BadgerJelly » January 3rd, 2017, 12:25 am wrote:
Something that really intrigues me is how we cope with such choices by trying to make them into logical propositions.
It is almost like we actively avoid having to make a personal decision so instead defer to the greater power of an impersonal logical form. A lot of ethics confuses me in this area because to me it seems ethics is trying to overrule its own existence and replace it with cold logic.
I use logic to show THAT there is no 'moral' validity in common with people. If I assume what I think
is 'universally moral', I would make the mistake of assuming that what I think is correct of others is correct of what I interpret of my own judgement. But if what I think is 'moral' is equivalent to what is 'universally moral', then each and every person too would have the equal force to argue this. We should all then never BE immoral because we'd all actually agree to THAT code of ethics by default.
So to JUDGE what is or is not 'moral' requires you to step outside of an assumption of morality to look at it without bias. So you require treating things logically unless you are in POWER to impose your idea of what is 'moral' universally by force.
If you insist on investigating it in by defaulting to your idea of morality, you can also attempt to test
this out in thought by placing yourself in another person's shoes, default to their own conditions but with your assumption of moral universality, then see if it still leads to success.
The problem with this is if you have a belief in some supernatural
belief that some people are 'good' and others are 'evil'. You might interpret even dire circumstances of some individual who IS 'moral' according to this universal but interpret any resulting reality imposed upon them still "JUSTIFIED" because you interpret that supernatural force to be able to 'repair' injustices in some other world beyond life. But this defeats even questioning what is or is not 'moral' because you'd interpret this as a command from nature beyond what we can affect regardless.
The only sincere way to do this is to place yourself in the same consequential conditions
of others to prove that you are not being hypocritical to the inevitability that those 'moral' people who still receive 'bad results' are justified to sacrifice
their present comfort in the belief you hold about some Supernatural reality to be willing to rectify their misfortune in some afterlife.
My point is that this one kind
of example of a belief in some universal morality
is equally justified WITHOUT a LOGICAL JUSTIFICATION. So if we assume some non-logical position to start from, which person's idea of 'universal morality' is actually true? The only thing we'd have to qualify this is by brute force unless we already ALL agree to the same exact set of morals.
Therefore, we NEED to use a logical approach that begins by assuming NO MORAL preference as an input assumption to try to determine IF there is some 'universal' concept of morality that is even possible. As such, I still cannot find one by using the kinds of imaginary experiments like the ones I gave examples to. If there WAS such a logical
argument that can be found, this would provide the justification needed to prove (or disprove) any universal agreement to what some universal moral concept is true by all. Logic is the only tool we can use to measure