People know what they're doing, even when it's irrational and stupid. Often, people look back on their own actions and say, "I can't believe I said/did that." This proves they know that they were doing it. Maybe they didn't know WHY they were doing it, but they still know they did it. Most are too forgiving. They assume that what someone else did was so mistaken or irrational that it's not possible they knew they were doing it. Perhaps they think if they can be this forgiving to others, they can also be that way towards themselves. All this does is cause people to escape responsibility. But if you think about it, there's no way to truly "escape responsibility." That's because responsibility refers to the objective fact that for all actions there are consequences. You can choose to pretend there are no consequences for your actions; that much is a choice. But either way: The consequences exist. Accepting (and assigning) responsibility for one's choices means facing reality. Facing reality is always a good thing. Facing the reality of your mistakes opens the door for corrections. Only fools refuse to accept and face responsibility, and only fools excuse it away in others.

Q: Dear Dr. Hurd, I have been reading your columns for awhile now. I understand that you oppose the idea that morality is supernatural, derived from God, or in any way religious. What you do seem to be saying is that morality is secular and rational in nature. By this do you mean to say that competence, efficacy and focus on one's goals are the definition of morality?

A: Actually, you're close -- but fatally mistaken, unfortunately. The idea that the definition of morality is practical competence would have to mean that evildoers who accomplish effective but awful things are moral. Consider the examples, on a dramatic scale, of Communist Russia, Nazi Germany and the perpetrators of 9/11. In each of these cases, evildoers used their brains and acted with practical efficacy, competence and long-range focus. In fact, that's what makes these evildoers so horrifying and repulsive – repulsive, that is, by the rational standard of goodness. Usually evildoers are reckless, impulsive and mindless. In these cases, the evildoers used talent, foresight and planning to successfully complete unspeakably evil and irrational goals.

People who initiate force against others, especially in twisted ways that involve clever techniques and planning, are nevertheless still evil because they are irrational, because their goal is anti-human life and against the moral rights of individuals to live freely and be left alone. Yes, morality is secular in nature and does involve the competent and efficacious use of one's mind. But before something can be considered good and right, it must also be objectively rational – i.e. life-oriented and life-respecting, life-enhancing – in nature.

A LOT more on applying morality rationally, to daily life, is in GROW UP AMERICA! ... Click here for details.

A moral person is not someone who follows arbitrary rules or commands. A moral person is not someone who answers to "God." A moral person is actually someone who "answers" to objective reality, something ascertained and understood through the honest and competent functioning of one's own reasoning mind. The higher power isn't a supernatural ghost, but our real and concrete capacity for reason.

The way morality displays itself, in daily life, is through character. Character is integrity to what you think, know or honestly believe to be true. A person of high character does not "think" one thing in the presence of one group of friends and associates, and then "think" an entirely different thing in the presence of another group. The person of high character isn't selfless, like the person of low character -- who changes from day to day and group to group. The person of high character actually possesses a strong sense of self, flowing from this habit of the mind, to think objectively and independently. There are people of low character who are nice and don't mean any harm. The tendency is to assume, "They can't be bad." But in their weakness and insecurity, they still lack character and don't deserve your respect and most definitely not your trust. Think of a person with low integrity as a bridge lacking in structural integrity. Are you prepared to drive over that bridge?

Low character erodes your sense of self-respect. How could it not? I don't respect people who say and think one thing, and then selflessly do something entirely different in the presence of certain others. If I cannot respect a person of low character, that person surely cannot respect him- or herself. In this sense, self-esteem and morality are connected. To feel good about yourself, you have to know that you ARE good. If you haven't been good, then by using a rational standard you can get yourself there, starting immediately.