| Subject: Interesting question |
Author:
Ben
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 12/20/02 9:02pm
In reply to:
Wade A. Tisthammer
's message, "What is your take on morality?" on 12/14/02 11:39pm
>I’m curious about the views on ethics of the people on
>this board, especially Ben's because his seems hard to
>pin down, almost inconsistent. Which category best
>fits you?
>
Noncognitivism: the belief that moral
>truths do not exist, and that moral statements are
>neither true nor false.
I guess I'd be in this first category, in that I don't think moral truths exist except in our minds. However, this does not negate the usefulness of morality within society. For example, I function with the belief that homicide is wrong, and I'm glad other people function with that belief too. It keeps our society relatively safe except where people violate it. If we did not have morality, we would not have a society. It's as simple as that. I think in some sense, it's unimportant whether or not moral truths exist apart from our minds. The important thing is whether or not they are useful.
Some moral beliefs, such as the idea that homosexuality is wrong, are hurtful and do nothing to strengthen a society. But, probably like biological evolution, the evolution of ideas carries things along that are not useful just because they got caught in the mix somehow. For example, a society that has a functional moral code which keeps the society working may very well have several moral beliefs in that code which are not helpful, and perhaps even hurtful, to the society, but the overall effect of the moral code is helpful to the society, so it keeps working.
Anyway, when you really break it down, I don't believe there are any objective, absolute morals, but I think that morals are necessary in a society, and are formed by societies. I think that the better the cumulative effect is of a particular moral code, the more potential the society has, and therefore one might say it is "better" in this relative way.
All _that_ said, I, being a human being, feel very compassionate toward other human beings and do not wish to see them hurt. I also don't enjoy seeing animals hurt. So in some sense, it doesn't really matter whether those moral codes are truly objectively determinable or not. They are important to me, so I operate by them. I cannot imagine hurting another human being, so I don't. For whatever reason, I do have this compassion inside me that makes it quite easy to follow the moral code that I have in almost every instance.
Ben
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 