A better question to ask is" Would you like people to behave morally with you? All the time or half the times?. If you answer with yes- all the time, then don't you think (most) others, if not all, would answer the same?
如果每个人都希望在任何时候都能得到道德上的对待，那么这并不意味着每个人都需要在任何时候以道德的方式对待他人?至少，互惠原则，即使不是对称的，也是值得思考和期待的。

In my opinion, this discussion is victim of an evident amalgam: Morality and Ethics have nothing to do with rationality, at least for "sane" people, since they potentially can behave morally or immorally, as opposed to a clinically retarded person (suffering from insanity), who does not distinguish right or wrong because of incapacity, not because of rationality: he/she is amoral, the notion of morality is not "encrypted" in his/her consciousness. For a sane person, (and by sane I mean not rational but subject to Morality/Immorality), Morality is a duty, at least as it stipulates: Morality is "applicable" in absolute terms: one cannot be half moral or 75% of the times moral, he/she is either moral or immoral. Moving on to the notion of self-interest, it is, in my opinion, another amalgam here since self-interest is not motivated by morality, but by personal satisfaction, always: the anecdote mentioning the dentist is rather candid, since the dentist is being paid and even if he/she didn't charge anything (which almost never happens), he/she would be satisfied that you went to see him/her, having de facto an ulterior motive, which is fulfilling his/her personal satisfaction: I would say that self-interest is deeply "encrypted" is a person's rationale: the best thing humans can do is to allow growing cognition of morality whenever they can in their decisions and more importantly in their actions, but this is too difficult since the majority of humans tend to favor "easy" or "pragmatic" actions, which are essentially immoral, rather than altruistic ones. It is true that my views are rather cynical and maybe too harsh on humanity, but I think that though cynical perspectives, one can accomplish harder things, like sticking to being moral at all times, which is idealistic in cynical terms, but challenging in a Humanitarian/Philanthropist perspective: Humanitarian for hope, Cynical for Actions, and Morality is "applied" throughout actions, and not through Ideas.

你漏掉了一个类别。或者，当你读到你的帖子时，也许你没有错过，而我却错过了。或者，也许你在等着看某个书呆子会不会站出来挑战你的二元论?稍后再详细说明。我现在将写一些更平凡的东西(但可以说是相关的)。今天是2012年9月15日，星期六。下午6点，我家异常安静。这随时都可能改变。当然，这是我家乡的足球赛季。俄亥俄州立七叶树队今天对阵加州队。 I do not know who "won" because I had other matters to attend to , and, frankly, I do not give much of a flip about it anyway.
My wife participates in (orchestrates?) a tailgate party at a small local bar in our area. She makes sure people get fed, by organizing what would otherwise be total mayhem---thus her coveted title: Kitchen Nazi. She was critically ill about a year ago: end stage liver disease. But, she fought back and has now re-assumed her kitchen nazi role. Today began at 10:30 a.m. for her, and ended at about 5:00 p.m.---not so long for most able-bodied humans. But, those hours are long for her now-and that is why my home is currently quiet. She is sleeping. At twelve o'clock tonight, she will be wide awake.
Morality and immorality are eminently subjective terms. Consider the madness currently going on in Muslim countries. And reflect upon WHY that madness IS going on. If you cannot get my drift, please do some homework, and realize the inherent emnity between Christianity and Islam.
I promised(?)---well, no, not really---that I would dispel the morality/immorality dualism. The in-between condition, that is more egregious that either of its neighbors, is amorality. When individuals, cultures and nations choose to be amoral: neither good nor bad outcomes are worthy of notice---we have serious problems. I believe this is what is going on right now. Why would otherwise rational humans blow themselves up to murder others?
Hatred is cumulative. And warlike faiths, such as Christianity and Islam, seem to have more than their share of emnity. Don't point fingers unless you are ready to have them pointing back at you.

The German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900)) believed that morality was just a fiction used by the herd of inferior human beings to hold back the few superior men.

