You cannot have Liberty in this world without what you call Moral Virtue, and you cannot have Moral Virtue without the slavery of that half of the human race who hate what you call Moral Virtue.
William Blake
2007-03-14 05:42:56 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I am for reasonable liberty, and what this quote says makes no difference.
I assume Blake was being overly poetic when he said half the human race. I doubt it is anywhere near that many who object.
2007-03-14 05:47:47 · answer #1 · answered by Dharma Nature 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Moral virtue is very simple, if it hurts someone then it is bad, if it doesn't then there is nothing wrong with it. Only when people start to condemn things that they personally disagree with do other people start to object. Religion is also a personal opinion, it is not absolute, and many people try to use it as a vessel for their own personal interests...
If we keep Moral Virtue simple, then hardly anyone will disagree....
2007-03-14 13:00:57 · answer #2 · answered by Shinkirou Hasukage 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
~~~Ken ,,,, Without liberty, tyranny reigns. History has already proven how tryanny retards the Collective Progress and benefits the Ruling Class. It's still taking the USA over 200 years of Personal Liberty to find Public Servants (Politicians) that aren't so Greedy feeding off the Public Trough,,, and lead us into absurd wars that lay waste to resources and life. ~ "Morality is the invention of human intellect,,, and wishful thinking." Alan Watts
2007-03-14 14:48:33 · answer #3 · answered by Sensei TeAloha 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm for Liberty.
Anyone who claims there is no such thing as good or bad is lying so they don't have to live with morals.
If you study history in relation to moral virtue, you'll see the same pattern--Countries are founded and flourish on basic morals and virtues. When they forget them, they are destroyed or atleast lose power.
2007-03-14 12:52:00 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Just remember, he is not God, nor are his words scripture.
I do not think he said that off the cuff, I am sure there was a story surrounding this quote.
2007-03-14 12:47:56 · answer #5 · answered by Mr Marc 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, sounds like just another egotistical intellectual trying to convince you that he knows best.
2007-03-14 12:48:12 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Freedom without restraint is anarchy, restraint without freedom is tyranny.
2007-03-14 12:54:03 · answer #7 · answered by JesusFreak 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I disagree with the definition, and I'm not going to fall into the trap of dualistic oversimplification.
2007-03-14 12:46:45 · answer #8 · answered by kent_shakespear 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
good quote
2007-03-14 12:46:33 · answer #9 · answered by Aspurtaime Dog Sneeze 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think your quote is wrong.
Just because someone famous said something once doesn't mean it is true.
2007-03-14 12:46:20 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