Are there universal moral principlesthat are right for all persons at all times
By Amy Young <bbfhyoung@yahoo.com>
4. Are there universal moral principles that are right for all persons at all times?
By: Amy Young <bbfhyoung@yahoo.com>
The question, "Are there universal moral principles that are right for all persons at all times?" creates many problems for me. I believe that the answer to this question is "no" because I think ethics teaches that constraints such as "all persons" and "all times" automatically limits any application of universal principles. My second problem that I have with this question is that it assumes that life has moral principles that people should follow. If there were moral principles that everyone should follow all of the time than I am sure someone would find an exception exempting them from the rule. The final problem that I have with this question is its claim to universal application. By discussing my three points, I hope to demonstrate the impossibility of this question.
At the beginning of the Hospers book, there is a discussion concerning the morality of taking another human being's life. Both sides made strong arguments for their case, however, it is clear that the two individuals would probably not arrive at a common consensus. This is an excellent demonstration of the problems that could be encountered if the issue of whether it is right to kill another human being were considered a universal moral principle. The constraint, "all persons" then becomes a problem when considering a universal moral principle because everyone is different. Even in a society where everyone is supposedly taught the same thing, interpretations among individuals will very and possibly conflict. The constraint, "all times" also creates problems because circumstances are constantly changing. I do not think that it is possible to establish a universal moral principle that all persons can/should follow all of the time simply because any rule that we would consider applicable now to all persons and all times could easily be considered obsolete in 1000 years. We as a society now could not possibly imagine how people will think in the future let alone in the next generation!
Hospers says, "People constantly disagree on which specific acts are right or wrong; they also disagree on what it is about them that makes them right or wrong (9)." This quote demonstrates how indecisive people can be. My rational then is how could we possibly develop a principle that was right for everyone and agreed upon by everyone. There is also an argument here that some people may interpret as an excuse not to follow any principles. Upon whose definition of "right" would this moral principle be based? A universal moral principle would have to assume that everyone believes in the same things or possesses the same interpretation of principles. It is clear that different people react differently. This statement shows the impossibility of a universal moral principle. If they exist, there is little likelihood that everyone would follow it all of the time.
My final point discusses the impossibility of the universal nature of a moral code. For as long as humans have been on the planet, there has always been conflict. It is hard to imagine humans being universal about anything. I think that it would have to take an alien invasion where we were all going to die in order for us as a race to agree on anything, however, I am sure people would still fight over petty issues. I do not mean to be so cynical but humans have not agreed on anything in the past. Why should I believe that there is some universal moral principle which would miraculously make everyone forgo his or her differences, either now or in the future?
I hope that you see the futility in a universal moral principle that is right for all persons all the time. Not everyone is the same as everyone else. Times and circumstances are constantly changing. The idea of universality is not a concept that has been embraced in the past so there is little likelihood that it could be achieved in the future.
To submit a comment, click here.
Anna C. Nance <eirendel@yahoo.com>Intersting take on the question.
Nichole Sanders <snk79@hotmail.com>There are not universal moral priciples for all people. I doubt if "everyone" can be on one level. i agree with you.
Leah Patterson <coco_c_007@hotmail.com>Bravo!! I think you did a wonderful job with this topic. I, too, share your view about the basic elements of the human nature -- selfishness and violence. I know that somewhat oversimplifies the notion, but it's two more certainties to add to death and taxes. Though I often find myself labeled a cynic, I still have high hopes for the human race as a whole. Maybe, in several years, decades, centuries, or millenia, we will learn to agree on something.
Brian W. Bearden <bbearden@student .lander.edu>As a beleiver in Christianity I do think that there are universal moral principles that are right for all people. However, I agree with your argument that getting people to agree on such principles would be very difficult because everyone has different positions on moral topics.
Your Name <Your E-Mail>I agree that there is not a universal moral for all people. Your paper was very well thought out.
Tom Lundis <Kman26@hotmail.com>I think there should indeed be a universal moral code. In the case of taking a life--I believe that it can be stated that taking a life "is not good." That provides for circumstances when taking a life is necessary to prevent greater bad, but a lesser bad is not a "Good." If I steal your car that is bad. Likewise if I could steal your car AND run you over with it, doesnt, make just the stealing of it "good."
jennifer lester <lesterjennifer@hotmail.com>there are no universal moral priciples. it is said best, "your space ends where my face begins." trying not to stick our nose in other people's business is probably the closest we will get to a universal moral principle. also better tolerance may apply. that reminds me of a saying "a true gentleman will be a gentleman up until the point where he kills you." there are always circumstances that arise and pose a problem. i dont think there will ever be complete serenity. suppose there was a utopia, what would all the people who love the drama do? people deny their interest, yet sit at the news every night to see what "tragedy" has occurred. i once read bad things actually make you appreciate the good. that is, you have to know the bad to know the good. of course i wish the world were a utopia, but if everything were always perfect how intersting would my day be. it would be the absolute greatest i would think. there always has been and will be problems unless everyone alienates themselves. then, how happy would they actually be?
Michael T Tucker <tuckerm@greenwood.net>Good job, but your paper was too long!
Chun Yeung <jane1227@yahoo.com>I agree with you. All the points you have made make sense to me.
D. Andrews <dandrews92@hotmail.com>Being a fellow cynic, I agree with you.
Rachel Crowe <rcrowe@usa.net>Your argument was very convincing. I agree that people are different and circumstances change, so there can never be a universal moral principle. Using the example of the moral issue of killing was an excellent choice. It seems simple to say that it is immoral to kill, but there are exceptions that people disagree on, like in war or self-defense.
Tim Andrews <tandrews@emeraldis.com>I agree--it's too bad that fear of mass destruction (or an alien invasion as you put it) is the only thing that is capable of igniting any kind of universal moral agreement among people of the world.
Jamie Meadows <riojeepgrl@yahoo.com>Wow, what a (long) paper, but a very well thought out answer. I like how you relized that the question posed the problem of grouping universe into "at all times, and all people." You handled it well and I agree with you.
Matthew Knight <mknight_dsb@hotmail.com>I agree that there is no one universal ethical principle. Mankind could never agree on such a principle, and if they did, someone would find fault with, or break the principle, therefore not making it universal.
Russell L. Martin <rangjung21@hotmail.com>I guess since we are looking at things differently in the world you've made a good point.
Gina Baker <Daphine10@hotmail.com>I thought your paper was very well organized. I agree that there is not just one moral followed by everyone.
daniel <hollytreeds>i agree with you;your paper had some very good points
Due Date <2/28/2000>Formal comments completed
Due Date <2/21/2000>Formal comments completed