|
You are rapidly heading towards argument by definition. ie "define moral".
MLK and Thoreau both worked in the macro-scale. MLK did not set out to break laws simply out of convenience. He sought to modify the macro-scale morality of his chosen culture. Thoreau did the same, in his way.
You seem to read what I say as implying that the culture is always right and then, by extension, should be unchangable. You are wholly incorrect. Cultures are constantly evolving, as is morality. Those that act to change the greater scale of morality are actually properly functioning within the culture as agents of change and upkeep.
I don't care what an individual's reasoning is behind the decision to follow Social Contact. All I care is that they do. I don't want misanthropes living next door to me, and I am certain that you do not either. Your culture defines your expected mores simply by enforcing what your culture wishes to see, be it by social pressure (scorn, derision, social exile) or by force (legal pressure, arrest, actual law enforcement pressure).
I invite you to read what I posted once more. I spoke not of motivation. I spoke not of change. I spoke not of choice. I merely attempted to expand the discussion by making blatant the difference between moral relativism between cultures, and moral relativism between individuals. One is generally healthy, the other a sign of deficiency.
Overall American morality does not ignore significant portions of the populace. It includes it perfectly fine. The portions that I am assuming that you are speaking of either choose not to follow overall morality, or are paying too much attention to specific highly vocal minorities attempting to foist a more restrictive morality on the populace at large.
|