>Dragan,
>
>>>The decline of some societies doesn't necessarily mean their morality was wrong - it may just not have been strong enough, didn't take real root.
>
>Whatever the reason: it would take a brave/arrogant leader to forge a new morality in the face of the failures of the 20th Century.

Personally, I think overt reliance on leaders is a Western disease. Maybe it's that I grew in a society which was (temporarily) cured of leaders, with disastrous consequences when the search for leaders returned in even worse form. But it was nice to grow among self-organized people, who didn't wait for anyone's order or call when they wanted to do something.

Maybe that would also be a way to forge that new morality.

>Established religions have stood the test of time, just like democracy. Sure they have faults and warts, but lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater. We know these moral structures lead to stable communities. If we agree that is good, we need more than just a smug "I'm very sure of myself" to justify departures from the tried and true.

Established religions have the mechanism which enables them to outlast the time when they were beneficial to the civilization, IMO. Resistance to logic and reasoning is one of the key features of the mechanism.

Not that they are wrong all the time - but they often are. I've heard quite often that this or that moral trait is the key to stability of the society, and then these traits haven't passed the test of time - and nothing bad happened to the societies, they just go on.

>Right here on UT we see people who advocate that we are intrinsically good. to reach such a belief requires a pleasant upbringing and a sheltered adult life.
>
>Which is actually great news, if our societies are able to support communities who can live that belief. We are succeeding.

Agree here.