Morality (gasp! horror!)
Alright, I am tired of discussing this with people. So, for all of the one person who reads these, I am going to cover this for the last time.
Okay, so morality can be defined as simply as "right and wrong". What is good and bad. What is acceptable and not acceptable. Now, for the purposes of this, I am going to define "Absolute Morality" as "Morals universal to all sentient beings". This includes people and the little green men.
The obvious problems that arise are differences in cultures. Killing is wrong. In Islamic culture, honor killing is fine. In American culture, the death penalty is fine. In Swedish culture, they have neither, and they are of the opinion that both are killing, and killing is wrong. So who is correct in this situation? To say that there are exceptions to the rule of "Killing is wrong" is to prove the point of objective morality.
A universal law is like the law of motion. This applies to all of existence, and you literally cannot break it. It is law. Now, if there can be laws of nature, can there be morals of nature? People who believe in absolute morality would say so. (Surely not all of them, and they may find offense to me saying this) So, where is it written down that killing/stealing/rape is wrong? No where. These were invented by men (or God/gods, but that argument is for another time).
Men (by men I mean humans) are not perfect; nor are they omniscient. They posses no powers other than what has been given to them through natural selection. So how can anyone say that they know what is best for their fellow man? What is right, and good for their fellow man? They can't. The only experience you have is your own, so thusly you can only really speak for yourself. You cannot know what they have experienced.
Now, lets say that every man's experience is different. Time, nurturing, genetic combination, environment, and everything comes into saying that every person, and thus their experience and worldview, are different. So because everyone's worldview is different, then of course the way they interact with the world is different. A different perception causes a different reaction. Since everyone's worldview is different, everyone's morality is different. If everyone's morality is different, how can absolute morality exist?
The argument can be made that because we have personal morality, and with that similar personal moralities, then absolute morality must exist. This is simply untrue. Genetic predisposition to feelings of "right" and "wrong" come from your parents, and their parents, and their parent's parent's and so on. The idea of this comes from natural selection and evolution (and I am going to say here, that it is extremely hard to make any sort of argument against it, let alone a valid one). You are naturally programmed to view things as right and wrong as they are for the good of the society. Murder and stealing affect the status quo, and those who do are less likely to reproduce, and thusly their genes go away. So assuming that those traits were found desirable, then they would have been passed on and the concept of "right" and "wrong" could have been radically different.
The argument could be made that since these are found through the human race then they are practically universal. Well, I see your point. But, this is a very narrow point, and doesn't answer the question of universal morality. Also, when you point out the exceptions to the rule, then the argument cannot be made.
So, in closing, without a better way to do so (I wrote this on the bus) I say, morality (universal morality) cannot exist; though, personal morality does. I will add more to this, and revise it later.
Okay, so morality can be defined as simply as "right and wrong". What is good and bad. What is acceptable and not acceptable. Now, for the purposes of this, I am going to define "Absolute Morality" as "Morals universal to all sentient beings". This includes people and the little green men.
The obvious problems that arise are differences in cultures. Killing is wrong. In Islamic culture, honor killing is fine. In American culture, the death penalty is fine. In Swedish culture, they have neither, and they are of the opinion that both are killing, and killing is wrong. So who is correct in this situation? To say that there are exceptions to the rule of "Killing is wrong" is to prove the point of objective morality.
A universal law is like the law of motion. This applies to all of existence, and you literally cannot break it. It is law. Now, if there can be laws of nature, can there be morals of nature? People who believe in absolute morality would say so. (Surely not all of them, and they may find offense to me saying this) So, where is it written down that killing/stealing/rape is wrong? No where. These were invented by men (or God/gods, but that argument is for another time).
Men (by men I mean humans) are not perfect; nor are they omniscient. They posses no powers other than what has been given to them through natural selection. So how can anyone say that they know what is best for their fellow man? What is right, and good for their fellow man? They can't. The only experience you have is your own, so thusly you can only really speak for yourself. You cannot know what they have experienced.
Now, lets say that every man's experience is different. Time, nurturing, genetic combination, environment, and everything comes into saying that every person, and thus their experience and worldview, are different. So because everyone's worldview is different, then of course the way they interact with the world is different. A different perception causes a different reaction. Since everyone's worldview is different, everyone's morality is different. If everyone's morality is different, how can absolute morality exist?
The argument can be made that because we have personal morality, and with that similar personal moralities, then absolute morality must exist. This is simply untrue. Genetic predisposition to feelings of "right" and "wrong" come from your parents, and their parents, and their parent's parent's and so on. The idea of this comes from natural selection and evolution (and I am going to say here, that it is extremely hard to make any sort of argument against it, let alone a valid one). You are naturally programmed to view things as right and wrong as they are for the good of the society. Murder and stealing affect the status quo, and those who do are less likely to reproduce, and thusly their genes go away. So assuming that those traits were found desirable, then they would have been passed on and the concept of "right" and "wrong" could have been radically different.
The argument could be made that since these are found through the human race then they are practically universal. Well, I see your point. But, this is a very narrow point, and doesn't answer the question of universal morality. Also, when you point out the exceptions to the rule, then the argument cannot be made.
So, in closing, without a better way to do so (I wrote this on the bus) I say, morality (universal morality) cannot exist; though, personal morality does. I will add more to this, and revise it later.