Not all immorality is based in hypocrisy, however. A large amount of it is, but I do not need to subscribe to someone's belief system alone and point out where they are being internally inconsistent to argue that they are being immoral. What they BELIEVE is irrelevant. I'm talking about what they do and how they treat others, regardless of belief. Their morality or immorality is based upon that, and even if they were being totally consistent with their philosophy, that does not ipso facto make it correct and morally righteous.
That's precisely what I was saying. Law, opinion, and violence do not make morality.Let's not confuse the law with morality. The law has always been determined by a combination of popular opinion and the sword.
There are none yet.That popular opinion may be based on a moral code, and I may personally believe that moral code to be the right one, so I am satisfied. If I believe that moral code to be 'wrong' then I may argue or fight against it. Others may come to agree with me and society shifts, laws change.
But for all that I may thing that one moral principle is 'right' and the other 'wrong', what scientific or logical argument can I use to back me up? There are none.
A science will never be if people do not try. What argument could I use to make men fly? Were I a cave man, perhaps I could not. But if I knew about the principles of aerodynamics, perhaps I could make men fly.
Simply because I cannot do so now, that does not mean I can never.
One couldn't fundamentally prove the Earth was round without the proper evidence and equipment.Though I may be convinced in my heart of hearts that someone's moral code is 'wrong' I cannot fundementally prove it to be so.
I am wary of simply saying "I cannot" and leaving it be. That leads to nothing.
Why not?Also, I'd like to stress that I'm not saying that all moral codes are equal. I believe that my moral code (which I hope you all share) is superiour to all others. What I am arguing is that I cannot prove this or fundementally argue about this in a scientific way.
Other sciences are still in development. Do we understand the human mind fully? No, we do not. We cannot explain everything we see. And yet there is a science of the brain.
Surely there can be a science of morality, if, as I hold to be true, morality is an objective concept, not a subjective one.
A man who believes the world is round, without proof, even with mathematics to back him up (which later proved to be miscalculated) may have to have belief in his opinions before he has the proof. Otherwise, why look for the proof?Definately sounding religious here![]()
That is because we lack the objective terminology, we lack the initiative to study the phenomenon of morality, and we are as cavemen attempting to describe eternity. But, over time, I believe it is possible to say more than "I believe it is so."But it is an objective reason you cannot define with logical reasoning. I may agree with you that there is some underlying objective reason why something is moral, but I cannot define that objective reason without simply saying 'because it is' (something Sasaki would object to) or 'because I think it is' (something Sasaki might accept)
At one point, those axioms did not exist because we had not theorized about it yet. Morality is the same way.Even mathematics has it's fundemental axioms.
Then why do we not attempt to define these axioms?Like a scientific approach, a mathematical approach can only be taken once you have defined the axioms of morality. Although I disagree with lots in his post, the Stranger has the right of it here:
I think the reason why is because people are happy with their beliefs. Challenging the status quo and offering new theories is frightening to people, or confusing. Some might even call it dangerous. Certain people who wanted to study the dead were called witches and sorcerers and wizards and evil people. This study lead to modern anatomical knowledge and modern medicine.
I believe there is room for theory and advancement in the field of moral and ethical study.
It is also difficult to argue with someone who believes that the Gods create lightning to punish the evil ones among us. And yet, with a little study, one might conclude that lightning does not strike people who commit certain deeds any more than people who have not committed those same deeds. With such knowledge, one could challenge the superstition.I can disagree with The Stranger's view that there is no fundementally 'right' moral code, but I cannot argue against him with reason, logic and scientific methods. It would be like arguing against someone who claims that Sasaki is a figment of our imaginations.
I won't deny that forming our arguments and definitions, and even theorizing would look awfully silly to some people, and perhaps make no progress for quite some time. But simply because we lack the means to currently challenge accepted views with reason, that does not mean we can never. And, if we never try to make an advance along a scientific disciplined study of morality, then we will always be where we are: in opinion and superstition-land.
Bookmarks