CENTER HOME-PAGE

FIRST     Previous    This-Report   Next-Report   ENDS
FIRST scr-x34.htm scr-x35.htm scr-x41.htm ENDS
The links above let you view this whole set of reports.




Sample ESSAY TEXT



          %LOVE'S NON-LEGALISTIC MORALITY INTEGRITY 870331

    The  morality of an action or desire may be known  in
terms   of  how  likely  are   personal    and    communal
integration/disintegration.  Legalistic laws, moral codes,
ethics, etc. tend to be used in  disintegrative ways;  and
so are often not worthy  of charitable respect.  The chief
end  of  love  is personal and  communal  integrity,   not
conformity  to any code of goodness regarded as the  chief
means to salvation.  When morality is defined in conformal
and/or   legalistic   terms  it  tends  to   lead   toward
disintegration.

     The intended consequences of a manner of approach  to
certain  kinds  of situations do not serve as an  adequate
basis  for deciding whether or not to respect that  manner
of approach.   This  is especially the  case when abundant
experience clearly shows that the actual consequences  are
disintegrative.  Also we may reasonably and with integrity
choose a manner of approach which turns out disintegrative
in unexpected ways which  could  not reasonably  have been
anticipated.   In the  presence of abundant experience and
evidence  showing  that a manner of  approach  most  often
leads  to disintegration---we may not  reasonably or  with
integrity  continue to choose that manner  of  approach---
unless we find it impossible to imagine any alternative.

     No  theory,   tradition,   authority,    institution,
teaching,  doctrine,  dogma,  scripture,  etc.   should be
respected if  it leads  people to approach situations in a
manner which occasions the  disintegration of personal and
communal   integrity.    Such  consequences  can  not   be
justified in terms of any transcendent  values  or ideals.
Attempts  to  justify  that which leads  to  personal  and
communal  disintegration  must lack integrity and are  not
worthy of respect.

     Power   to   coerce   is  not  the  essence   of   an
authentification   of  a  system  of  morality,    ethics,
legalism, etc.   Coercion makes no sense unless there is a
standard  of  conformity which is regarded as  appropriate
and  required.    If  so,   then  coercion  is  mandatory,
disintegrative, and evil.

                         (c) 1997 by Paul A. Smith in
                      "Search for Integrity and Honesty"
                    (On Being Yourself, Whole and Healthy)

BACK