Cognisant
Prolific Member
- Local time
- Today 8:51 AM
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2009
- Messages
- 10,595
Morality is defined by values, if you value the greatest good for the greatest number then you are a utilitarian and you would thus consider killing one person to harvest their organs to save the lives of three other people morally justifiable, perhaps even a moral obligation. Conversely if you value individual rights and liberty this would seem monstrous to you and you would rather preserve the individual's right to live even if this came at the expense of others, e.g. "We don't trade lives" - Captain America, Infinity War, before proceeding to gamble the lives of half the galaxy on the possibility that he might save one.
There's a lot of fun drama to be had pitting one set of values against another but ultimately their relative merits are circumstantial, when it is a matter of setting a precedent the life and liberty of the individual may be more or less important than the many. You shouldn't kill someone if you can get away with doing so because that sets an awful precedent (there's always a bigger fish) but if they're infected with a deadly and highly contagious disease (i.e. bitten by a zombie) you would be a fool not to. This says nothing about the values themselves other than the fact that no one set of values could possibly be the ideal choice for every situation and before you even try to prove me wrong I'm going to predict that you will err towards values that are as vague as possible to give yourself as much interpretative flexibility as possible.
Which neatly brings us to my conclusion, morality may be defined by our values (in other words we use values to define our sense of morality) but it is not derived from those values. Rather morality is derived from the human condition, believe it or not but the universe wasn't made for us and it doesn't give a shit about us, what is good is not good because it is good, it is good because we have decided it is good, all that is good and bad and righteous and evil is meaning that we impose upon existence by our existence, by being human.
Basically I'm making the case for ethical egoism which isn't in of itself a set of values like every other moral philosophy but rather a different perspective on morality itself, that we would err towards vague values if forced to choose because the ability to adapt one's values to the circumstances is an essential part of moral decision making.
There is no one right answer, no substitute for wisdom, no free pass on personal responsibility.
So if follows that religious morality is an oxymoron.
There's a lot of fun drama to be had pitting one set of values against another but ultimately their relative merits are circumstantial, when it is a matter of setting a precedent the life and liberty of the individual may be more or less important than the many. You shouldn't kill someone if you can get away with doing so because that sets an awful precedent (there's always a bigger fish) but if they're infected with a deadly and highly contagious disease (i.e. bitten by a zombie) you would be a fool not to. This says nothing about the values themselves other than the fact that no one set of values could possibly be the ideal choice for every situation and before you even try to prove me wrong I'm going to predict that you will err towards values that are as vague as possible to give yourself as much interpretative flexibility as possible.
Which neatly brings us to my conclusion, morality may be defined by our values (in other words we use values to define our sense of morality) but it is not derived from those values. Rather morality is derived from the human condition, believe it or not but the universe wasn't made for us and it doesn't give a shit about us, what is good is not good because it is good, it is good because we have decided it is good, all that is good and bad and righteous and evil is meaning that we impose upon existence by our existence, by being human.
Basically I'm making the case for ethical egoism which isn't in of itself a set of values like every other moral philosophy but rather a different perspective on morality itself, that we would err towards vague values if forced to choose because the ability to adapt one's values to the circumstances is an essential part of moral decision making.
There is no one right answer, no substitute for wisdom, no free pass on personal responsibility.
So if follows that religious morality is an oxymoron.