This has become such a popular notion for the last generation, moral relativity. The mantra is "Live and let Live", or "do whatever you want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone"...sounds fine, sounds fair, right?
Wiki states (and you can look it up in other more credible sources if you so choose) that;
Moral relativism may be any of several descriptive, meta-ethical, or normative positions regarding the differences in moral or ethical judgments between different people and cultures:
• Descriptive relativism is merely the positive or descriptive position that there exist, in fact, fundamental disagreements about the right course of action even when the same facts obtain and the same consequences seem likely to arise.
• Meta-ethical relativism, on the other hand, is the semantic and epistemic position that all moral judgments have their origins either in societal or in individual standards, and that no single objective standard exists by which one can assess the truth of a moral proposition.
• Normative relativism, further still, is the prescriptive or normative position that as there is no universal moral standard by which to judge others, we ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when it runs counter to our personal or cultural moral standards.
No universal moral standard...no blacks and whites only grays...who has the RIGHT to tell any one what is good or bad, right or wrong?
Several philosophers have expounded theories for thousands of years about the cons to universal or absolute morality, most notably would probably be Nietzsche. Nietzsche supposes that morality (especially Christian morality called by him "the most fatal kind of self-presumption ever") came from the subjugation of the weak by the strong and thus imposing their will on them*. Nietzsche theorized that the strong were much like nature's 'survival of the fittest' fact. The bird of prey or the lion i.e. "the blond beast” must not be held accountable for their actions of preying on weaker species under the auspices of 'good and 'evil'. In Nietzsche's philosophy domination, appropriation and injury to the weak (are) not universally objectionable
Nietzsche also criticizes "unegoistic morality" and demands that "Moralities must first of all be forced to bow before order of rank**. Nietzsche states that "Morality is... today ('s) herd-animal morality" and then firmly states that "what compels us to assume there exists any essential antithesis between 'true' and 'false'?"
One's philosophy works well for a person to suppose, but ‘the proof of the pudding is in the eating’. Communism as a philosophy appears the most altruistic and viable, yet in practice it is a horror. So, in retrospect of the last 3 decades how has moral relativism played out?
Society appears to be lurching headlong into an abyss. Murders, incest, rape, drug abuse, child abuse, spousal abuse, muggings, white collar crime, graft, greed and the list goes on have exploded over the last 30 years. Setting one's own moral compass, without the reliance on a universal moral compass has turned out to be a tragic error in judgment. Now reports are that slavery has reasserted itself upon the world stage and has now outpaced illegal gun sales in ill-gotten profits and is threatening to pass even the illegal drug trade very soon.
I am not suggesting forcing people to comply with my or the Bible's version of morality (I might strongly suggest Christianity for more reasons than are listed here), what I am suggesting is that without having a moral (personal) or ethical (societal) focus, we all (society in general) have suffered greatly.
Ask yourself, is child molestation okay...is rape is slavery? What makes you feel as you do? And if you feel that they are wrong, what makes you feel that way?
The Confederacy felt that slavery was not only right but also morally sound. Nambla feels that there should be no restrictions on the age that a child should have sex with an adult. What makes any feel (or have felt) that these 'problems' were wrong universally and needed to be mandated and/or abolished. Fascism is wrong...why? Murder is wrong, isn't it? Unless it's self defense or abortion or killing in wartime...perhaps it's a number thing...killing one is OK, killing 6 million is not. Where is the line drawn and should we leave it in an individual’s hands to decide where to draw that line regardless of the effect on society?
Christ stated "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you', and Christ was not the only one to espouse this type of doctrine. Buddhist adhere to SILA or the overall principles of moral behavior, Hinduism (in many of its forms) is directed by KARMA, which is the moral law of cause and effect. And the list goes on. Religion, outside of one's personal perception of it, has done well to keep society (in various cultures worldwide) from anarchy and flux.
Are there blacks and whites as far as how we should set morality and ethics? I believe that the obvious answer needs to be...Look out side your window and tell me how life looks now living in the 'gray areas'.
My opinion after my research is that moral relativity is a great idea that causes incredible damage when put into practical use. I live at the end of the line of what happens to society when people take theoretics and paint them across real people with real problems.
MUCH LOVE
*Master-slave morality is a central theme of Friedrich Nietzsche's works, in particular the first essay of On the Genealogy of Morality. Nietzsche argued that there were two fundamental types of morality: 'Master morality' and 'slave morality'. Master morality weighs actions on a scale of good or bad consequences unlike slave morality which weighs actions on a scale of good or evil intentions. What Nietzsche meant by 'morality' deviates from common understanding of this term. For Nietzsche, a particular morality is inseparable from the formation of a particular culture. This means that its language, codes and practices, narratives, and institutions are informed by the struggle between these two types of moral valuation. For Nietzsche, master-slave morality provides the basis of all exegesis of Western thought.
**In sociology it is seen as the most visible element of a power network, which itself usually organizes many social networks. The entire network has social capital which is mobilized in response to the orders that move through the hierarchy - and closely controlled. This leads to the phrase command and control.
No comments:
Post a Comment