This Way
When you take wrong out of your life,
There is no question of morality,
And right becomes the Way.
Finding true by removing the untrue
也是正确的方式。
=

Rationality and reason have very little directly to do with morality. Rationality is simply recognizing and expecting the relationship of cause and effect - there is no moral implication. Reason is just a tool - you can use it to deduce morals, or not. The French Revolution enthroned Reason in the place of God (literally, at a ceremony in Notre Dame) - and led directly into the Reign of Terror - carried out by rational people with their reason fully intact and functioning.
那么为什么要讲道德呢?说它让自己的生活更美好，说它让别人的生活更美好，说它让社会运转得更好，不过是对功利主义做了些改动……当一个人通过自己的推理，看到不道德行为对自己、对他人、对社会有更大的好处时，这种想法就会失效。治安维持者，恐怖主义，等等。一个理性的人，或社会，会用理性来为不道德的行为辩护。
因此，一切形式的道德只基于人性，基于人类的理性和理性，最终会走向相对主义，从而走向毁灭。
为什么有道德?最后的答案只有两个:1)因为有一个上帝，他是公正的，他呼唤我们要有道德;或者2)因为它是有用的——直到它不再有用。

所有的好。Dr. S.说了这篇文章的大部分内容。道德要么是方便的。与否。你在这，在不到什么地方?五十个单词吗?看起来像……
(换句话说:人们话太多了——他们一边开车，一边打手机;或者忘记自己正在开车，而发短信说一些可以等一等的事情;或者忘记自己在车流中行走，因为他们太专注于打电话了。个人责任呢?有人知道或者关心吗?)

一位古代数学家认为，数列1、2、3……没有结束，因为对于任何数字N，都有更大的数字N+1。他所证明的只是我们不能代表最大的数，如果它确实存在的话。(最大数字加1可能相当于从北极向北走)。
Morality, too, makes sense only as long as it remains in the practical realm. Sigmund Freud and Henry Sidgwick laid the foundation for the modern interpretation of morality in recognizing that there are three moral systems operating simultaneously within each psyche. The Id appeals to self-interest and recognizes unfairness to oneself. The Ego appeals to the conscience and the public good, leading to utilitarianism. The Super-ego appeals to universal principles, scriptures or authoritarian leadership but does not accept them as absolute in practice (despite some professions to do so).
When there is a conflict within these systems, people use several mechanisms of resolution including rationalization, reasoning, relying on myths or raw instinct, etc. Rationalization and myth are particularly treacherous because they mostly serve (and in the case of myths, are almost always designed) to make immorality appear moral.

Some people here are confusing failed states' politics, related to Middle Eastern politics, with a broad and objective definition and interpretation of Morality. Politics are essentially utilitarian- they are interchangeable and adaptable to the various situations they face and are faced with. Islam and Christianity should NOT be perceived in a Moral optic. They may incorporate Moral like commandments, or theological theories that exhort Moral behavior, but the way they are being applied is terribly immoral. Christianity's immorality is much more subtle than Islam's: that's all. And that's for two main reasons. First, Extremism/Frustration in all sects within Christianity have relatively been "absorbed" since the Crusaders' periods, to the war of the peasants in the XVI th century in Germany, to the Cromwell's conquest of Ireland and Wales (for Religious Purposes). Muslims are still in a phase where this frustration is yet to be "absorbed". And it is Unfortunately inevitable. The Second Reason is that some Islamic Koranic Concepts are controversial, within Islamic societies, and are subject to ambiguities, like the Concept of Jihad for example, some people insist on the idea that the Jihad is to kill off Western phraseology in order to get to Heaven- this is of course dangerous and the person subject to this terrible and frightening idea will be willing to commit the most terrible atrocities. He/She is therefore "immorally moral"- immoral in the eyes of the West and the liberal Christians/Muslims, and moral when it comes to adhering to Fundamentalist institutions and beliefs. These "people" are being subject to propaganda from countries like Saudi Arabia and other Western Countries which support Saudi Arabia's Wahhabi movement-which is a terrifying proselyte fundamentalist tribe settled originally in Saudi Arabia. Religions and Morals have nothing to do with each other- and I would even say that it is immoral to limit Morality on Religious premises, even less on political ones. Why be Moral? For these extremists, it is for them to gain Heaven, like for any other religious person who thinks Morality is based on how Religious one can be, but How to be Moral makes all the difference here.. Some people kill in the name of God-Christians and Muslims- Jews don't because they are subject to a Diaspora philosophy and rationale. Some author once said, without God, everything will be permitted, I say, without God, nothing immoral can be legitimized.
注意:我并不是想在这场辩论中批评任何人，如果我的言论太过强硬，我提前道歉。只是我在叙利亚的生活中目睹了这一切。现在我住在美国。因此，我试图把我的个人经验尽可能客观和详尽地纳入这场辩论。

