Walking with Angels
Objective morality.
Just consider it.
It's absolutely impossible for any human to define an act as good or evil objectively. It simply cannot be done.
If this is true, which it is, then what are the ramifications for society?
When a man is judged as evil by his peers, are they correct in so doing? If his peers then punish him, on what basis and under what authority do they act?
The answers are easy if you believe in a God. But that's precisely why so many people do, and so I shall ignore that avenue.
It seems that society's judgments are not an act of morality, or 'justice', in an objective sense, but rather acts necessary for the preservation of society. In this sense they are entirely subjective.
Everything so far is fairly obvious. But push the concept further and it becomes very interesting:
We are simply not capable of knowing whether any man in particular acts in a morally correct fashion. It could therefore be that we may completely miss the most moral person of all. S/he could slip straight under the radar. It could be, for example, that a divinity (which is to say, an absolute moral good) walks among us unknown, perhaps even unaware.
Equally, the same could be said of a demon or a True Neutral.
In the circumstances, one might argue that we have no culpability for our actions. I like to believe in free will; I like to believe that I can live as I will and that some day I may find myself walking with an Angel, unawares.
posted by Matt McGrath at 11:32 am
5 Comments:
We are simply not capable of knowing whether any man in particular acts in a morally correct fashion.
Agreed, and a good argument in itself in the need for a God.
It could therefore be that we may completely miss the most moral person of all. S/he could slip straight under the radar. It could be, for example, that a divinity (which is to say, an absolute moral good) walks among us unknown, perhaps even unaware.
Unlikely. We all inately possess the ability to determine right and wrong in the same lines are your laboring with the issue of free will.
Brad
Interesting post!
I feel that within similiar systems, people do tend to be more "objectively moral" (which makes sense because they must have laws in order to dwell amongst each other, although there are always still domestic fights, etc). But, yes, morality becomes more subjective once moved out into a larger scale, which is why nations war against each other and cultures clash more overtly than say, neighbors do.
I don't think that people believe in God merely to solidify their morality or make it more objective. One would think that if this is the case, then there wouldn't be so many different sects of say, Islam, Judiasm, or Christianity...
Ashe...
Just wanted you to know that I commented on this blog as it shook loose some additional thoughts.
Brad
Always glad to shake loose thoughts! And they're all appreciated.
You do raise an interesting point concerning my labours. There is a certain defeatest nature in declaring that neutrality rules all. It rather nullifies purpose...
Sophia - Nice to see you here! As for what you say, I'm not sure that divided sects disprove my point. A person seeks a God to comfort them, and by the very nature of this psychological process, unless something spectacular happens they must stick to that God. If they do not they invalidate their comfort blanket, and once broken its never the same again, no matter how pretty when re-stitched!
Hence multi-sect religeons develop over time as people cling to slightly differing ideas.
"A person seeks a God to comfort them, and by the very nature of this psychological process, unless something spectacular happens they must stick to that God."
This is certainly true for some. But some come to God, because after banging their head against one paradox or another there seems to them to be no other reasonable alternative. C.S. Lewis, among others, is a good example of such a person.
Brad
Post a Comment
<< Home