Not necessarily. Think again.

That’s black and white, absolute thinking and where I start to get into trouble with people, because my mind always wants to say, that logically, we are all different, so different, in how we perceive the world, and there are so many contexts and complex conditions where the same act (killing someone, for example) would have different moral connotations.  To not consider the greys, to stick to a rigid fundamental way of thinking, such as in fundamental religion, only results in massive wells of guilt in the individual that ultimately expresses itself, in often far more destructive behaviors than the original “rule” they might have broken.  Your God’s laws and your individual country and state’s laws (which vary by religion and location) are not appropriate, fair, “moral” or just, for every individual in every situation. ((This also applies to D/s relationships when you think about it))

I understand why we need laws and rules in our various cultures and communities; it prevents chaos, or at least is supposed to. I have laws at my kinky cafe simulation in Second Life (a virtual world) because I’m trying to create a specific culture and want to attract people of minds that appreciate and also support my vision for it.  So I get it. And my vision for this cafe has my own personal morality at it’s heart, so I also get that my rules could be subjective and arbitrary for someone else. However that morality is based on the concept of respecting and learning from differences, and so is inherently non-rigid in spirit.  And more importantly, there is no moral judgement from me if what we want for the cafe is not what someone wants to experience for themselves.

The problem with rigid fundamental absolute thinking is that it is just plain illogical when applied to real situations. Take “Honor Your Father and Mother” which seems to be somewhat common morality in many cultures and religions, to be respectful of those that bring us into the world, and “Thou Shalt Not Kill”  which respects human life and is certainly a basic law in many countries and a big one in Judeo-Christian tenets, yet what if your parent tries to kill you, or orders you to kill someone else, such as to enlist as a soldier, or take revenge for a perceived injustice or to protect against someone that threatens your family or self directly?  In that moment which morality, rule, and/or law does the fundamentalist follow?

In order to accept absoluteness for themselves, morality fundamentalists (of any kind) cannot accept anything else for others; they cannot accept that what they believe is bad for them can be OK or even good for someone else, regardless of the circumstances.  They live by the principle, “If you know who the ultimate authority is, and you know what it’s rules are, then you can just follow them and be safe.”  And when fear is the whip used to push that message, safety becomes one of the main goals. Safe from hell, safe from harm, safe from judgement, safe from pain, safe from despair, safe from each other, safe from the bad guys, safe from ourselves, safe from confusion, safe from thinking.

No need to consider all those complex variables, perspectives, and intentions that logic demands we examine.