| sapphi_snake said: @DélioPT: I actually think there is! :) Well, there isn't such a thing. It`s a very "dangerous" thing to let morality be the result of a concensus. Morality has no value if there's no consensus. They aren`t meant to be voltatile in that way: it could mean that what is right today is forgotten tomorrow. Morals are volatile. Many things that were considered "moral" in the past are considered "immoral" today, and vice versa (for example in the Middle Ages Christians considered it perfectly moral to kill non-Christians). Morality reports to the highest human values that we can comprehend; they are born from the essence of humanity: love, dignity, freedom, respect, reason, feelings, etc. Yes, there are a number of morals, but if they can`t be born from that premiss they aren`t of great value. So they need to "be" before a place, a time or context. Morals are the result of the time, place and context. They have no value outside of that. I have a catholical moral/ethical view on this life. Can`t i criticize/judge other cultures because of cultural differences? Yes i can. Yes you can, but that's a very ignorant thing to do. My ethical view allows me to see people from a humanity point of view, not a european, american, asian, etc. man or women. That`s the strength of ethics: it doesn`t in particular to anyone, but for everyone in general and how we all share something in common - normally moral values as i said above. On the contrary, yopu're very subjective when you say this. And regardless of what you say, your moral/ethical values only apply in the context in which you learned them (the period, the location etc.), and have no value outside of this. You say you're objective, but you're actually looking at the world from the perspective of an European Christian (which suggests that your views have been determined by the place you were born in, the historical period you were born in, and other elements relating to the context), which in itself shows your subjectivity. You also didn't come to these views objectively, because at least some premises your rerasoning started with have been taught to you (for example that love, freedom, dignity etc. are the essence of humanity), rather than being discovered through rational thinking. |
There isn`t sentimental side to people or were you referring to the soul part? :D
Gonna use the word ethics on this one. In your view, morals or ethics or/should be the result of a consensus. Ethics exist to serve everyone. That`s why they exist all over the world. Consensus are dangerous because they tend to force people to "give in" in some regards and we can`t have something that exists to help defines us and guide us, be the result of contexts. There`s no universality in consensus.
Ethics are meant to help one another see beyond their little world and try to findwhat they share with everyone else in the world, even if they are from across the street or live miles and miles away.
"Morals are volatile. Many things that were considered "moral" in the past are considered "immoral" today, and vice versa (for example in the Middle Ages Christians considered it perfectly moral to kill non-Christians)."
Like crusades. But when you look back you it was wrong. They are volatile yes and they should be. But the question is avout what makes them change: a reflexion upon them to try to improve them or consensus? Because consensus can bring them back one day.
As i said, although ethics and morals are meant to be universal, they are also meant for each one to adopt them as they wish. They aren`t "laws" that people have to follow. You need a consensus to help you decide which morals to follow?
Can`t i criticize/analyze something different than me? Why not? I always try to do it through something that serves everyone and no one in particular. Isn`t that also being objective?
"but you're actually looking at the world from the perspective of an European Christian"
Christianity may have differences within itself, but they don`t change depending where you live or were born.
And, like every other religion, the essence of their teachings doesn`t change depending of time and place. If they did they would just end themselves with inconsistency. It`s essence is based also on universality: One love for all.
What may change is the explanations - as a result of reflexion on the world we live in and therefore trying to compliment it`s beliefs with something they can learn to the better or teach better.
"You also didn't come to these views objectively, because at least some premises your rerasoning started with have been taught to you (for example that love, freedom, dignity etc. are the essence of humanity), rather than being discovered through rational thinking."
And that brings me to this: just because i was taught something doesn`t mean per se that there was no reflection. There always is; there needs to be. If they try to be objective and universal, there needs to be reflection.
What is taught - and i am also adding non-religious thinking - is also a fruit of rational thinking. That` what made killing non-christians immoral, in the first place.
Just because someone was taught on a place at a given time, doesn`t mean that those teachings or the person that was taught, is a mere reflexion of that.
