Go back to previous topic
Forum nameOkay Activist Archives
Topic subjectRE: It all comes down to fear of death
Topic URLhttp://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=22&topic_id=3237&mesg_id=3333
3333, RE: It all comes down to fear of death
Posted by inVerse, Thu Oct-30-03 02:29 PM
>and what happens afterwards. If we knew for a fact that
>after we die, we went to a magical Utopia, we wouldn't be
>scared of death, and we wouldn't really feel anything wrong
>with sending people there.

Yes, you're right. If we all knew for SURE that after this life something perfect was promised for us REGARDLESS of how we acted, that seems like it would pretty much negate any need for morality.

However, morality is the phenomenon of the "SHOULD".

And the fact that it exists begs a question.

Since we agree that it exists we should move onto the next point and see where we diverge.

You say that it's construct, I say that it exists apart from whether we acknowledge it or not.

We did not "invent" it.

We "discovered" it.

Those are two HUGELY different things in this case.

If we invented it, as a lack of a creator unquestioningly suggests, which is what you're saying, then who is to say any one moral standard is greater than another.

If you say we invented it, then you cannot compare moralities.

For to compare, there must be something to be compared againts, there has to be a standard, a bar to raise.

If you think that in a couple crucial respects, contemporary Switzerland is more moral than Nazi Germany, then you have already acknowledged that there is an idea of "morality" that BOTH are being compared against to determine which is a modern/reformed/enlightened morality, and which one is decrepid, insidious, evil, and based in hate.

Do you see that?

Now we HAVE to draw the line between the idea of MORALITY being human construct, and MORAL GUIDELINES or "Man-made laws" being human consruct.

One is the absolute, the standard. The other, is a rule developed to reach that standard as best as possible.

I'm not contending that MORAL GUIDELINES are not human construct. I'm contending that the idea of MORALITY could not possibly be.

If you are going to tell me that MORALITY is human construct then you are telling me that I am free to act in any way I please, to define my own morality (let's be extreme for illustration.. killing, raping, etc..), because there is no way to say one is better than the other. You are telling me that I'm free to act in a way that encroaches on your morals, yet I am completely blameless in doing so, because your morals are not my morals. You're saying it's all completely subjective.

But you're not saying that directly. You're masking it with the argument that logic would dictate that most humans would know not to act so contrarily to others rights and interest because it wouldn't be in the interest of order or society.

However that argument falls down again with the illustration of an absolute dictatorship where the ruler maintains command by intimidation through torture and murder.

That society stands the potential, lots of potential, to run in a more orderly fashion than we could ever hope of functioning.

In other words... shit would get DONE!

So you cannot say that we invented morality cause it is necessary for order in the society.

It is demonstrative that that goal can be achieved through other means.

"Yes but other means wouldn't be fair"... really?

Fair COMPARED to what.

Hitler had it in his head that he had the green light... who are you to subject him to your moral principles?

Unless of course you truly feel that you have a more enlightened view than he... right?


peace.