It's good! It's good! It's good...to be good

When I said non-religious societies I was maybe being a little to general. I don't mean societies where neither the government or the people as a whole have any faith, because rarely have there been if ever and societies like that. Maybe Russia at the most. What I meant was either/or, or even sometimes society in general. Like you can have non-religious governments ruling over religious people or somewhat religous people or you can have a society of people who are not very religious in a country which may speak out against religion even though it doesn't restrict people from practicing. One example is this:

While Christianity is still very relevant in the United States, and is exploding in the developing world, Europe today has sunk below unbelief, and is now labeled "Christophobic" and "anti-religious."

cbn.com...

But my major point is the rejection of all traditional morality alot of which we get from religion and how societies that have gone totally against this morality are having some interesting social problems to deal with:


"Teens say cutting themselves helps them escape"
www.ctcentral.com...

indeed psychologists must be making quite a bit of money.

[edit on 16-3-2006 by NeoQuest]

[edit on 16-3-2006 by NeoQuest]

[edit on 16-3-2006 by NeoQuest]

Originally posted by queenannie38

Originally posted by NeoQuest
It's more than just having something to do. It's about having a discipline code with which to follow in life. Discipline societies are always stronger internally.

Think about it:

'Having something to do,' and doing it--that's called responsibility.

Carrying responsibilities willingly builds self-discipline.

A society cannot actually be 'disciplined' except by government and that is not 'self-discipline.'

If all members of a society were self-disciplined to the point of self-government; resulting in an peaceful and productive community--well, that would be the first truly disciplined society.

Hasn't happened yet.

I don't believe responsibilty is necessarily above ethical and moral thoughts itself, at most the two are interchangeable. One could have responsibilities and fufill them and still follow strong moral codes or take proper actions in life. I think on the other hand teaching someone right conduct can also fuel towards wanting to be more responsible. So in a sense I could twist what you said and we could debate which is more important like the chicken and the egg. But the two go hand in hand it's not one and then the other.

As for government there are always going to be leaders over people, but government can't and shouldn't try and do everything. But there are certain societies where if you tried to implement certain ideas it wouldn't hold because the people would see it as immoral.

Ultimately societies must choose their direction, those societies which do not reject all traditional morality are not perfect but are more disciplined then societies that do.

What constitutes being good is subjective. What one person sees as good another may see the opposite. Ultimately it all comes down to how closely you can adhere to your own idea of what constitutes goodness and the driving factors behind your motivation to accomplish this.