(no subject)

[proteinjello]

The most important idea that I am thinking about right now is the question of what makes people's actions moral or immoral. Some of my friends and I have discussed this at great length and they have come to the conclusion that morality is based in innate human worth, which I agree with. They claim, however that this worth is rooted in human beings' potential to aspire to an absolute truth through the exercise of pure reason. I disagree with them on this for two reasons, the first being that not all people are able to aspire to pure reason and thereby absolute truth. So does someone who has little or no brain activity have less worth than a normally functioning person? Any sort of mental disease that impairs the ability to think rationally would cause that person to lose all value, if worth is only based in the potential for logical thought. The basis for human value must not be case-specific, that is, it should apply to everyone regardless of physical or mental state. If morality is based in this idea that only people who can aspire to absolute truth have worth, then people who can not would not have any value. If that is the case, then how could moral judgments be made about the treatment of them? They would have no place in the question of what a moral action is or is not, and even murdering someone who is mentally handicapped would not be immoral. Secondly, what bearing does the search for absolute truth have on questions of morality? Why would that mean, for instance, that it is immoral to kill someone? What if, while using absolutely pure reason, a person decides that his friend must die, and kills him. Was he acting morally (as a seeker of the truth through pure reason) or immorally (as a murderer)? Their definition is too subjective to be of any use in such situations. Morality must be defined objectively for it to be useful.

um. this is part of an essay im writing for the national merit scholars thing. its more interesting than talking about my hobbies.