- Dec 14, 2010
- Reaction score
To keep this short, here is what I have trouble getting at. Just about everyone claims some actions are moral or immoral (right or wrong, good or bad). I've taken basic philosophy but only did well because i approached it like literature, it's what it is and does not have to be true. I still cannot answer the question why some actions are 'better' or 'more just' then others. Scientifically the creation of the universe and our species had no a priori reason (to our knowledge at this point). We can extract some moral standards out of evolution as beneficiary to our genome, but these can be treated as a code of conduct (with gaining self-awareness) we became advanced enough to disregard on choice (even if it leads to our extinction). (here is a post by someone not very profficient but he gets at most of what I want to say: http://forums.philosophyforums.com/t...ist-16173.html) When you ask someone why they feel something is immoral or someone else 'is a bad person' most of their logic comes from: church, culture, parents, personal hang ups etc. IE most people cannot formulate why there is 'the RIGHT thing to do'. I think this position is called moral relativism or something. So here we go, if you consider 'the greater good' or 'the right thing' to exist please explain how you rationalize this belief. Otherwise point being is that a savior is not better or worse then a murderer. He may be worse from SOCIETY's point of view, but that is simply a evolutionary-rational behavior. For those who want to be more specific the problem I have is this: Normative ethics can't be deduced from the observation of the Universe, therefore we have no reason to uphold them, less utilitarian application to maximize our own happiness. The dominance of the church and other cultural institutions did a remarkable job of convincing people otherwise (threat of punishment such as hell being one of the motivators). When answering keep this in mind: yes, ethical conduct has practical application (why we have law); something 'feeling right' often has biological explanations (to see what I mean read the 'train' anecdote in the link) and again does not constitute higher standards; yes you can say the world like this sucks and it's probably easier to be a good Christian then to ask why; this is not satisfactory evidence for why greater moral standard exists, 'should be' is not evidence for 'is'