Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Snooze
I suspect I am going to be arguing out of my depth here but here goes.
1/ I disagree with the notion of universal morality. "Reasonable" is very subjective. Are you saying it is ok to impose your values upon others?
"No, there is no such thing as a universal morality, and it is somewhat surprising that people are still asking this question in the 21st century. Then again, that doesn’t mean that anything goes, a la moral relativism. Of course, much depends on what one means by “universal,” so let’s try to parse things out a bit."
Is there a universal morality?
2/ You and I live in countries where killing people is allowed under certain circumstances.
3/ Some actions might not cause harm but still be taboo or illegal. |
It depends on the values. Like I said, we do this with all types of actions with laws and regulations. We don’t allow rape, murder and theft. We have laws against speeding, polluting, etc. Not everything that is a law is inherently moral or immoral, but I use these as examples of people in a society imposing their will as a unified body on individuals for the good of the society. Individuals aren’t free to do whatever they want to who or whatever they want. We all intrinsically understand that morals stem from harm and suffering avoidance. We layer culture, religion, etc on top of that, but it is in our ability to recognize suffering in others as a similar experience that we would not want to experience that drives our basic, universal morality. See below:
Murder is not allowed. Killing in self-defense is sometimes not allowed or is punished. Killing accidentally is often punished. Capital punishment is barbaric, but it does exist. Regardless, we subscribe to the idea that an action doesn’t stand on its own as being moral or immoral—intent matters. Along this discussion, I am not subscribing to moral absolutes; there are gray areas. Again, there is a universal moral thread, but the conundrum seems to be how to reconcile the grey areas or dealing with those that like to rationalize obviously immoral behavior. As it pertains to the topic, we already have laws against poaching, killing endangered animals, animal abuse, dog fighting, eating certain animals, having certain exotic pets, etc. We just lack consistency because we rationalize an unnecessary diet. The degree and scale of animal abuse, pollution and ecology destruction would not be rationalized in many other contexts.
On your third point, what are you thinking of?