What if we are already in Heaven Karin,
And the only reason to be moral or good
Is because heaven is.
I like to think of the Universe this Way,
As good, as God, as just, as right,
As One is truly All,
=

It seems that the moral universe, like the physical one, has four dimensions: selfishness, lovingkindness, righteousness, and context.
“己所不欲，勿施于人”这条金科玉律的含义源于自私。此外，这条黄金法则还暗示了第二个道德维度，我将其称为仁爱，尽管它也可以简单地称为仁爱、同情、慈善、关心或其他类似的东西。前两个维度创造了一个平面，在这个平面上，通过适当的公理，可以构建道德几何。但是，就像测量师和制图师在假设欧几里得平面的情况下遇到问题并陷入错误一样，哲学家需要第三个维度——正义——它意味着对与错和正义的经验标准。
Physical space would be lifeless, were it not for time. Similarly, the moral universe is meaningless without context. What would be the moral implications of taking money from a bank vault if one were guaranteed getting away with it? Well, what is the context? My daughter once came upon wads of cash spilling out of a bag in the parking lot of a department store. Although bank bands were on the wads, she was hurrying to work, so she turned it money in at the department store. Should she have done more? Would a slight change in the context have had any moral implications?

Michael this is your personal opinion, and I respect that. But I don't see any true relevance to the Topic Why be Moral? To me, the answer to that question should portray an authentic attitude..coming from inside the person and directing his/her way to righteousness and not dictated by religious principles and thoughts: we owe our moral actions to ourselves, not to external subliminal factors like Religion. Religion could, and that's just my opinion, give a certain person hope or a steady piece of mind, and that's ideally. Unfortunately, Religion nowadays is a a tricky concepts: where in which, countries and new ideologies depend on them and legitimize their worst actions and philosophies through the Propaganda, portraying something which one cannot really object to (Religion), since it is a taboo in Middle Eastern countries and other parts of the World plus it has always become a habit to commit atrocities in the name of God in these regions. People nowadays tend to put forth Religion-driven actions (regardless of their Moral value) before questioning the true Morality within them. In essence, Moral conducts are not up for debate, unfortunately, Religious principles are that way, nowadays ( and even since their first rise)- bottom line, Religious/Ethnic Wars always lead to the destruction of the "enemy", which is always considered profane. impure. Ethical/Moral Wars lead to courts, which I think is much more Civil and Moral, Simultaneously. We owe our Morals to our Civism, not to our Gods.
谢谢哈罗德的好评。我相信你说的那本书就是《黑天鹅》——不可预测的天鹅。我是基督徒，但我也可以说真主安拉Hu Akbar。(God is Mighty)

When One finds One's true self
One finds the true Universe.
And Once the truth is found,
One can no more do wrong to any One or thing as is everything,
因为它只会伤害真实的自己。
Morality is universal self Onderfull goodness,
Self preservation.
Be One.
=

