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?
If the case is that everybody wants to be morally treated all the time then this does not imply that everybody needs to behave morally towards all others all the time? At least, the principle of reciprocity, even when not symmetric, is good to think about and hope for.

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.

You have missed one category. Or, maybe you did not miss it and I did, when reading your post. OR, maybe you were waiting to see if some philosophic nerd would step forward and challenge your dualism? More on that later. I'll write about something more mundane (yet, arguably, related) just now. It is Saturday, September 15, 2012. My home is unusually quiet at this hour, 6:00 p.m. That could change any moment now. This is, of course, football season in my hometown. "The" Ohio State Buckeyes played California today. 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
Is the right Way too.
=

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.
So why be moral? To say that it makes ones life better, or that it makes others' lives better, or that it makes society function better, is merely to make variations on Utilitarianism...which will fail the moment one sees, via one's reasoning, a greater good for oneself, or someone else, or society, in being immoral. Thus vigilantiism, terrorism, etc. A rational person, or society, will then use reason to justify the immoral behavior.
Thus all forms of morality based only on humanity, on human rationality and reason, ultimately come to relativism, and thence to ruin.
Why be moral? The only final answers are two: 1) because there is a God, who is just, who calls us to be moral; or 2) because it is useful - until it isn't.

All good. Dr. S. said most of what has been stated on this post topic. Morality is either convenient. Or not. There you are---in less than, what? Fifty words? Looks like...
(On a different note: people talk too much---they keep hitting things, while driving and talking on their mobile phones; or forgetting that they are driving, while texting about things that could wait; or forgetting that they are walking in traffic, because they are sooooo wrapped up in talking on their phones. What happened to personal responsibility? Does anyone know---or care?)

An ancient mathematician argued that the series of numbers 1, 2, 3,... has no end because for any number N there is a greater number, N+1. All he actually proved was that we cannot represent the greatest number, if indeed it exists. (Adding 1 to the greatest number might be comparable to trying to walk north from the North Pole).
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.
Note: I am not trying to criticize anyone in particular in this debate and I apologize in advance if my statements come off strong. It is just that I have led a life in Syria where in which I witnessed all this. And now I am living in the United States. Therefore I am trying to incorporate my personal experience as objectively and exhaustively as I can in this debate.

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.
The golden rule, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you," derives its meaning from selfishness. In addition, the golden rule implies a second moral dimension, which I will call lovingkindness, though it could just as easily be called benevolence, compassion, charity, caring, or some such. The first two dimensions create a plane on which, with the proper axioms, could be constructed a moral geometry. But, just as surveyors and cartographers encounter problems and fall into error is they assume a Euclidean plane, philosophers need a third dimension -- righteousness -- which implies empirical standards of right and wrong, and justice.
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.
Thank you Harold for your nice comments. I believe the book you are talking about is the Black Swan-the Unpredictable Swan. I am Christian actually but I can also say Alla 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,
Because it only harms One's own true self.
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.
It all comes back to this - if our morality comes from within ourselves, however much we wish otherwise, it will always be relative, and therefore always be a matter of convenience in the end. "Context," as Arvoasitis points out, will ultimately rule. Now context is of course important - but given that we are rational creatures, with the ability to reason, context can very easily be used to help us rationalize. "Sure, it was wrong to do x, but it was right for me this time because of y." And x and y become unassailable because it all comes from inside. "Who are you to say your insides are better than mine?"
I think Jefferson (no mean philosopher himself) recognized this well enough, which is why he grounded the Declaration of Independence in a Creator, and declared the rights of people to be inalienable because they come from that Creator. He declared this to be simply self-evident. He recognized, rightly I think, that to try to prove these things by philosophy and reason, beyond all rational objection, would be to spin around endlessly and get nowhere. One has to have solid ground somewhere, and that ground cannot be merely the reason, philosophies, opinions, or popular will of a person or any number of people. Our democracy is ultimately founded on his insight. We may think it is "rotting," and that is possible, but then again people a hundred years ago thought the same...and very likely people a hundred years from now will look back on our time as a golden age. I'll wager this "rotting" democracy will still be going on.
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.

