Add a Comment
Email This
Statistics
Thread parent sort order:
Thread verbosity:
0 Nerd-Its
RE: Schools don't teach moral relativism.
Wouldn't this just allow the world to only agree on the lowest common denominator (or, I guess the lowest vast majority denominator would be more accurate)? How, scientifically, does that transfer to more complex issues such as abortion where there seems to be no commonly held opinion?
This comment has 3 replies.
RSS
RE: Schools don't teach moral relativism.
We've discussed this issue before on the site, but I still have yet to hear a good explanation of how this is possible. The problem is that without something "bigger" than the individual, there is no way for one's morality to apply to anyone but themselves. Some try to use law as what defines morality, but they must admit there are "immoral laws." If that's the case, there must be some other, greater reference by which a law can be compared to determine if it is moral or not.
It is a misstep to attempt to step outside of the frame of reference of individuality to find moral values. If morality cannot be determined by individuals, it is likewise impossible for individuals to determine what "greater" moral law ought to be followed by them.
A more scientific approach to ethics might lead one to notice that individual response to certain behaviors is intrinsic in that some are sought out again and some are avoided, pretty much regardless of cultural or social context. From such universal individual reactions, one can infer a general principle of human valuation that unites the various behaviors and use that principle to derive and extrapolate to behavior in more complex dilemmas.
View Full Discussion