Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dbass
Could it not be said though, that as humans discover science as a pre-existing entity (i.e. Kant's A Priori), they also discover morality and the rights and wrongs of society as a pre-existing entity as well? Because we have not yet uncovered empirical evidence of the rightness or wrongness of fetal stem-cell research, is there not already an answer waiting to be discovered. The ignorance of humans is part of moral relativism (subjectivism), because perhaps they do not yet know for sure what is right or wrong. This is not meant to allude to any religious, transcendental truth, for that is a man-made system of morality as well. Rather, could the shared experience of all people be the only basis for these conjectures. Knowing what we know does not imply that we will not learn further. We simply have yet to understand the true ethics of murder, rape, etc.
|
Some people think that way. I'm not entirely sure how they go about it, but they do.
If we did not know how wings worked, birds would still fly. If we did not know how combustion worked, we would still be able to light fires. Following this line of logic, if morals truly are an objective, natural entity unto themselves, then they must be adhered to by us, for they would act as laws like the law of gravity. Hence there would be no need for discovery of these ethics and morals because everyone is already following them. We just don't know it.
I have a sneaking suspicion that there may be a flaw in my logic, but I've yet to find it.