|
There are no objective morals. Emmanuel Kant tried this with his categorical imperative a while ago and it failed rather miserably. Aside from that, most ethics discussions fall into the dubious realm of armchair philosophy for the very reason that there isn't a concrete way to resolve the issue. If you want to give it a shot, try proving that killing is morally incorrect. It seems easy at first, but I can almost guarantee you won't be able to do it.
I say again, laws created by governments are mechanisms to control the populace. I do not for a single instant believe that laws are a representation of how I should live my life - they are simply an outline of crime and punishment - it outlines how others want me to live my life.
MuadDib, I think I've already responded to your argument in my previous post. That morals are indoctrinated rather than inherent is irrelevant - morals govern right and wrong, laws govern crime and punishment. If people strictly followed their own morals, everyone would be a lawbreaker. There are people I genuinely believe should be dragged out into the street and shot in front of witness, but laws prevent this from occuring. In some cases, theft may seem moral - but theft is always against the law.
Laws are the mechanism that allow government to be possible - a way to encourage conformity and to deal with 'deviants'. Morals are simply an inconvenient side effect to being human.
__________________
Sure I have a heart; it's floating in a jar in my closet, along with my tonsils, my appendix, and all of the other useless organs I ripped out.
|