ABC South Coast Radio Presenter Christine Layton today interviewed a UK Academic running a course that surrounds the idea that The Simpsons has some philosophical value, that Homer may be a "good" person. It may be a clever ploy by the academic to lure everyday people into paying for a one day course & generate some real interest into the often avoided field of ethics, morals & philosophy.
Then not long after I heard the news about protestors in the public gallery of Parliament House Canberra had super glued themselves to hand rails and were chanting "Where are your morals?" (among other things).
So it returns again to morals, what are they and where do they come from? I could go do a one day course but whilst it might cover numerous disciplines of philosophy or different schools of moral thinking it all might miss asking the question that pour sunlight onto the important foundations most won't touch when they utter the words moral, morals or morality in general.
Life & all creation has only 2 possible causes. Just two, not 3 or 4 just 2 and we don't have to go into evolutionary theory, Darwinism or anything to see some thinking doesn't have huge layers to it. Lets look at the 2 possible causes.
A personal cause or an impersonal cause.
A personal cause is for theists, those who believe in a literal creator God.
An impersonal cause is for non-theists, those convinced there is no God and all of the creation we see and know about (and no doubt more) came into being by accident, luck mixed in with scientifically understood processes.
God did it, or nature did it. There is no third option.
Morals however are very different. There is only one source of their beginning, a personal cause.
It cannot be a matter of scientifically known process, not physical, chemical or any other evolutionary trait. Morals came from SOMEONE.
Either God or in the case of an impersonally generated universe by a person who needed to help band people together for whatever reason/s.
In the case of God, they're expected to be Objective because what He says goes. They're not up for debate even though we might reject them, but if God made them its not subjective in nature, they're from a transcendent moral law giver who is perfect.
In the case of there being no God, well here's where the seat squirming for some can start. Now we get to a point of subjectivity. In fact go further, all the non God sources of morals or moral laws are now sitting under the term "Relative Morality".
Different people have different views on multiple wives vs one wife. Some cultures believed that cannibalism was not just fine but a part of their spiritual journey whereas the white explorer sitting in the pot might think its horrible immoral. Very relative, very subjective and centres around regional bias or localised cultural thinking.
Or even worse, all things are right if they're right for you...even if they're not right for others. Not common, but that's the logical extension of moral relativism. The vegan activist tells me it is immoral to eat meat. By what moral law, from what moral law giver?
The lion eats the antelope eats...has the lion breached a moral code?
Ironically I was told that I have no right to assert my dominance over another species and decide to relegate it to farm life so I can eat it. So I can take its life and eat it, that in doing so I'm being a wilful participant in slavery & murder through my vile act of Speciesism.
So the lion must be guilty under the same moral law. If the immoral slavery/murder we're guilty of is to be devoid of Speciesism then it must apply to ALL species. A lion eats an antelope, it needs to be charge for murder and if convicted sentenced to the same prison term as a person.
See how silly the Vegan Moral Premise is?
The other thing with Moral Relativism of the impersonal cause is, well it cannot be binding. Its a non binding thing because what you say is immoral & I say is moral are both right & neither are wrong, they're relative therefore a person with a different view cannot impose their moral law upon me, or they've been rather immoral by forcing me to adhere to a moral law I don't support. Much like me charging a big cat with murder for doing what animals do.
Whenever I hear someone claim something is immoral I fist wonder what the moral standard is they're using to make the moral claim. What system are they employing to make the moral judgement?
Strangely the Impersonal Cause type morality implodes, its a paradox that cannot sustain itself under its own rules.
Only the Personal Cause can. But even then if someone says something is moral or immoral and they have a Moral Code or Law given to them by a Transcendent Moral Law Giver they have to show where in their "Scriptures" its set out and how its supported by its own Scriptures.
Proper exegesis of the Quran will either support or condemn the act of terrorists.
In the case of the Bible, terrorists murdering innocent people is not support by the Bible, in fact its an abomination. The Spanish Inquisition, the burning of witches, the Crusades and a good number of other things ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE BIBLE.
Strangely though, under the impersonal cause, killing and stealing might not be ok, but they're not immoral technically. Whenever someone says something is immoral, ask "Immoral by what standard?"
No comments:
Post a Comment