Interesting points, Karim and Harold. Of course much evil has been done in the name of religion - and in the name of science, and in the name of one or another philosophy, and in the name of nationalism, and in the name of almost anything one can imagine. It would be a mistake to therefore say that all these things must be put aside to find morality. They are part of the history and discovery of morality, at the very least.
这一切又回到了这一点——如果我们的道德来自于我们自己，无论我们多么希望相反，它将永远是相对的，因此最终永远是一个方便的问题。正如Arvoasitis所指出的，“环境”将最终决定一切。环境当然很重要，但考虑到我们是理性的生物，具有推理的能力，环境可以很容易地帮助我们合理化。“当然，做x是不对的，但这次因为y，对我来说是对的。”x和y变得无懈可击，因为它们都来自内部。“你凭什么说你的内脏比我的好?”
我认为杰斐逊(他本人不是卑劣的哲学家)充分认识到这一点，这就是为什么他把《独立宣言》的基础放在一位造物主身上，并宣布人民的权利是不可剥夺的，因为他们来自这位造物主。他宣称这是不言而喻的。我认为，他正确地认识到，试图用哲学和理性来证明这些事情，而不顾一切理性的反对，将会无休止地旋转，并且一事无成。一个人必须在某个地方有坚实的基础，而这个基础不能仅仅是一个人或许多人的理性、哲学、意见或大众意志。我们的民主最终建立在他的洞察力之上。我们可能会认为它在“腐烂”，这是可能的，但100年前的人们也这么想……很有可能一百年后的人们会回顾我们的时代，认为这是一个黄金时代。我敢打赌，这种“腐烂”的民主仍将继续。
The bottom line remains the same: the answer to "why be moral" cannot lie simply within ourselves, either as individuals or as societies. If it does, we will drift with every passing wave.

你的观点很有趣，内森，我在某些方面同意你的观点。但如果一个人是无神论者呢:他/她不知道如何辨别是非吗?他/她不善于道德吗?从道德的角度来说，无神论者没有什么可以合理化的——他/她唯一合理化的事情，显然是对上帝的否定。从他/她的内在自我，这个人决定过一种不尊重任何上帝的生活。接下来是语境的问题——我认为这个问题很中肯，但缺乏可靠的决定性论据。一个人也可以通过责备上帝自己来为他/她的不道德行为辩解/合理化(我把辩解和合理化联系在一起是为了我的论点——顺便说一下，这是伴随这场辩论的):“我犯了这个罪，这让我不道德吗?”我不是神所造的吗?他为什么要我犯下这样的罪行?”因此，我们的道德责任与我们自己的道德行为决定有关——当我提到我们的内在自我时，我并不是指对道德的主观感知(通过每个人的信仰)——这当然会从本质上消灭道德——因为道德必须保持客观——人们必须遵守它——而不是反之，否则我们都将是道德的。接着说“语境”的概念，我认为如果我们应该把“教义”(doxa)，或者说对道德的普遍看法视为一种规则，并因此认为正义是多数(将多数等同于道德)，那么我们将再次摧毁道德。 If I live in a world where everyone steals and I don't, I would see myself stealing in order to conform (as humans tend to conform to each other and more importantly to the majority, but our context now forbids us from stealing ( at least as a current Moral rule) and I would like to think (ideally or not) that stealing would always be wrong-no matter the context. It also depends on the gravity of the "felonies"- if I live in a world where everyone steals, I wouldn't do so-I wouldn't be pragmatic and abiding by the "common way of living" but I would be moral-at least vis-a-vis of myself. Of course, if I live in a jungle where we have to kill in order to survive, I wouldn't hesitate to kill, it would be a reflex and I would just have to do it if I want to live ( paraphrasing Spinoza, the ultimate goal of a person is to persevere in his being). In order to avoid living in a jungle, or in like some regions in the world currently, we have to let our Morality shine from within us-If of course we agree on the premise that human nature is kind. As for the concept of Democracy, it has been earned and fought for for centuries and still has (in certain regions of this World)- the French Revolution for example that brought Democracy came from an Intellectual Revolution, inspired and motivated by Reason, and if I want to give up my Intellect and Reason- I would be simply replacing a Democracy with a Theocracy. I do not agree with Jefferson when it comes to the topic of Democracy- since he is basically putting forth a premise that could be either wrong (if God turned out to be non-existent), dangerous (since people are no longer questioning their moral behavior and only relying on something already given), or simply decadent (since it no longer allows political reforms for the years to come).

One
When the subject is the object
And the object is the subject
Then One is the other
And the other is just One.
Is

Karim: you're right that an atheist can be as moral as anyone else - and therefore, an atheist can rationalize his/her own behavior much like anyone else. When I was an atheist, I still thought of myself as a moral person - and I rationalized my immoral behavior, when I committed it, by use of context, much the way most people (even "religious" people) do. I think the elimination of a God-given standard simply makes the daily rationalization so much easier. That is my experience and my perception.
People can of course abuse any context to justify themselves, even God-context. Paul spoke to this argument in Romans 9 - if, for example, Pharoah was put on this earth to be the foil for Moses, should he not then be free of responsibility? The answer is no - because he made his own choices, in full knowledge of the word of God that was before him. Our freedom of choice exists, even if a higher being knows beforehand what those choices will be. Religions differ on this, of course, as do philosophies - but Christianity at least does not allow the escape from responsibility.
I haven't read Spinoza, but I'm not sure that the ultimate goal of a person is, or should be, to persevere in his own being. Jesus said, "he who seeks to save his own life will lose it." Which one is right? In practice we place very high honor on those who give up their lives to preserve something or someone else - the opposite of self-preservation, or selfish genes. Would that not be morally superior?
至于民主，它的基础是至关重要的。是的，法国大革命试图建立一种基于理性和启蒙人性观的民主制度……很快就变成了独裁统治，恐怖主义，然后又以拿破仑的形式回归君主专制。只有六十年的艰苦经历，再加上拿破仑三世被德国人打败，才最终在法国奠定了民主的持久基础。我们做得更好，我认为部分原因是我们没有试图把我们年轻的共和国完全锚定在人类的理性上。
这不是对理性的拒绝，而是对理性的承认……一个工具，而不是一个大师。这就是为什么杰斐逊(和其他许多人)的推理没有创造一个神权国家，而是世界上最成功的民主国家。如果我们假设理性是最高的标准，我们的领导者当然是我们当中最理性、最理性的，那么逻辑上他们应该拥有无限的权力。如果正如启蒙运动所暗示的那样，人们基本上是道德的、善良的，那么大多数人一定会做出正确的决定。在这两种情况下，如果最终按照同样的逻辑，那些不服从领导或不服从多数的人应该而且必须被迫这样做……用卢梭的话说，他们“必须被迫获得自由”。然而，经过经验磨炼的理性告诉我们，人从根本上说并不是好的，如果被赋予权力，他们会倾向于寻求更多，并滥用他们所拥有的。因此，政府必须是有限的——这需要一个高于政府的标准，高于领导人，高于多数，约束所有人的标准。这是整个实验成功的关键洞察。

