| | So, in the course of a discussion the other day, I attempted to convince my friend that morals and rights are absolute, and objective. I explained that every living organism needs a heirarchy of values in order to live, and that for each organism, the standard of value was its own life. My friend replied that morals were not absolute, they are dependent on man's existence. I replied that he was right, in a sense, that morals do not exist independent of life. Morals are a human concept. They are not a physical entity. They are simply a set of rules, if you will, which guide us through reality, and since reality is objective, morals are as well. I will refer to my friend from here on out as DA (devil's advocate). Please note, I am not an expert, that is why I am posting this conversation, I would like to hear your input.
DA: I don’t see morals as objective reality. If something’s existence is dependent upon man I don’t see it as absolute. I see it as just human conjecture. You are putting your faith, if you will, in the statement “morals are objective” like others do in religion and the quotes are coming from your holy books. You said it yourself, “Morals are a human concept”. Men in their nature are fallible and capable of being irrational.
Me: Every philosophy relies on axioms, that is, certain premises with no proof, they are self-evident. From what I’ve read, the three axioms that the philosophy of Objectivism is based on, are existence, identity (A=A), and consciousness. Try to deny any of these; I don’t think it’s possible. Most attempts at denial invoke the fallacy of the stolen concept, in other words, in attempting to deny something, they invoke that which they are trying to deny as proof. For example, if I asserted that we are not conscious; my assertion is in fact proof that I am conscious. So how does this relate to morals? To be honest, I am not 100% sure, but I’m going to give it a whirl. Any attempts at denying morals, are based on a standard of death. For example, the morals that I have presented, are based on life as the standard of value. If you attempt to deny the truth in these morals, then you accept death as the standard of value. Now, here is where it gets tricky. That life is the standard of value; I believe 99.999999% of people would accept. But can I prove that that is the way it should be, and that the objective nature of existence requires it? Now, obviously if death is the standard of value, no other values are possible, so in effect this would actually be a rejection of values, and the fact that living creatures exist is proof that values exist. After all, the concept of value is devoid of meaning detached from the concept of life.
DA: Can something be absolute, but have an exception?
Me: I would have to say, by definition, no. Absolute means always.
DA: If [a man's] right to exist is absolute you could only defend yourself to the point of stopping him without violating his rights. You could not kill in self defense. You could flee. You could use enough force to stop him without violating his rights. You could not kill him and be moral.
Me: I would have to say, upon further examination, man’s right to exist is not absolute; hence the death penalty is perfectly acceptable. His right to exist within the framework of our natural rights is.
DA: I would like too know what the absolute rights are as you see them though especially if his right to exist isn’t an absolute right. Can you have any absolute rights if you don’t have the right to even exist? All of your rights, if you had any, could be taken away. Wouldn’t everything else be irrelevant?
Me: Any concept is essentially meaningless unless it can be applied universally. So in our example, the concept of man’s rights would have to apply to every man, (I would qualify that as every rational man), in order to be useful. Think about it for a second. How can a man invoke a right that he does not recognize? If a man violates another man’s rights, and we attempt to punish him or use retaliatory force, what defense can he claim? That we are violating his rights? Then he has already admitted that every man has inalienable rights, and must recognize that he is guilty of violating those same rights he is claiming for himself. So in this example, we can see that the right to existence is not absolute. This does not mean that no one has the right to life, only that one must respect the rights of others to claim rights for himself. You do raise an interesting question. “All of your rights, if you had any, could be taken away. Wouldn’t everything else be irrelevant?” I think it’s important to recognize that these rights cannot be denied arbitrarily.
DA: I think it leaves man defining rights and how those rights are applied. If every one agrees upon those rights, how they are applied, and the limitations of those rights everything is dandy. If someone breaks those rights and you have an agreed upon punishment and the power to enact it you are dandy. Does that make it just? I think it only makes it just to those who have agreed upon all of the rights, limitations, etc. There is no absolute right or wrong.
|
|
