|Happiness Home Page||
Separate Search Page
|Purpose||Write To Karl Loren||Table Of Contents|
|Role Model||You Can Help!|
Definition of Morals
Morals are the "rules" which people use to guide their behavior and thinking. They are usually different from laws, and should also be differentiated from "ethics."
"Morals" arise from the behavior of the people. They may be written somewhere, and they may become laws, or even ethical codes. But, the sense of this word, on this web site, is:
morals: a code of good conduct laid down out of the experience of the race to serve as a uniform yardstick for the conduct of individuals and groups. Morals are actually laws. [source]. . . Moral drift! I think we would all agree that is a reality. Nineteen ninety-eight was a year when we heard more about Paula Jones, Monica Lewinski, and were reminded of Jennifer Flowers and a host of others than we really wanted to know. The moral drift of things has reached, as we all know, with intensity to the highest office in our land. The President, to quote him, has acknowledged that he had given in, to his shame. [Source]
College is a critical time, and this generation of students faces more moral, ethical and spiritual decisions than any generation before it. As they wrestle with family breakdown, hopelessness and moral drift, students are in the midst of making major life decisions. Yet these students, though disillusioned with the values of their parents' generation, are eager to make a difference in their world. [Source]
Why Is A Moral Code Needed?
"The Control Of Impulse Is The First Principle Of Civilization."
-- Will Durant, Pulitzer Prize winning philosopher, writer and historian
Tall buildings and electronic gadgetry do not make a civilization. Civilization requires a minimum standard of conduct by its members. (Source)
Can Morals Be Forced On One?
I suppose that the answer is, "yes." But when this happens I would rather say that you are looking at laws or codes of ethics, not morals.
Let me differentiate closely between "ethics" and "morals."
The definition of morals, above, is true and valid. However, what is missing from that definition is the great difficulty "man" has in agreeing on a single moral code. This is largely because the "experience" of the race is all mucked up with wrong observations and crooked thinking. So, the "experience" gives rise to moral codes which, for instance, says that you should not eat pork. A fair rule in a time when pork was dangerous, but even then the "observation" was not one to serve as a foundation for all eternal time, and every place.
I offer here your free copy of a moral code which IS based on such accurate observation of the human scene that it can and will serve for eons, and the whole planet. As such, it can and does apply to any and every religion.
Now, to differentiate between morals and ethics.
This moral code says that you should not use harmful drugs, but it does NOT say what those drugs are. There are obviously some people who feel that marijuana is NOT harmful, while other say that it is. How can this code help answer this conflict?
The code, then, includes one part about "truth" that says that you should seek to discover the truth. So, someone who has not yet discovered the truth about drugs, or who has arrived at his reality in a different way than you may have -- either of these people might say that marijuana is OK, while you might say it is not.
California, for instance, has a law that says it is OK, legal, for certain people to smoke pot. The Federal Government has a contrary law. Which is "right?"
This moral code is not rigid on what is a harmful drug, but gives you a "way" by which you can arrive at the truth of the matter. The section on truth is, thus, one of the most basic parts of this moral code.
Let's take another example. There is nothing in this code that prohibits sex between unmarried people. This code does say that promiscuous sex is not OK, and that you should be faithful to your sexual partner. But, THIS code does not say anything about marriage.
Yet many people have a "moral code" that suggests that it is a sin for an unmarried couple to have sex. This code does NOT say that. This code, based on observations on what leads to the maximum survival of life on the planet, says, simply that unfaithfulness, not lack of marriage, is the destroyer of mankind.
Does she LOOK sexy, or "immoral?" That is not part of this CODE! Is she promiscuous? You cannot detect that from the image -- but only from behavior. Promiscuous behavior? That IS part of this code.
You, however, may not agree. You might say that only married people should have sex. Or you might say, as my first wife's parents said, "You cannot wear lipstick until you are 21!" (That's what they said -- that it was a 'sin' to wear lipstick as a teenager!
I would then suggest that you still accept THIS moral code which does not even mention marriage, since you undoubtedly agree that faithfulness and the absence of promiscuity are bedrock necessities in any moral code. And, you can ADD to this moral code.