Nathan, I would say.that in every ideal democracy, and none of the world's current democracies qualify in my opinion, as the American Democracy imposes its democratic model on the whole world, being irrevocably, in its eyes, the only authentic one: somehow the imposition is sometimes harsh: the 2 two Atomic bombs, not that long ago, thrown at Japan's "Axis of Evil", but one has to ask oneself, what was Moral and not Evil about that, neglecting one of the primordial military protocols- which is to distinguish between Military Targets and Civilians. Moving on to the Vietnam War (and the huge losses of American lives, the intervention in Afghanistan to counter the Soviet expansion (which as you know vanished 23 years ago), the Israeli Lobby in the US that controls most of the Media and has an impressive control over presidential and other forms of political campaigns- wouldn't you say- and these statements were put forth by an American Political Thinker by the way- Noam Chomsky in his book "Failed States". I may have drifted away from the debate but I think mentioning this is relevant since you consider that the American Democracy is successful. It may be successful domestically, but the ethnocentrism in American Foreign Policies makes it hard to believe that they want to spend Democracy and Civilization abroad- American Foreign Policies, are, in my opinion, imposed unequivocally, to the World. And that is a lack of Meta-Democracy, a Democracy which transcends and goes beyond the individual nations- even if this concept does not exist, it doesn't mean we can't cogitate about it.
About what Jesus said "he who seeks to save his own life will lose it."
我认为人性是不好的，在内心。我相信人类的本能远比耶稣所相信的更自私和黑暗。我们不是耶稣想的那样。那就是我认为我是无神论的时候——而且永远会这样——直到我死的那一天。我不想被异化成我不喜欢的东西。基督教创造了一个不适合它的主要受众:人类的反世界。那些为事业而死的人面临着他们的人生目标从手中滑落:希特勒为他自己的目标而死——他是道德的对立面。至于为别人而死的人，我认为他/她这样做是出于个人/情感原因，我不认为这有任何道德可言。如果一个人为了拯救另一个生命而牺牲，我会非常尊重那个人，但这并不意味着我会认为他/她比其他人更有道德——也许更勇敢，而不是更有道德。
Now to the idea of which supersedes which: Reason or Religion: I would definitely go with Reason-You can Rationalize Religion, but Religion cannot Rationalize You.
1/Whatever I clearly and distinctly perceive to be contained in the idea of something is true of that thing.
2/ I clearly and distinctly perceive that necessary existence is contained in the idea of God.
3/ Therefore, God exists. Descartes logically proves God's existence.
如果我想用理性，我可以证明上帝——上帝不能向我证明他自己，除非我使他的存在合理化。因此，对我来说，理性是工具，也是主人。
In the question of the Governments, I would propose 4 to 5 instances that should hold our civism together and attempt to work our way through the Ideal Democratic Regime: and the Instances go from the most simple to the most philosophical:
1) Regulatory Economic and Social Policies ( to avoid the Deregulation that the World witnessed in the 2008 First Financial then Economic worldwide Turmoil).
2) The Unilateralism of the World Politics- with no real Country that police the world. Along with No military intervention but solely Humanitarian intervention and letting countries transit to Democracy at their own pace.
3) Fair Legal System
4) Moral System where Morals are thought collectively, being essentially driven from each one's inner self to ensure civism and World peace and should be portrayed in the first 3 instances (especially the third one)
5) (Optional) Religions which can comfort (individually or collectively) the people and direct their lives.
I know this model never ought to happen and I know how Idealistic and Naive I am on this- but it doesn't really hurt to think that way, or does it?

Foundations
If your looking for the foundation of morality in Democracy look no further than freedom.
在哲学上，要像笛卡尔的方法那样消除不确定性或怀疑。一旦真相或“我”被发现，就像他发现的那样，不要让任何不确定性(就像他那样)再次出现。
As for physics or science, the great Einstein reduced the universe to his famous equation e = mc2, and then like Decartes got lost again. Equal or = is the equation, the truth he was as most are still searching for. The equation that unites us all. The truth that lie hidden in the foundation of mathematics = IS the same as the truth that lay hidden in ourselves.
宗教:神是唯一的。
Justice: Beyond fairness is absolute. To find it remove her blindfold, keep her equality or balance but throw away her scale.
为什么有道德?为了自由、平等、团结、公正、平衡、远见、视力或光明;为真理，为健康，为我，为你，为他们，为一个或所有人。
The truth shall set us free.
=

This post has generated much discussion. From morality to democracy, as though they are joined at the hip---Siamese twins, if you will---or even if you won't. Morality remains an outgrowth of human experience.We make the rules, we have the gold, ergo, beginning and end of story. Truth frees no one---it only sets us up to comply OR fail to comply. And, help us if we do not. (heaven has nothing to do with it) Democracy is rotten, IMHO. That is why it holds no influence in places that have never known it. Decay affects more than teeth.

