Turn on thread page Beta

are there universal laws, which can explain morality? watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    discuss
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blamps)
    discuss
    Come on you theoretical physicists/meta ethical blah blah philosphers
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Morality is not constant, so therefore neither can be any moral philosophy.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    No

    It is true that there is some common moral ground all over the world as suggested by agreements over international human rights. These agreements could suggest some kind of universal moral sense of 'right' and 'wrong.' However, there is much evidence to the contrary. If there were a universal moral law, how do you explain moral dilemmas such as euthanasia, abortion, the Iraq war or even female circumscision. Within these debates there are people who have equaly strong convictions about the moral value of these actions. This seems to me to be a strong argument against the existence of moral law.

    Whether we have a moral 'sense' is another issue, but my view is that there is no universal moral law.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blamps)
    Come on you theoretical physicists/meta ethical blah blah philosphers
    Chaos theory can, sort of.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mikesgt2)
    No

    It is true that there is some common moral ground all over the world as suggested by agreements over international human rights. These agreements could suggest some kind of universal moral sense of 'right' and 'wrong.' However, there is much evidence to the contrary. If there were a universal moral law, how do you explain moral dilemmas such as euthanasia, abortion, the Iraq war or even female circumscision. Within these debates there are people who have equaly strong convictions about the moral value of these actions. This seems to me to be a strong argument against the existence of moral law.

    Whether we have a moral 'sense' is another issue, but my view is that there is no universal moral law.
    morality varies in its definitions....however, there is genetic evidence for the presence of good and bad morals..although whether a moral can be classed like that is open to interpretation
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blamps)
    morality varies in its definitions....however, there is genetic evidence for the presence of good and bad morals..although whether a moral can be classed like that is open to interpretation
    I had to discuss this in a law interview today :rolleyes: .......
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blamps)
    morality varies in its definitions....however, there is genetic evidence for the presence of good and bad morals..although whether a moral can be classed like that is open to interpretation
    I didn't say that we have no sense of morality. But having a sense of morality does not mean that it has to be an awareness of universal moral law. personally, I would concur with Freud's theory that our sense of morality comes from the internalisation of parental commands during childhood. Therefore, under this model, morality is not explained by universal moral laws.

    Also, what would happen if you went round with a survey asking people all over the world their views on a number of moral issues. You would probably get vast differences. Surely this would be more evidence against universal moral law.

    Furthermore, you should ask where this universal moral law would come from, God? Look at the Euthyphro dilemma, that presents a strong problem with universal law from God. Is universal law inherent in the universe? That idea seems dubious to me...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mikesgt2)
    I didn't say that we have no sense of morality. But having a sense of morality does not mean that it has to be an awareness of universal moral law. personally, I would concur with Freud's theory that our sense of morality comes from the internalisation of parental commands during childhood. Therefore, under this model, morality is not explained by universal moral laws.

    Also, what would happen if you went round with a survey asking people all over the world their views on a number of moral issues. You would probably get vast differences. Surely this would be more evidence against universal moral law.

    Furthermore, you should ask where this universal moral law would come from, God? Look at the Euthyphro dilemma, that presents a strong problem with universal law from God. Is universal law inherent in the universe? That idea seems dubious to me...
    hmm...where is Socrates?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blamps)
    I had to discuss this in a law interview today :rolleyes: .......
    You failed the interview then mate :rolleyes:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Black Hawk)
    You failed the interview then mate :rolleyes:
    How did I fail? I was asked whether I thought it was an inherent feature of society over time in the development of law i.e universal morality...I argued the findings of geneoligists yet I said that greater weighting should be given to how cultural norms, values and beliefs have had a greater impact on the development of morality thus explaining the development of common law
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Black Hawk)
    You failed the interview then mate :rolleyes:
    Law interviews are very much based on how one argues...many people can think they have failed yet still get in...you could answer a few questions yet if you show signs of rational and logical thinking, you can still get in...anyway, it was a mock
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Check out Kant's categorical imperative argument....it is pretty convincing but not completely so.

    x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hildabeast)
    Check out Kant's categorical imperative argument....it is pretty convincing but not completely so.

    x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x
    Kant's got some good ideas, I just don't think they work well with human nature.
    There is definitely no universal moral code for every moral problem, but I think everyone would agree that, for example, killing someone for no reason whatsoever in a sane state of mind is wrong. It's just when it gets more complex than that that people's opinions will start to differ: for example, if someone killed a person in self-defence.
    I also agree with Freud's view: one's morality comes from his or her conditioning in society.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hildabeast)
    Check out Kant's categorical imperative argument....it is pretty convincing but not completely so.
    I have not read any of Kant's books but I have studied his categorical imperitive in ethics lessons. As far as I was aware Kant did not present any real argument for the existence of a universal moral law. He just stated that he had a sense of moral law and made the assumption that everbody else felt the same. Well, I don't. What about everybody else?
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.