I found this week's readings interesting and very inspiring, although I was particularly disturbed by Thomas Merton's "Original Child Bomb". I believe this was probably Merton's intended response to this poem. If nothing else, it certainly pushes the reader to reflect and hopefully question our actions as a nation. I think Haidt's definition of a moral system is interesting and I think it would help reconcile the conflicts between religious morality and secular morality, at least on a theoretical level. surface. If, as a human group, people viewed morality this way (values, practices, institutions, psychological mechanisms used to make social life possible), I believe we could recognize the commonalities that religious and secular definitions of morality have. I truly believe that if we maintain the "golden rule" of treating others as you would like to be treated yourself at the forefront, our differences in what we consider moral or immoral behavior will begin to diminish to some extent. The problem, however, is that most of us cannot overcome these differences and often forget the golden rule and replace it with the rule "If you don't do things my way, you're wrong." Ninian Smart's chapter on 20th Century Worldviews had some pertinent points that seemed to reflect Haidt's definition of morality and support my interpretation of that definition. Smart says that different worldviews should be able to learn from each other and as "global citizens we should make the effort to apply informed empathy to understand each other's value systems." (Smart, p. 155) By understanding different worldviews, we are not only able to communicate with each other, but we recognize that each of us has a unique contribution to make to... means of paper... iefs) may have also positive aspects. In conclusion, whether we are talking about technological advances and their effects on morality or definitions of religious and secular morality, I think the key to reconciling the conflicts of these opposing views is to remain open to ideas other than the ones you have as an individual. That said, I don't think this means we accept ideas of morality without critical thinking. General statements are not positive if they are used to reject or defend a particular set of beliefs or ideas. We must think critically about our own ideas of morality as well as those of others. When we are able to achieve this, then I think we will recognize the commonalities between secular and religious views of morality and will be able, hopefully, to overcome our differences and strive for a more peaceful world overall..