辛迪加专栏作家卡尔·托马斯今天在我们当地的“新闻”报纸上滔滔不绝。He said that
morality is a free-for-all. Using the Arnold Terminator meltdown as his example, he illustrated the futility of living a moral life in a world gone mad with indulgence. Thomas rightly illustrated that there are mistakes, which most of us make; and intentional indulgences, which we hope no one will find out. Maybe. The Terminator has written his incredible true life story, figuring to make some more money from his "mistakes". Thomas---not my fave thinker---did make a good suggestion: don't buy the book. I'll go him one better: don't bother reading it, unless life is insufferably boring for you.
这篇文章可能会一直写下去，几乎永远写不下去，永远也找不到一个所有倡导道德生活的人都能接受的解决方案。
这是一个值得深思的问题:道德是否建立在神学基础上?哲学基础还是文化基础?我很好奇——尽管我的好奇心并不深刻。(提示:如果你说，嗯，这是所有三个，那么你一定已经写了一本关于它的书，对吗?如果是这样，请让我们大家都知道。我宁愿读你的书，而不愿读前面提到的那本。
Best Regards,
PDV.

谢谢你的好评Mirugai。我想说的是，这场辩论已经从最初的声明转向了对当今政治中道德的更广泛、更一致的评价——你不应该责备自己，我认为当前这场辩论的含义更相关、更充分，考虑到当代政治中的问题缺乏体面的治理，而不仅仅是因为政治演员的政策缺乏透明度，但是其他的干扰因素几乎没有给道德留下任何空间——比如独裁政权的坚持，几乎没有留下他们的公众支持，犯下了反人类的罪行。至于不道德民主的问题——我想说“不道德社会”这个词更恰当，因为一个民主不能是道德的或不道德的——它只能是真实的或不真实的，就其真正民主的特征而言(言论自由、结社、政治代表的多元性，仅举几个例子。一个人可以是道德的，也可以是不道德的。
A law abiding citizen can abide by the laws which could portray unjust practices that could lead him/her to seek revenge (essentially immoral) in order to restore Justice (which is morally legitimized since fairness can be based on luck- on comparisons between people and not necessarily to make Morality triumph. But for the sake of the argument, we will assume that fairness encourages moral behavior. The citizen mentioned above has a choice of leading a frustrated life or fight for what he believes is his/her Moral duty. I am making an allusion to the movie "Law Abiding Citizen" ( with Jamie Fox)- which is poorly directed by the way but the idea behind that movie correlates well with the 1st issue proposed by Mirugai.
这也帮助我转到另一个问题——一个与“不道德”民主有关的问题。我想说的是，为了解决多数人的问题，人性应该以一种不把多数人视为常态的方式来格式化和恢复自己。因此，我要说的是，不管不幸与否，大多数人总是能最终决定什么是对的，什么是错的，有时是错误的，但有时是正确的。
The only good thing we can hope for is the following:
1)The Sustainability and the Implementation of fair laws in the " Most Democratic countries", hopefully set as an example to follow or even to surpass.
2) The Right Advocacy, held by Non-Governmental Organizations when it comes to Humanitarian issues-and by right I mean Independent (preferably) from any affiliation with any government or corporation , Genuinely concerned about the atrocities which we are witnessing today in some regions of the world.
3) Through the help of Social Media and any other form of "Authentic" Media (like Citizen Media) and not those Blood Sucking Media Conglomerates, we can stimulate Activism wherever and whenever needed.

Lots of stuff in the news in the past month about morals/morality. Pundits of all stripes are weighing in on this timely issue. I have noticed a cycle. Not many of us complain about lies and other forms of dishonesty---until there is a presidential election on the brink. Local appointed and elected officials do their nefarious deeds and seldom are brought to account---unless the election cycle dictates. Morality is so situational and seemingly meaningless to the masses, until an important political event is imminent. Come on now. Think about these remarks. Consider your own observations. You must have noticed something? If you did not forget to look...