by James S » Jul 21, 2006 @ 1:40pm
Well... I don't think that there's a human value judgement involved, and really either a yes or a no when it comes to the ultimate value judgement. Either something is moral or it isn't. The framework is set up this way, I think. Just as electrical current either is or isn't present.
For example, let's say that murdering, or killing, whatever, is against universal morality.
It will always be immoral to kill, under every circumstance. But some people may find it okay to kill in their value judgement, such as terminally ill, suffering patients, or a serial killer that needs to be stopped, or an ant.
But it will all come back in the end. Just like we can 'escape' gravity by jumping up (or applying a force against gravity in general), but we're not really actually defeating gravity. We still work against it, we are still working within the rules of physics; and if we're not the astronauts in the space shuttle, we will eventually fall back down toward the earth.
I guess the most useful element this offers is equality and fate. It doesn't necessarily provide one with a system to judge actions ... or it could, but doesn't need to in order to function.
I personally think that the universal morals are close to the ten commandments, all stemming from the love thy neighbour aspect. I of course can't say for sure that those are universal morals, though, and don't know that I'll ever be able to say that, except if I die and go to Heaven and have 'a closer walk with God.'
Or maybe shrooms will help.
But regardless. I believe it's important to understand that there is this framework and universality, and to attempt to discover it and live by it. Just like all philosophy, reducing morals into the smallest possible set is a good thing. Perhaps that way one could reason universal morality. I don't know how to tell you to find, it, though. I'm just pretty darn sure it exists, like gravity.