@Smileyrius,
In a conversation in another forum, another writer said that his morality is unique to himself. Implying that we all have different moralities. If one is going to define morality as perspective, then what is the purpose of having two words for the same thing?
Morality seems to be a code of ethics, which governs a group of people, but is a choice. An umbrella, under which a group may or may not come under.
Don't get me wrong. Societies may very well impose certain moral standards. These can be enforced by law. Take our Bill of Rights, for example. "We the people, for the people, by the people". The Constitution is said to have been built upon these "inalienable rights". So now we have law, to enforce those rights upon the people.
But, when the question of a "living document" comes into question, the morality of the original thinkers is nullified. The meanings change with the times. As man becomes more debased, then the morality of the laws governing man becomes more debased.
This is why many feel the Constitution should be interpreted as the writers meant it, based upon other writings, comments, etc, of those same people.
The laws of a nation do reflect the morality of the people, in a democratic society.
But then there is the media, which is used to contaminate the minds of the voters, under the guise of "art".
Way back, around June 1692–May 1693, this same form of "Art" was named....
Sorcery.
Mind control tactics, proven in court, and thus the punishment for this vile twisting of one's free will choice, was to suffer the flame.
Horrific to entertain the punishment. But was it not fitting? The judges back then were not so proud as to think they could not be swayed by the media. They knew full well the possibilities.
Is it moral to burn the witch?
When looked at from this perspective, one would have to say yes.
Show the average American the power of the media, and they would be astounded. Give them a choice in the matter, and they too, like the judges of old, would indeed.....
Burn the witches.