|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 1:40 am
Like I've been saying. If there is a universal morality, then it does exist, it is solid, there is a way to grasp it, even if we don't know how to do it. I'm not trying to prove it does exist, because 1. I'm not a scientist. 2. I'm not a philosopher. 3. I don't really care if it does or not. But if it did, then it would also work under certain laws, it would need to behave in certain ways, etc.
Morality is not limited to philosophy. It isn't even limited to human beings. Morality can be seen in other animals, depending on the definition you use for morality. Even if you say it's based on ethics, that doesn't exclude animals. Philosophy never really interested me because it's pretty pointless in my opinion (everyone has an opinion but there is nothing solid, with philosophy, so everyone blows out theories and pats themselves on the backs and goes, "I'm right!" and truly, there is no way to know who is right), but science has interested me for as long as I can remember.
Human DNA does not lack the genetic memory which I am describing, unless I haven't explained it extensively enough. If it did, there would be no such thing as human instinct.
I am talking about authority, not Rule of Law. Rule of Law is a principle, not a fact. I phrased what I meant incorrectly, I believe. The laws of physics...well, that's not really a good example because there are some circumstances where those laws don't apply the same way they usually do. If there is a moral authority, those morals would be subjective to that authority, but they would apply equally to all of us. They would be set in stone and objective in the way that any other natural law is; humans would not be able to change them, they would not differ from human to human, they would not be constructs of the human mind, but real laws that do not change from person to person.
I'm not stating it is a fact. I'm stating that a universal morality could exist, not that it does. If it was proven that it cannot exist, then I would take it as fact. For the same reason I wouldn't deny the possibility that there are multiple gods ruling over us, I won't deny the possibility that a universal morality exists. If I had asserted that it is a fact that there is a universal morality, it would be different, but I didn't. You, on the other hand, said it was a fact that it did not exist, and you so far haven't convinced me that your belief is a fact.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 8:04 am
lymelady I'm not stating it is a fact. I'm stating that a universal morality could exist, not that it does. If it was proven that it cannot exist, then I would take it as fact. For the same reason I wouldn't deny the possibility that there are multiple gods ruling over us, I won't deny the possibility that a universal morality exists. If I had asserted that it is a fact that there is a universal morality, it would be different, but I didn't. You, on the other hand, said it was a fact that it did not exist, and you so far haven't convinced me that your belief is a fact. In other words: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"? At the current time, there are plenty of theories about universal morality and/or the lack there of. But there isn't any proof. I don't believe in universal moral laws. I don't entirely disbelieve in them, but I think that even if they did exist it would not be in a way that humans could comprehend them fully. (A true "law" in the sense I'm thinking of could not be broken, as such they would not apply to anything we have done or might do - you can't "break" the law of gravity.) From my point of view, and human moral or ethical laws are not absolute. If some people prefer to obey such laws as if they are, it doesn't bother me. But to expect me to follow such rules is to achieve disappointment. *wink* I have my own set of ethical rules, but I wouldn't expect other people to follow them. Heck, I don't even expect my (now) husband to emulate them ( like the whole "cheating" thing - he's allowed to fool around as long as he tells me, preferably before it happens (and uses protection!) - but he's monogamous, so I'm not allowed to fool around).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 7:12 am
I think the main problem with this is there's no way to argue it. XD One way or another. Kate and Peer are arguing two different things.
In the mind of someone who doesn't believe in moral absolutes, they don't exist because people don't all find the same things immoral or moral. ie. homosexuality, abortion, incest etc. they're not right or wrong because right and wrong is decided between each individual.
In the mind of someone who does believe in moral absolutes, it exists in spite of the fact that people don't find the same things immoral or moral. ie. if you believe in karma, it's going to come back to bite you whether you believe what you did was wrong or not, because a higher power determined that it was wrong.
Either way, you can't prove it one way or another unless you prove/disprove the existence of a higher power.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
