in the long term

 Yesterday I wrote, " what is vice, but what we like, but know it ain't right. " Posting it to Facebook I did receive a comment on that. The comment was an observation stating that depends on who is judging you. I can see the validity in that statement. I replied to that with a question. Do we not create our own morality? That is what I was thinking when I wrote that first line. Seems to me it is the only way something can be right to me and wrong to you at the same time. It's what I call situational morality. I also think it could be called vice. Vice depends upon who is judging whom as well. 

 Morals are a frequent theme of mine. I speculate about them, I present my beliefs concerning them and contemplate them. I've noticed that it has become a more frequent topic as the years pass. Yes I am aware of my mortality. Is it age, it is maturity, or is it because I had a heart attack? I expect truth be told, it is a combination of all three. The big question to be answered in all of that it is, to what end, to what purpose, is the application of a proper moral standard? Is it solely to gain the favor of God and enter heaven? For the religious among us that would have to be the answer. But what if you have no such belief, then what? I mean beyond gaining favor among others, popularity, fame or fortune, to what benefit is adhering to a moral standard? Why not just do as we please? 

 Vice can be defined as moral depravity, corruption or a bad habit. We all know when we choose to act in that manner. We ignore our conscience, trading that for pleasure, at least temporarily. The frequency with which we do that defines our character. Of course, that in itself is dependent upon what standard is being applied and by whom. Our character is what others perceive it to be. It may or may not reflect what we believe our character to be. If our vices are exposed do we not feel as though our character suffers? Yes, that's our conscience speaking to us. For that reason we establish our own moral code. All that is required is the dismissal of guilt, a willingness to surrender the prize. That's why defining the prize is so important, It is reward that motivates. If that reward isn't the continuation of life, what is it?  

 Governments are formed through the consent of the people. That is what John Locke thought and I have to agree with him. Governments' intent is to get us all on the same page. In so doing government establishes a moral code called, law. Laws are intended to delineate what is and is not acceptable within the society. Yes, they are a moral code subject to change. Man does enjoy the flexibility that system enjoys. But to what end? Are we here to just enjoy whatever life has to offer us? I mean, what is the final reward to observing governments' moral standard? We are all aware of a simple thing, you can't take it with you! Of course I'm speaking of the material things. What happens when the people no longer consent to be governed? Either the government imposes its' will upon the people or the people revolt against that government. 

 Gouverneur Morris, a name not known by many, wrote the preamble to the constitution. One of the founding fathers he signed the articles of confederation as the New York delegate to the continental congress and signed the declaration of independence. It is he that wrote the preamble to the constitution. He is credited with being the first to pen these words, " We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. "  The congress went on to delineate those ideals. " We the people " meaning what? A collective conscience is what I believe it means. We all agreed to the " rules. " It is true that about six months later the Bill of Rights was added to that document. They were added as a protection against government. The Bill of Rights protects " we the people " from government abuse. The debate today seems to center around establishing a moral standard among " we the people. " And that centers around one thing, reward. 

 There is much talk of the future and how best to preserve that future. But can we really do that? No I don't believe we can, we have no real say in that. Did we have any say in creation? Nope, we were created. No matter your train of thought in that regard, either through evolution or creation, we didn't have any input. It's rather arrogant to think we have any say about when it ends. Yes I suppose we could blow up the planet if we wanted too, but that is destruction not creation. For the future, for our continued existence, all we can do is pray. Are we rewarded for just doing what we please? No, reward is given for compliance. The government will reward us with benefits and entitlements if we are compliant. The government will punish us for non-compliance. But can the government reward us with eternal life? So the question remains, what is the reward? Depends entirely upon what rules you follow I suppose. If you find yourself engaging in acts that you know to be vice that's your conscience speaking to you. Then you have to decide whether to change the rules. Just what reward do you want? Can you change the rules and receive the same reward? Depends upon who is giving out the prize. Something to think about.