You can ADD whatever you with to this moral code. You can say, "Yes, I agree with the moral code in this book, but I need to go one step further than this code. I believe that only married people should have sex."
That is OK!
You can say, as the Amish do, that, "A woman must wear black that covers her from ankle to neck." That is a code, surely, but it is not a moral code that we can all agree on.
What you have done, now, is to create an "ethical code." This a code agreed to by some number of people, but we know that all mankind certainly do not agree with many such "codes."
It is fine as a "code of ethics" and you have every right to form into groups that accept and even enforce this ethical code. In THIS group, you say that it is unethical to have sex outside of marriage. (You might even say it is "immoral" but I am attempting to clarify a difference between the two terms.)
There can be hundreds of ethical codes active in society. There is the ethical code of doctors, or of breeders of German Shepherds. There might not be any LAW that says doctors should not advertise, but the "doctors code of ethics" probably includes this, and might even "punish" any doctor who violates that rule.
The association of German Shepherds would understand that there is no law that prohibits certain types of "wrong" breeding, but the Association could certainly have an ethical code that covers very precise requirements on breeding, and eject from membership any breeder who violates those rules.
The ethics codes are fine -- they serve a valuable purpose. They allow all of mankind to evolve codes of their own groups. There are the pot-smokers groups, and bird-watcher groups and other groups, each of which has its own ethical code.
Certainly among the Mafia, or many street gangs, there are "codes" of conduct -- perhaps not called "ethical codes" but they are, indeed, just such codes as I am defining that term here.
The value of THIS moral code is that not only should any group, any part of mankind, find it acceptable, but that it will be found to be a foundation for every useful code of ethics!
When this is not so?? The group that has as its "ethical code" sexual promiscuity? That group is violating the basic moral code and its code of ethics can be denounced as contrary to all of mankind's survival, to the basic moral code that is necessary for all many to survive.
So, when you find places where this moral code does not come up to YOUR standards, that is OK. You can build on top of this code to your own code of ethics.
But, I hope you would be broad-minded enough to recognize that you cannot force your code of ethics on others.
For you, perhaps, Christianity is a basic requirement for any code. But, for the Jew, or the Muslim? No, they could not accept that some basic acceptance of Jesus Christ is necessary in their lives.
But, all three of these major religious groups SHOULD be able to accept THIS moral code, as fundamental to their own.
Then, indeed, they can and should build on this code to construct additional rules (not in violation of THESE rules) to identify a special group (doctors, Muslims, dog breeders, etc.) which have, each its own, a moral code.
And, finally, the group of most value to mankind will be the group that espouses not only THIS moral code, but a higher code of ethics by which man can do more than survive -- but also become free.
When the barbarism rises to the level of "accepted morality" enforced by law, you have the true end of civilization as we have known it.
Three men gang-raped a newly married woman with the consent of her in-laws in what police described as an act of revenge.
The incident occurred in Dera Ghazi Khan town in Pakistan Punjab.
This web site doesn't offer anything for sale. It does offer you two free copies of a book on a common sense moral code. The purpose of my giving you these free books is described HERE.
There can be no more general proof that the world lacks, and needs, a moral code than the war and threats of war that surround us. Individuals, not groups, are at the root of the turmoil in the world.
World In Turmoil
At the root of violence, crime and an unsafe environment is the lack of basic moral and ethical values. When people are not taught what is right and what is wrong (in a way that makes sense and that they can understand), then society becomes a dangerous place to live, work or play for all. (Source)
It is relatively easy to measure the "decline" of any group, or of all of society. There would be many different measures. For instance the number of teen-age pregnancies, outside of a faithful sexual relationship, would be a measure of the level of morality of those involved, and also a measure of the future survival of the teenager group. It would be generally agreed that a teenager who gets pregnant, where there is no marriage and family, has a difficult path for future survival.
