It was asserted to me the other day (while discussing politics, ectics and morality) that there are no absolutes. I submit that although absolutes may not, in reality exist, but that non-existence is irrelavent. The idea of an ideal is a useful tool to use as a reference point for measuring change in a system, and therefore setting goals to change that system. I submit that the idea of the ideal is the absolute.
a Grand Unified Theory:
I agree that if a universal "natural law" or "absolute truth" cannot be discovered (or indeed, does not exist outside the realm of the supernatural) then there can be no universal ethic*.
With that being said, would it not be practical to start with a premise that is simple enough to be universally agreed upon, (or at least not refuted) agree upon a logical methodology to build upon that premise, and fashion an artificial universal ethic?
*in this work, I use the word ethic and ethics to describe interactions that are external to the individual, and independent of morality. I define morality as a person's subjective sense of right and wrong.
For example: under an ethical system whose premise is "might makes right" , it would be "ethical" for a person to murder another. It would be assumed that since the person was able to get the best of his victim, he was in some way, "mightier". Whether such a killing was "moral" depends upon what system of morality the observer uses, and is beside the point.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment