Social stigma affects how we preceive morality, but that doesn't change what the morality of a situation actually is. Racism was once veiwed as "not immoral" but now we look back and can see it was moral the whole time and that our social stigma prevented us from seeing it before. The argument could be made here that social stigma is affecting this decision on the morality of racism as well, and that we'll never know for certain what the true morality of the situation is. Fundamentally that argument is correct, but over time as a certain feeling is made on the level of morality of an action presists throughout social change, it becomes more and more likely that we have the correct idea of moral correctness.
I disagree that people don't have a built in moral compass. I believe someone who is born, and ages without outside influence of any other people would still know that killing is wrong, that rape is wrong, that stealing is wrong.
Debate and Discussion
Universal Morality: does it exist?
kingofsnake at 8:19PM, March 15, 2007
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:15PM
ipokino at 7:13AM, April 5, 2007
In my book Hell To Pay, the very nature of morality is to be explored. The 'morality' of Hell (and it does have one) is distinct from the 'universal' idea. My own idea of Morality is this. Any act which taken as a whole contributes to a net gain in entropy (or chaos if you will) is bad--or 'immoral' any action which results in a net gain to order or null-entropy is moral. Since the Universe is slanted toward net gains in entropy, the Universe is apparently, fundimentally 'immoral' and we, as harbringers of Order or Null-entrpy are actually struggling against this 'immoral' state to impose our own order or 'morality' upon the universe
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:02PM
©2011-2012 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved