Most people don’t realize the truth in morality, until they become enlightened. They don’t understand there is a need to be moral, when they cannot hear the furies torment you. Samsara threatens when you think a wrong thought, if you step off the path.
It is the duty of the wise to guard the more foolish, and many do not know the reason to be moral, and think it is okay to be shiesty.
Is it is the duty of leaders to be representatives for morality? Certainly we want them to be moral in their political decisions. But is not what is done in the privacy of your own home, your business?
Certainly it is illegal to beat your own child, but this is because it is a crime against another citizen, and are we not all citizens?
Does this give the right to life people a start?
According to the scientifically divine wisdom of the ancients, when their vast and mighty civilization was at an intellectually advanced state, the republic (a mixed constitutional system, balancing the elements of kinship and oligarchy with those of democracy, in a rule for the people, by the people) does not have jurisdiction over your private life, because it is outside of the public sphere.
This brings up a problematic conundrum with respect to a republic as opposed to a democracy. Technically, voting is undemocratic; if the the majority is allowed to decide for the minority, it is mob rule, or ochlocracy, democracy’s opposite, according to my Columbia History professor, Richard Billows. And if the minority aren’t served, then you can have an injustice.
Thus we must be mindful of this in issues such as abortion. If the fetus is judged to be not yet alive, then it is still a woman’s right to choose. This is a big choice, and one that politicians are forced to navigate.
However, in the public sphere, it is the wise who traditionally ruled, and received more votes because they would cast theirs for the interest of the republic, having been enlightened as to its nature, and its basis on a foundation of good. Their knowledge also gave them the wisdom to judge political issue morally, defining the boundaries of the law.
Past this line at which we have judged it acceptable for politicians to legislate morality, we have another type of morality, at which they must be moral in their decision not to step over.
Originally posted 2008-09-07 13:04:29. Republished by Old Post Promoter
how true is this
[...] once a year, so that people from the countryside, large estates mostly owned by the senatus turned nobilitas , and manned by slaves, or farmers who rarely came in, even though their vote comprised the largest [...]