It is interesting, though, to note that in 1973, when the pregnancy rate for teenagers was higher than now, the typical teenager then got pregnant within a marriage. When you ignore the marriage factor, the social scientists often claim that the teenager pregnancy measure is getting better! That is A story, but not the complete story.
|Table 2. Birth, pregnancy and abortion rates per 1,000 women, by age at pregnancy outcome, 1972-1997 [Source]|
|Year and age of woman||Birthrate||Abortion rate||Pregnancy rate|
|Women Aged under 20|
The good news seems to be that the rate of teenage pregnancy is declining. But, accurate as these actual figures might be, they come from a suspect source. Click on source to get further background on how morals can be corrupted by false claims of improved morality.
There are good spots, here and there, amongst the doom and gloom. But, what about the fact that about 100 girls, out of every 1000, are likely to get pregnant before they are 20 years old? And, the above table shows that about half of all those pregnancies end with abortion. Even if those rates are going down in recent years, they are far, far higher than they were 50 years ago.
Has there been some moral drift in the last fifty years?
Back 50 years ago a teenager who got pregnant was much more likely to be married, and to be quite able to take care of the baby:
On the other hand, the modern time period is much different. In the early 1930s to the 1990s, the total proportion of first births which were either premaritally born or premaritally conceived to women 15-19 increased from 29 percent to 89 percent(2). And by 1990-1994, only 16 percent of premaritally pregnant teen women were married before their first birth(2). Teenagers today have those worries previously mentioned plus many more. [source]
So, even though teenage pregnancy may be declining, the number of teenage pregnancies outside marriage is increasing. There are people who want to paint the picture in as rosy a hue as possible. There are others who want to make the picture look bad.
What is the life of those who have [source]? Only 50% complete high school and more than 50% of them are on welfare. They themselves become child abusers and their children, when grown up, have 82% incidence of . 8.6 billion dollars are spent every year for the financial and health care support of mothers. The sexual revolution of the 60's has affected another dimension of health care. In 1985 alone, 10 million cases of Chlamydia, 2 million cases of gonorrhea, I million venereal warts, 0.5 million genital herpes and 90,000 syphilis were diagnosed. The plague of AIDS is adding a new twist to our fears. 200,000 cases have been diagnosed in the US alone, out of which 50% have already died. The disease is growing at a rate of one case every 14 minutes and so far there is no effective treatment. Father Bruce Ritter in New York, who operates shelters for runaway children, says the biggest threat to the nation's one million runaways is the threat of AIDS now.
The type of casual random sex which has begun to predominate youthful activity gives rise to an increase in venereal disease. This is the part of the story that many people don't want to face -- the boys and girls who are having casual random sex can see the pleasures of the next 30 minutes, but not the problems of the next 30 years. Click here for one story, and here for official statistics.
The subject of business morals is one of the LARGE ones in THIS web site -- the growing scandal amongst corporate America. Literally trillions of dollars in stock market value have been lost by millions of investors and pension funds -- because many of our corporate leaders lack the simple morals of being worthy of trust. They cheat! It has started at an earlier age and lower position -- but finally moral corruption reaches the pinnacle of society -- who can say that a former President was not morally corrupt?
Here is a part from this section:
The Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board put a label on another dramatic event -- he calls it the "Infectious Greed" of the American Business World. Investors have lost literally trillions of dollars in value because of corruption among the very elite of our business world -- the Chief Executive Officers who take home the multi-million salaries and from whom we had expected, at least, honesty.
Click here for a major article on "infectious greed."
Drugs and Drink
There is some really break-through information in this Section.
Click here to read a very illuminating article on alcohol and drugs.
Here is a copy of one of the main parts of the section on alcohol:
What Are The Effects of Alcohol on Thinking?
First, the word "thinking" needs some explanation.
Man often thinks in terms of pictures. If I say to you, "cat," you may well get a mental picture of a cat. Some people will "see" this cat in color, some in black and white. Some will see a cat they recognize, others will see some cat they don't recognize. Some will see the cat in motion, others not. Some will see this picture in three dimensions, some in a flat two dimensional view. Some pictures may even include sound or smell. Some get only blackness, or light, or whatever they get.
You can test this data on yourself -- just close your eyes and get a picture of a cat. If you have done this, you have "THOUGHT" about this "thing" called "CAT."
