Thinking about morality.
What has struck me before and which was pointed by JK in his comments (here )that our perceptions of what constitutes decency have never been same thorough out the time and in all places .
In some places it is minimalist, in other it is more conservative.
I have never understood what could be the reason behind it.
What is more from an neutral point of view what purpose does decency serve?
First it is a man made construct in the sense no other species shows any need for it.
But even for human society what is the it's requirement.
I could think of this,
Religous emphasis on sex as a sin or females as temptation which is best avoided.
This view was held in Christianity as well as Ascetic Traditions.
But even this doesnt explain, why should religion view sex as taboo.
One of the explainations could be that as society became mongamous, social norms sought to regulate the sex, since there is nothing in human biology which encourage monogamy quite the opposite in fact,overemphasis on sex must have been frowned upon and it was thought fit to limit sex to bedrooms.
Sex existed in public ofcourse, but in form of art, dance, poetry and literature, it was not the raw animal urging but something on an elevated platform.
However like all things relating to rule , as the civilization proceeded, people forgot the reason and started applying these rules mechanically, which must have caused sex to be thought as a sin.
The other view is somewhat related to what Dan Brown said in Da Vinci Code, that an increasingly pateriarchal society marginalised female and hence sex.
These are ofcourse tentative ideas.
Further on this path , I can guess the need for morality. It could have been that in order to establish society it was thought neccessary to regulate sexual activites, and this is quite possible , considering that unlike many mammals humans do not have a specific mating period , which makes humans much more sexually active than other mammals. This might possess challenge to establishing an order.
And that might be the reason I feel slight discomfort with ongoing sexual liberation.
It seeks to liberate sex and turn it back into raw animal urge. The ironical part may be that by doing it it may be harming the sectino (i.e females) it professes to liberate.
What is the difference between notion of vitrue and chastity and notion of scoring up, both are peer pressure and a need to confirm. One is based on "sex is evil", whereas other is based "promiscuous is vitrue". What is the use ,as some feminists have pointed out, if sexual liberation causes barbification, depression and bulimia.
Here it can be argued that freedom is not the cause, it is uninformed choice. I think the problem is freedom is not useful unless accompanied by the right idea, indeed one of the benefits of freedom is that it allows development of right idea.
However mindless adherence to dogma, whether religious or sexual emanicpation , renders freedom meaningless.
The far easier explaination is ofcourse that I am a peeved off loser , which may not be wrong at all.
Sunday, December 11, 2005
Thinking about morality.