I've had discussions with a friend of mine in the past concerning the idea of absolutes. For me it's not so much of a problem for as a Christian I believe that there are absolutes and that they come from God who created the universe and everything contained within it. Therefore it is His prerogative to establish any absolute that He wishes. A prominent one would be the concept of moral absolutes; good and evil. However in our modern 'enlightened' age we have taken upon ourselves the responsibility of becoming the final arbiters of right and wrong and in so doing take the place of God in creating an absolute.
For instance, what is human? There are many philosophers over the ages that have pondered this question and I'm sure science plays its part as well. We could say that a human being is a being which has a specific DNA sequence. As we are now able to differentiate between all the species on the planet through these genetic foundations it would be a simple way to define who or what is human. But would this be enough? For instance in the case of abortion it has been decided that as long as the 'fetus' is in the womb it is not human but once it is out of the womb it is 'human'. Where is the demarcation point point for this? Is it the labia? How much of the baby has to emerge before it can be considered human? Does it have to breathe first? If the baby comes out but doesn't breathe is it human? I'm not too sure of the justifications used to define why a baby in the womb can be termed a fetus rather than a human being.
"The Canadian courts have determined that a fetus has no inherent right to life in
The same site gives us these statistics: "About 100,000 abortions are performed in Canada every year. Approximately 90 per cent of abortions are performed in the first trimester, with just 2 to 3 per cent performed after 16 weeks."
At
In Canada the above judgement came about when a man (and father to be) tried to get a restraining order against a woman who was carrying his child. The woman wanted to abort the 'fetus'. A Quebec court issued the injunction however the woman circumvented Canadian law by having a 2nd trimester abortion in the U.S. It was decided after that that the man had no rights as it pertained to the baby and whether it should be born. If the woman had waited for the judgement a 3rd trimester abortion would have been necessary. This of course would have been legal.
What makes me human? Is it because I think? Is it simply because I breathe? I'm not here to debate the issue of abortion for or against, but it serves as an interesting jumping off point on how we as human beings are able to determine absolutes. We have determined that a human being is created until it emerges from the uterus. The courts have determined that this issue is not open for debate. So it has decided when we become human will decide when we are not? What power we have. Is this good? They say that power corrupts. In the end I have to ask who is it that really gets to decide? In Canada it was 7 people out of over 30 million that have the power to create absolutes. What if every other person in the country disagreed with them? What makes them so far superior to us? The rule of law. They have the weight of law behind them to prop them up upon their ivory thrones. In Canada they are the ultimate arbiters of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They have the last say on what is and isn't legal in Canada, to the point that it can abolish laws created by Parliment, the democratically elected body which is there to govern the nation.
It is amazing the power that we place in the hands of so few and how little we know about these few. Are these supposed to be above all of us mere mortals? Is it only they that has the ulitmate knowledge of what is to be determined what is right or wrong? I know that you can say that they are only interpreting a document but that document too was created by a select few. So while it is possited that we are continually progressing higher and higher towards perfection (our society) one has to wonder what if at some point along the line these few people with the ultimate power decide that they don't like you or me?
Of course some would insist that there are no such thins as absolutes, like my friend. This I think poses something of a problem for what are we left to in order to decide what is allowed and what isn't? Is it okay for me to kill you? Some say no, but what if other said yes? Who is right? Who is wrong? Why? Is it simply majority rules? How do we effectively judge that? A poll, an election, a referendum? Would it not all end in anarchy and the end of the state?
In the end I'm merely thinking 'aloud'. I have no answers to these questions outside of my religion. But in the end that matters little because my religion answers these questions better than any other theory that I have encountered. Does this grant me some sense of superiority? No. Does it allow me to judge those around me? No. But it does seem interesting to me that we continue to work hard at placing humanity at the pinacle of creation when in the end we are fallible beings. If you doubt this read a newspaper and see what we are willing to do to one another and then contemplate the fact that each and everyone of us has this same capability for inhumanity that we read about. For in the end I think that that is an absolute: humans are fallible.
Vespasian
4 comments:
Thanks for the comment.
In the end I have agree with you in that depending on your view of the soul the line of inquiry changes.
According to WebMD, at week 28 (about the end of the 2nd trimester) the brain pattersn of the 'fetus' match that of a new born baby. So I guess if this is what you were willing to use as the definition of a human being then 3rd trimester abortions would mean that a human being was dying. 3rd trimester abortions are legal in Canada.
Also I wonder what else this definition has an impact on. I know that when a person is considered brain dead we 'pull the plug' and allow the body to perish on its own. However we do so because we consider them to have died and incapable of sustaining life not because we don't see them as not being human. Well at least I don't.