The image on the left could be showing the young man getting various pictures -- some of himself, some of others.
This is a useful definition, even if only partial, of "THOUGHT" because it is objective. You can close your eyes and get a picture of a cat, in color. The next guy sees a cat only in black and white. You can see the picture one day, but not the next. In other words there is a phenomenon here that can be experienced by anyone.
The way to show "thought" easily would be as above -- show a person with one or more images around him, as if these images were not there physically, but were mental -- thoughts! You have seen this portrayal often in magazines and newspapers -- it is even created in movies and TV.
We now have something we can share in common -- referring to THOUGHT.
Now, let's look further at this concept.
You are sitting in your front room and you see your cat come into the room. She comes into your lap for petting.
You are very likely to THEN get a picture of a cat. In the first example someone said the word, "cat," to you and you got the picture. Now, in this example, you SEE an actual cat and you also may well get a mental picture of that same cat. (It often helps to close your eyes when you are concentrating on mental pictures -- otherwise you may see an actual cat in front of you and not realize that you may also have a picture of that same cat with your eyes closed.)
You'll be surprised if you try this. Not many people are aware that they can see pictures and that this is one of the basic concepts in understanding thoughts or thinking. In the photo above, the man is petting his cat and has his eyes closed. He may well be seeing a mental picture of his cat. The picture could be of the cat as she is on his lap, or any other pose or view of that cat.
You begin to see the possibilities -- they are virtually endless. The man in the photo above could be REMINDED by the cat of a time he was petting his dog. He might have mental picture of his dog. There are probably millions of possible thoughts, or pictures, he could have, either because of the cat in his lap, or because of the sound of the ticking clock, or because "it is Tuesday!"
Now, click here to see this above, and lots more.
Abuse Of Children
The moral drift in society is possibly no more dangerous than where it affects our children.
The children are, obviously, moving through a time period when they are forming their own moral code -- mostly based on what they learn from their parents.
How to rear children
Your primary responsibility to your children is to guard their happiness and return their love. They don't need your presents; they need your presence. Mark Twain explains: "We are always too busy for our children; we never give them the time or interest they deserve. We lavish gifts upon them; but the most precious gift -our personal association, which means so much to them - we give grudgingly." (source)
The other side of this is the "loving" parent who wildly justifies lavishing expensive gifts on a child.
KANSAS CITY, Mo. - Cassie Claxton was celebrating her last day at Liberty Middle School in Liberty, Mo., when she saw it - a gleaming, 10-passenger, black stretch limousine, just for her.
She squealed with her girlfriends, and then hugged her mother, who had paid $208 to rent the luxurious ride for two hours.
"She's always wanted to ride in a limo," said her mother, Dawn Claxton. "And by golly, she's getting her wish." (source)
It seems easier to see this error by OTHER parents than to see it in yourself. Cassie's mother, above, may well ALSO have been a loving and caring mother. Abusing a child by giving too much to that child is one of the hardest types of abuse to detect. Typically, in a large family, the parents may well have gone through periods of relative affluence and also relative poverty -- you can look at the kids that were most influenced during these different periods, by the same parents, and find, typically, that the kid whose moral codes were most molded during the relatively poor years often "do better in life."
You often find that someone who was very poor, as a child, and has now made it "rich" wants to give to his kids that which he, as a child, did not have. This often works out as damaging to that child's future. Grandparents are often guilty of trying to spoil a grandkid because when they were parents they couldn't do much for their kids. There are all sorts of possible scenarios here.
Most importantly, a parent must decide what moral values to teach when it comes to achieving success in life. Children "learn" what it is that it takes to make them successful in life. Those who "learn" that it is their own ability that makes them successful do much better in school than those who believe that "external factors" will determine their success -- these children do more poorly in school -- and in life. Such a simple moral issue that a parent ,ay, or may not, teach to his child.
Although there were differences in average math scores across the groups, the higher achievers in all ethnic groups had similar beliefs about the causes of success and failure. They believed that success was due to high ability and, perhaps more important, they did not believe that failure was due to lack of ability. In contrast, regardless of ethnicity, the lower achievers believed that success was due to external factors and that failure was due to lack of ability.
