- Aug 28, 2016
- Reaction score
Not sure how it shows that.So because people commit murder the law against murder is invalidated?Of course it does. it illustrates that there is no standard ingrained in the human mind as you say there isSo what? It does not negate the standard.behavioral standards do not exist in nature but are a human invention
But we don;'t possess that. because people murder, rob rape, steal and otherwise abuse other people millions of times on a daily basis.
No it shows that there is no universal absolute.
And the laws we have against murder are not because we think killing people is wrong because we clearly think killing a person isn't always wrong. The laws against murder and theft were crafted because those things have a deleterious effect on society.
Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.
So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.
If any moral position is to be universal than all people must abide by it. All people do not abide by any moral code.
All people rationalize any and all behavior.
Not all killing is wrong, not all violence is wrong etc.
If there were a universal standard then all killing would be considered wrong and we both know that is not the case.
Morals are relative.