LadyEllen
Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline
|
Hi
Apologies first of all if the following doesnt seem to make much sense - its a very difficult argument I tried to make, and I'm not sure I succeeded!
I would have to say, rather idealistically perhaps but definitely from a practical point of view, that morals and ethics are universal and absolute. However that is not to say that when one behaves morally and ethically that one ever necessarily can live up to them in their pure, universal and absolute natures. One is always acting in a real world in which there are so many unknown variables, as well as the fact that all of us however moral and ethical we fancy ourselves and our deeds to be are affected by self interest and group interest as opposed to the interests of others. Factor in that each of us views what is moral and ethical from the perspective of our own past influences, present circumstances and future aspirations, and the world becomes a place where universal, absolute and pure morals and ethics have never been practised, are not being practised and likely never will be - also explaining why there is so much difference between us as to what is moral and ethical, and where and when these ideals might have been practised.
For the nazis, as far as they were concerned their actions were moral and ethical, based on their self and group interest and coloured by their impressions of past injustices, present circumstances and future aspirations. That such a viewpoint was not shared by most of the rest of the world is irrelevant in this, since morals and ethics as absolutes are not determined by majority or committee decision. An extreme example of course, but it illustrates the point that even immorality and unethical behaviour can be rendered their opposites in the real world. In the end though, however strong one's conviction or one's force of arms, it does bring one into confrontation with others to practise such selfish morality and so it is usually defeated as a system.
Equally in the real world though, what is acceptable morally and ethically is determined by majority and committee decision. There are several consensus groupings in the world as to what is moral and ethical - for example the western consensus, the Islamic consensus and so on. Both of these mentioned are moral and ethical for those who propose them, and yet their differences and the notion that morals and ethics are absolutes would mean that neither of them fully is.
As a westerner, I would naturally tend to believe that our western consensus is closer to the absolute than any other. However the Muslim feels the same about his ways. The value of morals and ethics as unattainable absolutes is important for all to realise, for in acknowledging such a situation we remove the temptation to believe that we are always right, and others are therefore wrong. To accept that our consensus is not perfect therefore assists us in not only developing our morals and ethics, but also performs for us a valuable function in keeping us moral and ethical by hindering us in imposing our less than perfect system on others.
What are the absolutes? I dont know, and if I did I could be very famous! What I and everyone else knows though is the nature of immoral and unethical action as we come across it in life. The best we can probably do therefore is to determine our morals and ethics according to their opposites - as indeed we do through laws that forbid certain actions and control others. We dont have laws that say "be nice", but we do have laws that say violence and theft are wrong, so shaping a moral and ethical society by reference to preventing an immoral and unethical society for example.
I guess that the basis for moral and ethical action for me lies in the notion that all of us are One in what for ease I'll refer to as God, regardless of the differences that divide us. To harm another therefore is ultimately to harm myself, which is not usually a good idea. However, I accept that not everyone will agree with me on that, and will formulate their own moral and ethical behaviour on their own bases - thats fine, and also where we came in at the top of the page!
One last thing though, and picking up on a post I made to "sharia law" on this site. No one can make wrong into right whatever laws they pass on this earth, however strong they are and whatever conviction they might feel. In the real world we set laws to ascertain right and wrong as described above, and there is now great precedence for the idea that moral and ethical law is universal and no respecter of boundaries or time. We dont describe such laws and the legal processes they give rise to in terms of morality of course, since that description opens up debate between different opinions of morals and ethics, but in the end this is what such laws are about. Saddam's trial is ridiculous if there are no absolute morals and ethics - he acted according to his and made a society with laws to support them - therefore he did not break Iraqi law. Yet he is still on trial by reference to a consensus view on right and wrong - not according to absolutes, but according to what we all acknowledge to be immoral and unethical as the best means of determining the breach of those absolutes.
Hope that made some sense!
E
|
RE: Morals and Morality - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread