Sometimes we like to pretend that there is an inherent unity to all moral systems, and we tend to do it by making a sweeping statement of commonality, such as (for example): “All moral systems are opposed to murder.” This statement is true but trivial. Murder is defined as unauthorized killing, so of course moral systems don’t authorize it; this is like stating, “All moral systems forbid that which is forbidden.” The argument is circular. What we are interested in is whether all moral systems are opposed to killing. Obviously they are not. It’s probably true that all (or so nearly all that we can ignore the outliers) moral systems *regulate* killing, but this in not very much to go on. Basically, if you believe that the king should be allowed to kill people with impunity; or that some classes should be allowed to kill other classes with impunity; or that some races should be allowed to kill other races with impunity; then you and I have different moral systems. If you believe that killing should be interdicted even in self defense; or if you believe that killing pigs or cows, or even fish or insects, should be interdicted; then you then you and I have different moral systems (although I will not find you hateful in these situations). None of these examples are hypothetical, and all these moralities have existed in human history. Insofar as countries have a national morality of sorts, most national morality permit killing in times of war. Countries that do not permit killing in time of war tend to get wiped off the face of the earth and forgotten, like the great Quaker empires of Mesopotamia. Of course, we tend to look on moralities that permit the killing, of, say, whole races or classes, and claim that these are not in fact moralities—they are immoral. But this, too, is circular: what we are saying is that any morality that disagrees with ours on certain points in not a morality, and THEREFORE ALL MORALITIES ARE ONE. Well, all coinflips are heads if you decide that tails are not coinflips. Arthur would say that moralities cycle past him so quickly that he has given up trying to figure out which one he subscribes to. Mignon Emanuel would say that the only morality lies in her good right arm. Spenser would say that the argument is too complicated for him to follow, but he’s going to keep on trying to follow his own way regardless. Gloria would say that by defining a morality we are defining a limitation and an oppression, and we’re worse off than we were before we started. Alice would say don’t listen to Arthur.
Posted on: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 15:20:00 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015