For example, when students were asked why a teacher might choose them to count the money for a class trip, higher achievers in all groups were more likely to answer that it would be because they were "good in math." Lower achievers were more likely to give answers like, "It was my turn."
In addition, the study showed that when compared with their public school peers, African-American and Latino students in Catholic schools had beliefs about success and failure that were more conducive to learning. They were more likely to attribute success to ability and less likely to attribute either success or failure to external factors, such as luck or a difficult test. (source)
The Teachers Of Morals
When you are teaching a moral code it is obviously important to teach someone to recognize the difference between right and wrong. An important part of any such teaching is to teach that there is such a thing as "wrong" and even "evil." If you teach that something which is, in fact, evil, is nonetheless "not so bad," you have taught not only a wrong lesson, but a lesson that damages any other view of any moral issue.
The moral drift on the planet includes those devious evil-doers who claim to teach morals while practicing a level of immorality that is lower than that of the terrorists who attacked on September 11th.
Those who would teach us that the Terrorists who struck New York City on September 11th -- those Terrorists were not so much evil as poor, ignorant and merely objecting to oppression from someone. When they go further and suggest that these "poor terrorists" were really striking out against the America that hordes its wealth, pollutes the planet and whatever other diatribe you can often hear? When you hear that, know that you are dealing with a person who DOES NOT recognize the difference between right and wrong - but sees only hate for some group (America) and looks for ANY opportunity to blame that group for all the evils in the world. Such a person is immoral.
When such a person is in charge of teaching morals? You have an example of immorality that, itself, must be recognized.
The "lessons" of September 11th include recognition that what the terrorists did was wrong! There is nothing that can be added to that from a view point of morals.
Sure, they were ignorant, poor, etc., but these are never excuses for immoral behavior and those who claim that such ARE "explanations" of "wrong behavior" are more immoral than the terrorists.
Yes, the terrorists were and are evil and wrong. But, they are very straight-forward in their efforts to attack the US. Those who hide their attacks on America in devious claims of morality are worse than the terrorists.
Here is an excellent reference from a Wall Street Journal article:
At that moment, most parents turned to their children, looked them in the eyes, and started to put the unfathomable into terms they could understand. For the youngest, the terms were most simple -- "bad men did something very wrong that hurt a lot of people" -- but also the most truthful.
An appropriate response to Sept. 11 begins with just that kind of moral clarity, the clarity that calls evil by its true name: Terms like "evil," "wrong" and "bad" were rightly put back into the lexicon. Sept. 11 also requires that we point to what is good and right and true. That dark day was pierced with rays of courage, honor and sacrifice, and they should be upheld for all to see -- they, too, are enduring lessons.
We are living in a teachable moment. But some would squander this moment, or repudiate it altogether as though we have nothing to learn, nothing to teach.
. . . . .
"I'm not sure which is more frightening: the horror that engulfed New York City or the apocalyptic rhetoric emanating daily from the White House," wrote Eric Foner, a distinguished professor of history at Columbia, in the London Review of Books. Other pseudo-sophisticated intellectuals began claiming the attack on the U.S. was a result of our policies, was our fault, and that our war was some form of vile neo-imperialism.
. . . .
Sept. 11 has underscored the importance of teaching morality and patriotism, two ideas that have lost favor. American students should be taught what makes this nation great. They should learn the bedrock principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, ideas like equality, freedom and justice under law. They should know about the honor and courage of 1776, what Abraham Lincoln did to preserve this union, and how so many laid down their lives to defend freedom in America and abroad during the world wars. Nowhere else has freedom flourished like it has in America; never before in the history of the world have so many around the globe benefited because there is a land of the free and a home of the brave. Even with its faults, America remains the best nation on earth -- which is one lesson never to be forgotten: We were attacked for our virtues, not our sins. (source)
We can now recognize the face of evil in those who claim that true wrong actions have a reason!
Why would we NOT be drifting, morally, when the likes of Eric Foner are teaching our children! He is a traitor to our Country and to humanity.
