Moral truth's vital for survival

First published in Letters

POINTING out the fallacies of the pious who profess moral outrage on issues of homosexuality, euthanasia and abortion, I suggest that if one’s ethical views don’t originate from empathy and careful consideration towards other groups, then contention among the creeds is bound to endure.

Enter religion and its constant failings throughout history to do the right thing in protecting and preventing the misery of those in their care. Insidious is the obstruction of humanitarian and scientific progress because of religious doctrine, refusing to revise their positions and pointing diversionary fingers at charity. After centuries to hone their policies and develop a conscience, what are they doing to garner favour in our communities? Rallying at the Vatican to expunge paedophiles? Apologising to Africa? Embracing secularism? No.

State-funded faith schools! Twelve of them this month fostering culturally ignorant and cognitively deficient adults who may continue to slow mankind’s endeavours to escape this destructive legacy of our forebears. I think that objective moral truths exist, albeit uncultivated, but maturing in the right direction and paramount to the survival of humanity. We can all agree that there is definitely a wrong direction to go when considering the best possible wellbeing for all.

Paul C Neilson, Dorset Crescent, Newport

Comments (2)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:22am Wed 19 Sep 12

Mervyn James says...

Free Speech has to be respected. This means occasionally people will not agree with others. You cannot name an gender/religious or other issue where mutual respect is the norm, even within own areas. No-one is going to accept everything, EVER. I'm suer there are things you do not agree with (Like religious freedom for one thing !), if that area doesn't accept things against their own belief.

That's YOUR view not an moral global thing. The only variations occur over time, even then, new issues arrive, no one wants to be the same as everyone else, so it will never change. Shangri-la is mythical. (To me rather boring sorry).
Free Speech has to be respected. This means occasionally people will not agree with others. You cannot name an gender/religious or other issue where mutual respect is the norm, even within own areas. No-one is going to accept everything, EVER. I'm suer there are things you do not agree with (Like religious freedom for one thing !), if that area doesn't accept things against their own belief. That's YOUR view not an moral global thing. The only variations occur over time, even then, new issues arrive, no one wants to be the same as everyone else, so it will never change. Shangri-la is mythical. (To me rather boring sorry). Mervyn James
  • Score: 0

12:08pm Thu 11 Oct 12

P C Neilson says...

Hi Mervyn, glad you found my letter of interest. I don't really have a political or world view affiliation, I tend to go where the truth takes me and I always take great interest and research before making commentaries on subjects. I do my best to express my opinions in the 200 words that SWA letters page allows. Most of my mini rants start out as essays and are severely chopped down. This is why they sometimes take on a tone that I did not intend, and it makes them quite 'wordy' where I need a single word to express a broader idea. I'm not suggesting that idealistic approaches work, or have ever worked (this far anyway) Just that all of the best ideas for 'well being' come from empathy, and not what we are told to do by authority. I don't even like the idea of 'morals'. If I could offer a decent ideology to live by it would be something like this. "My right to swing my fist, ends at your nose". I apply this way of thinking when considering the consequences of legislation, social and religious issues. I'm all for religious freedom, but not when it is at the cost of the freedom of others. I hope this answers your question somewhat. All the best.
Hi Mervyn, glad you found my letter of interest. I don't really have a political or world view affiliation, I tend to go where the truth takes me and I always take great interest and research before making commentaries on subjects. I do my best to express my opinions in the 200 words that SWA letters page allows. Most of my mini rants start out as essays and are severely chopped down. This is why they sometimes take on a tone that I did not intend, and it makes them quite 'wordy' where I need a single word to express a broader idea. I'm not suggesting that idealistic approaches work, or have ever worked (this far anyway) Just that all of the best ideas for 'well being' come from empathy, and not what we are told to do by authority. I don't even like the idea of 'morals'. If I could offer a decent ideology to live by it would be something like this. "My right to swing my fist, ends at your nose". I apply this way of thinking when considering the consequences of legislation, social and religious issues. I'm all for religious freedom, but not when it is at the cost of the freedom of others. I hope this answers your question somewhat. All the best. P C Neilson
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree