02-03-04 - 8:59 pm
A Deep Thought from JackHandey:
"How come the dove gets to be the peace symbol? How about the pillow? It has more feathers than the dove, and it doesn't have that dangerous beak."
In my philosophy class we've been discussing whether morality is relative or objective. Makes me head hurt. I was dead set on the idea that morality is relative to ones own circumstance and culture, but even the statement morality is relative and there are no universally binding principles, is a statement suggesting that there is at least one universally binding principle, that being the previous statement..so if there is even one universally binding moral principle, even if it is the idea that there are none, then relativism is totally inarguable because of that one. But then you have to ask what are moral principles? People can argue that abortion is wrong or right, pro-life or pro-choice. But are they arguing the moral principle or are they arguing a mixup in beliefs and practices or simple facts or applications...someone who is pro-life usually contends the argument that harming a fetus is wrong because it is no different that harming any other innocent human being..but the pro-choice would argue that the fetus is not an innocent human being, it may have the potential of becoming one, but until it gains a conciousness or personality, its just an extension of its mother..so theyre arguing the fact of what a fetus is, but both parties would agree on the statement of "do not harm innocent human beings", theyre arguing on what an innocent human being is. This can be applied to any single argument..so morality must be in the very least objective..right..? Fuck. Amy makes me happy.
prev // next