Lately, in our politically correct world, it has become fashionable to deride traditional values. It has been particularly popular to bash the notion of absolute morality, that we should not judge others but rather accept them for "who they are". There seems to be tendency to say: "You can't say he/she/it is right or wrong for what they are doing, morality is relative!" My general reaction to this is: "Are you just brain dead or just on crack?"
             Now I am no ranting conservative spouting mish-mash about how the world is going to hell and how we should return to the "good old days" when Judeo-Christian values ruled. Yeah, right. And maybe we should just make non-whites ride at the back of the bus and burn homosexual witches at the stake. I don't think so.
             Those of you who know me know that I am far from that. I consider myself a liberal. But I cannot subscribe to the notion that morality is relative. Let consider this for a second. Our system of laws, indeed, the order on which our society is based on, is founded a set of commonly held and understood values, without which there would be anarchy. Imagine this, seeing as how laws are based tacitly on the notion of right and wrong, if morality was relative, there would be no grounds for any laws. Remember that morality too, is the basis for our laws. "Sorry, you honor, but under my client's system of morals, stealing is OK. And seeing as how morality is relative, the state has no case." Well, case closed.
             So there has to be some notion of shared morality, i.e. some common ground for understanding what morality is. The objective of this essay is to attempt to define a new basis for understanding morality as it pertains to society and form the common ground for resolving the seeming disparity between "different" versions of morality amongst different races/religions/groups/etc.
             Let's lay down some ground rules. I am assuming morality to be a societal construct. ...