One of the most difficult things man can do is to recognize and deal with evil. It exists in the world, but it is often denied.
It is easy to accept that one person, Jesus Christ, ignited a flame of hope and salvation that spread across the planet and has guided billions of people over thousands of years. Man is willing and able to look at "goodness" far more easily than he looks at "badness." We admire love, not hate!
It is hard to accept the reality of how our society could be damaged so much by a single person, or two! Who could be the person capable of causing so much harm? Who might belong on the stage of public inspection along side Jesus Christ? Could there be anyone who was as bad a person, as Jesus was good?
This article is intended to ignite the flames of outrage rather than hope and salvation. I leave to the capable Christians the job of proclaiming Christ. Surely the harm done by two humans, described in great detail in this article, and in the many supporting pages -- that harm is not as great as the goodness created by Christ those thousands of years ago. In that we are fortunate.
But isn't it entirely possible that the very virtue of Christianity, to love, has made it difficult for Christians to see evil? It is one thing to call something evil, but much more to cast it out. Even Jesus threw the money-changers out of the temple. Should those of strong religious faith do any less for the evil men who have hidden themselves inside the body of civilized society? According to Bible students, this is the only example of Jesus ever using force! Is not His example worthy of us today? (click here for biblical story on another of Karl's web sites)
The above section is from an original article by Karl Loren. Click here for the entire article.
When someone is violating YOUR moral code you will have a "wrong relationship" as long as you are connected to that person. Believe it or not the psychiatrists see that happening so often, now, that they have invented a new disease for this "wrong relationship" and will soon have a psychiatric drug to correct the "chemical imbalance" they will soon also discover as the CAUSE of the wrong relationship.
The drug will "work!"
Why? Because psychiatric drugs turn people into vegetables. When your daughter in college, for instance, takes this type of drug she may well CEASE to be sexually promiscuous, and it will appear that the "wrong relationship" you had with your daughter has been solved.
The moral drift of society is being greatly accelerated by the psychiatrist -- whose basis for being goes back to the mechanistic view of man -- that he is an animal and has no soul -- that he arose from the mud and there is no God. When these concepts are prevalent in society, morality is going out!
My final comment is simply this. Morality is obviously important among the rich and the poor, among the mighty and the weak. But, immorality "at the top" has the greatest impact on society, and in the United States various parts of the government have so much power and control that immorality there takes on the greatest importance for society. Here is a tiny example of probable immoral behavior, with small leaks of revelation oozing out from under the rocks:
"Never in the history of the IRS has a case been pulled out of the regional office and taken directly to Washington," our source continues. This information was originally provided to Mr. Barrett, some years into his investigation, by a whistleblower in the IRS regional office with 30 years of experience.
Using his subpoena power, Mr. Barrett also found that the IRS would not have been able to kill the case on its own. It had to have cooperation from the Justice Department, particularly the Public Integrity and Tax divisions. We're told Mr. Barrett beat back several attempts by Justice to squelch or otherwise limit his investigation, and that a lot of important names from the Clinton era appear in the report. One key figure is likely to be former Clinton Administration IRS Commissioner Peggy Richardson, a prominent Texas Democrat, and a friend of both Mr. Cisneros and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. (Source)
WHO CAN MAKE THE DIFFERENCE?
You are the only one -- you as an individual. This is not a job for the government or the police, but by individuals, acting at a grass-roots level in their own communities. If you think about it, it is dangerous to need a hospital emergency service in a crime area:
Here is a case study in the vital need for individuals in a high-crime rate area to take personal responsibility for their very next door neighbors as the ONLY way by which medical care can improve in their community. Think about it. Otherwise, your life is in danger if you drive through that area -- and not just from random gun shots! (Source)
Do something, yourself. Click Here and sign up to do your duty!
Hurry up and wait: Men see benefits in avoiding marriage
Teaching The Recognition of Good and Evil -- September 11
The Coming Of The End Times!
Use A Psychiatric Drug To "Treat" The Chemical Imbalance In The Brain That "Causes" Relationship Problems!
The Destruction Of American Education -- Leading To Corruption of Medicine
The Need For A Moral Code