In case you've missed it, check out [url=http://jamesyerian.tblog.com]JamesYerian's Blog[/url], which was in response to my previous post on Catholicism, and the inspiration for this post. I would like to explain my view on morality.
I think that morality is relative. What this means is that there is no set standard by which morality is to be determined. Obviously this notion of moral relativity is not something easily embraced by those who profess a belief in a Creator, as to have a Creator, we must have an authority over us guiding our actions and assigning us certain moral guidelines. Even operating under the assumption that we have a set of moral standards based in the religion of choice, it seems fairly obvious to me that we must still recognize that this morality is still at least somewhat relative. We must realize that religion itself is relative. Not religious belief in general (religion is one of the 7 cultural universals, to speak anthropologically), but specific religious faiths are not universally acclaimed. This puts morality, as defined by whatever religion you choose to define your moral standards by, into question. How do we know which religion, and thus which moral code, is right? So, I would argue that morality is relative, regardless of religious belief.
What does it imply for humanity if there is no absolute moral code, no set of ethical standards by which to determine the merit of our actions? It means that we have a certain freedom, a freedom of choosing our actions based on our own reasoning. Contrary to the common argument, we do not resort to uncivilized, uncouth, barbaric actions because of this freedom. To be free means to take individual responsibility for our actions. There is a certain accountability that is inherent in our capacity to reason morally, and necessary to our survival. To act without regard to the consequences that undoubtedly follow for any action would not be in our best interest, regardless of moral implications.
Just as my opinions regarding politics likely differ in some way from everyone else's, my ideas of morality may not be the same as yours. This does not mean that my moral standards are any higher or lower than yours (though that may be the case); it means that, as human's with free will and the mental capacity to reason in various ways, we have differing priorities resulting in different moralities. For example, on the issue of marriage, my moral code dictates that the forced commitment of a couple goes against the nature of love, which is more important to me. You may very well feel that the most important aspect regarding marriage is the holy union, holding sacred religious views as more important than love. Both views are valid, both are equally based in moral reasoning. Though I might argue that my view of love being more important is better than your view of a sacred (forced) bond holding greater import- and you would likely argue the opposite- an objective examination of both viewpoints would maintain that both opinions are equally valid.
I would suggest moral reasoning to be a more fitting term than moral relativism because of the implications of there being no merit to a life in which there are no standards. Though these standards are relative, they are important and are acquired through reasoning, not acting on blind faith.
I agree. You have to put everything in context. To extend your marriage analogy, we could say that love is relative in the same way that morality is. Otherwise everyone would want to marry the same person.
How dare you challenge James "Nationally Recognized Poet" Yerian? Don't you know that he's the Director of Central Intelligence and God's representative for our little piece of Ohio?
Reply to: jimmytherighteous
Well, you know, I am nothing but an irresponsible, irrational slut, being that I am a woman. I also couldn't possibly know anything. Thanks for pointing out the errors of my way.
posted by: Nivek (reply)
post date: 01.18.04 (2:35 pm)
Reply to: DragonBait22
Regarding your reply to Jimmytherighteous...I do indeed like your style!! Cheers! N
posted by: Nivek (reply)
post date: 01.18.04 (2:38 pm)
Life is the reward of virtue, and happiness is the goal and reward of life. One must guide their own life, goals, and opinion: there can be no supposed higher being or creator as a guide--thus never experiencing our own lives and happiness, nor could we ever use our minds to the fullest potential, which is our only guide. I was raised a Catholic, and even as a young child, I knew how irrational their doctrine was, and is. It's hypocritical, subjective, and evil at it's base.. And by "evil", I mean: that which is not conducive to life and happiness. Good and evil have no religious relevance. Good is a value that enhances a rational life; evil is a non-value that only seeks to destroy that life. Thus morality is created by ones values or non-values. In "Atlas Shrugged", Ayn Rand wrote: "The purpose of morality is to teach you; not to suffer and die, but to enjoy yourself and live". To "suffer and die", and never to experience the true value of life, is what religion offers. And I would say that that is evil. N
"Tragically, a nation that was created by intellectuals and visionaries has now been completely taken over by venal corporate gangsters, delusional Christian fruitcakes and hopelessly shallow Texas shit-kickers." -Tom Robbins
