal. This, as I have said, looks good to me, but ... . But the bad thing is that this isn't mass phenomenon, this concerns only some 1-2% of the population (if not less), and it is much specialized, i.e. this not so much develops the body as
deforms
it, in some aspect, so that the sports are also not a model.
But something has to be done, there must be
some
families (I have an idea in this regard which is expressed in other places),
some
ethnicities,
some
rules for good behavior, but different from narrow national or racial, or of the caste or family, or some other, interests. And have to be taken into account the
intentions
of people (this is morality, not only the results). And has to exist
considerable surveillance
of (almost) everything and everybody, because we have become now too strong for to leave the things just to take their course (i.e. it is not important who with whom has slept, but who "bears grudge" against whom and for what, what can be done in order that this person, and others like him or her, "drops" this grudge). And everybody must have conditions for development, for more complete unfolding of the given to him by God /gods (or Nature), the more so because, when there are no (or almost no) families, and when the genius, as this is checked many times, is not passed by inheritance, we have to give it (the genius) chance to show itself, still, from time to time. But, if we will continue in this way, we will come in the end to the ideas of communism, and also of Plato from 25 centuries ago, ah?
Well, that's the point, that it must happen exactly so, because there can not be morality in the interests of
all
people, and not to go out of some common (of the community) interests. We can't want that people evolved fully, when some are born in wealthy conditions (let us not necessarily speak about family), and others in poor, and if for health insurance and for education must be paid, i.e. they are
not
available for all. So that the new morality, as it seems, will turn to be very old, the morality of each religion. So it is true, but I had in mind exactly the morality of
each
one of the religions, i.e. of all the religions, i.e. (using the language of mathematics) of the intersection of all religions! This intersection, if we succeed to reach it with our egoistic inclinations, will be exactly the quintessence of morality over the centuries. It remains only to reach it. Because if we can not, then there will be "a