Yet after the 23rd week of development if born the baby can survive yet hasn't met the criteria for status as a human being. So in the end it seems that simple brain function is not enough to determine when we 'become' human or when we cease to be human.
As for myself, I believe in the created universe and therefore believe that humanity has been set apart by God from the rest of creation. So I don't have to follow the argument that all forms of life have a soul or none do. Which is as you say.
The place I then find myself is in whom do I place my trust and faith. Because in the end I have to have faith in something in order to accept their definition of life and absolutes (perhaps you don't feel that way but I do). Do I trust my own experience with what I believe to be the Creator of the universe and have faith in or do I place my faith in the decisions of a group of several people (supreme court) who our society has given the power to make such decisions?
It's not much of a choice for me.
Oh, healthy discourse, how I have missed you.
I guess that one can say that morality is learned. Even for those of us who are religious as in the end we learn what it is that God asks of us. We learn about His nature and ours. Of course this brings up the concept of cultural reletivism and one must question how much credence one culture's set of morals has over anothers.
You bring up slavery (and I agree that it is wrong) but what of a culture that believed it to be okay. Are we somehow superior to them and as such they should bow before us? How about the cannibal of an isolated tribe in the Amazon are they inferior to us because their morals are different than ours? Or perhaps it is better to ask are our moral sensibilities superior to theirs and therefore deserve to be adopted above all others?
You say that while you don't necessarily agree with the power that our supreme court has been given, at least they protect freedom of speech and your right to say 'fuck Bush!' but that is not true for everything you might say. In the end we are not allowed to say anything we wish (see hate crimes, uttering death threats, etc.). Not that I am saying that these should be allowed but if I disagree with the courts and their moralistic view of our society I have no power. If I resist I am jailed and I seriously doubt that Amnesty International will be beating down the doors of our government to free me.
In the end I agree that society needs rules, that humanity needs rules to survive and thrive I just wonder how it is that one person's moralistic view is adopted above anothers. I wholeheartedly believe that morals cannot be legislated but in the end that is what we do.
A person I work with said that 'society is little more than a behavioural modification experiment on a grand scale.' I have to agree. And seeing as how we are being socially indoctrinated since the time we are first placed in front of the idiot box or enter school do we really have the capacity to truly and thoroughly question our society's moral structures? Are we really able to think outside the box if we are never taught that there is an outside? Its sorta like being in the Matrix and then being freed, were you truly freed or is it simply another level of control?
Hey. I remember sitting in english class discussing the novel "Things Fall Apart" and its main character Okonkwo. (btw good book if you haven't read it yet) The professor asked if Okonkwo was justified in beating his wives? The rest of my class (there were 6 of us and I was the only male) gave the obvious answer: no. I said that he was.
Of course my professor took me to task for this and when I brough up the idea of cultural reletivism he could care less. He argued that beating women was wrong regardless of culture. I agree but I still have to question the idea over the grounds of cultural relativity.
We discussed earlier the notion that the state and culture indoctrinate us and that morals are a learned behaviour. I agree to a certain extent, mostly because of cultural reletivism. So I wonder if morality is learned how can one be superior to another (even satanism)?
You bring up the idea of conscience. So in the end conscience must transend the learned behaviour (morality) and allow us insight into what is good and bad. However what is conscience and how do we know that it is 'good'?
From a religious standpoint one could point the Bible and Romans 1 when Paul talks about conscience being from God and that through that we know right from wrong. However I'm not too sure that you would use that as a basis of support for your position.
So getting back to the original idea (absolutes) outside of a universal consciousness which drives mankind towards goodness or a divine being which we all aknowledge as being the font of goodness, how do we know what is good or bad?
You equate the concept of a conscience with that of learning and personal taste. I could learn a thousand differnt ways to bake bread and only like five. They may be a different five than the ones you like (for instance english bread). So when given a moral quandry (the Terry Shiavo case in the U.S. springs to mind)how are we to determine whose morals are the ones to use?
As for the idea of learning I will use and illustration. There are any number of ways to build a house. You could use wood framing or steel, log cabin or haybail. There are any number of variations but in the end you end up with a house. So your way to produce a house may be different than mine but we both end up with a house that in the end may be no better than the other. So I wonder is this a case of 'the ends justify the means'.
Earlier you said that (generally speaking) no cultural belief is superior to any other. Also you said that one's conscience is the final judge of what is moral and immoral. Now you have said that one's conscience is the product of one's learning, so I wonder how we get around the notion of social indoctrination. What if you aren't one of the fortunate few who actually get to experience all these wonderful cultures that you speak of?
Also what if you come to my culture and my conscience allows me to kill you for looking at my wife becuase my culture has ingrained in me that is moral and it is therefore a moral decision on my part? It may be immoral from your perspective for me to kill you but not from mine.
Post a Comment