Very interesting points Nathan, and I agree with you on certain things. But what if a person is Atheist: does he/she not know how to distinguish between right or wrong? Is he/she not apt to be moral? An Atheist has nothing to Rationalize, in terms of Moral context-the one thing he/she rationalized, obviously, is the negation of God.From his/her inner self, the person decided to lead a life with no regards to any God. Moving on to the question of Contexts- which I think is pertinent but lacks solid decisive arguments. A person can also justify/rationalize (I associated Justify and Rationalize for the sake of my arguments- and which are by the way concomitant in this debate) his/her immoral actions by blaming God himself -" I committed this crime, does that make me immoral? Am I not a creature of God? Why would he want me to commit this crime". Our moral duty is hence related to our own decisions to act morally- when I mentioned our Inner selves, I wasn't referring to the subjective perception of Morality (by each person's belief)- which would of course essentially annihilate Morality- since Morality has to remain objective- where in which people have to abide by it- and not vice versa, otherwise we would all be moral. Moving on to the concept of Context, I think that if we ought to consider the doxa, or the common opinion on morality a rule, and hence thinking of righteousness as the majority (equating Majority to Morality), then again, we will be destroying Morality. 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?
As for democracy, the basis on which it is founded is critical. Yes, the French Revolution attempted to found a democracy based on Reason and an Enlightenment view of humanity...it descended very quickly into dictatorship, the Terror, and then a return to absolute monarchy in the form of Napoleon. It was only sixty years of hard experience, and the defeat of Napoleon III by the Germans, that finally gave democracy a lasting foundation in France. We did better, in part I think because we did not attempt to anchor our young republic solely on human reason.
This is not a rejection of reason, but a recognition of what reason is...a tool, not a master. This is why Jefferson's (and many others') reasoning did not create a Theocracy, but the world's most successful democracy. If we assume that Reason is the highest standard, and of course our leaders are the most reasonable and rational of us, then it follows logically that they should have unlimited authority. And if, as the Enlightenment suggests, people are basically moral and good, then the majority must always come to the right decision. In both cases, if finally follows just as logically that those who do not conform to the leadership, or to the majority, should and must be compelled to do so...in the words of Rousseau, they 'must be forced to be free.' Reason tempered with experience, however, tells us that people are not basically good, and that given power they will tend to seek more, and abuse what they have. Government must therefore be limited - which requires a standard above the government, above the leaders, above the majority, that binds them all. This was the key insight that made the whole experiment work.

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."
I think that human nature is not good, at heart. I believe that human instinct is far more selfish and dark than what Jesus believe. We are not what Jesus think we are. That is when I assumed my Atheism- and always will-until the day I die. I wouldn't want to be alienated into something I am not. Christianity has created an anti-world not suitable for its main audience: Humans. The ones that die for a cause are faced with their life-fulfilling purpose slipping from their hands: Hitler died for his own purpose- he was the opposite of Moral. As for the person dying for someone else, I would say that he/she is doing this for personal/emotional reasons, I don't see any Morality in that. If a person dies in order to save another life, I would have tremendous respect for that person, but that does not mean I would see him/her as more moral than others- maybe more brave, not more moral.
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.
If I want to use Reason, I can prove God- God can't prove himself to me unless I Rationalize his existence. Therefore, to me, Reason is the Tool and the Master.
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.
In philosophy, remove any uncertainty or doubt as was Decartes method. Once the truth or "I" is found, as he found, don't let any uncertainty ( as he did) back in again.
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.
Religion: God is One.
Justice: Beyond fairness is absolute. To find it remove her blindfold, keep her equality or balance but throw away her scale.
Why be moral? For freedom, equality, unity, justices, balance, vision, sight, or light; for truth, for health, for I, You, It They Them, For One or All.
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.

Syndicated columnist, Cal Thomas, was holding forth today in our local "news"paper. 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.
This post could go on, virtually forever, and never get to a solution acceptable to all who advocate a moral life.
Here is a question to chew on: is morality based on theological; philosophical or cultural foundations? I am curious--though my curiosity is not profound. (hint: If you said, well, it is all three, then you must have already written a book about it, yes?---If so, let us all know, please. I'd rather read your book than the one mentioned earlier.)
Best Regards,
PDV.

Thank you for your nice comments Mirugai. I would say that the debate has diverted from the original statement into a more broad and more consistent evaluation of Morality in today's Politics-you shouldn't blame yourself, I think the implications of the present debate are more relevant and adequate, considering contemporary issues in Politic lack of decent governance, not just due to a lack of transparency in the Political Actors' policies, but other factors interfering leave little room for Morality- like the Persistence of Authoritarian regimes, having little left of their popular support, in committing crimes against humanity. As for the question of Immoral Democracy- I would say that the phrase "immoral society" is more adequate since a Democracy cannot be moral or immoral- it can only be authentic or not, as for its traits of true Democracy (Freedom of Speech, Association, Plurality in Political Representation, just to name a few. A person can be moral or immoral.
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.
Which also helps me transit to the other issue-the one related to "Immoral" Democracy. I would say that in order to resolve the issue of majority, human nature should format and restore itself in a way not to consider the Majority the Norm. Hence what I am saying is that, unfortunately, or not, Majorities will always have the last word on deciding what's right and what's wrong, sometimes wrongfully, but at other times rightfully.
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...