Response to "Are there universal moral principles that are right for all persons at all times?"

By Shew <ashmo28@hotmail.com>

Ethic is defineds by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary to be "a set of moral principles or values." There are many facets to examine in dealing with ethics. I cannot possibly touch on them all. The purpose of this essay is to refute the previous author's assertion of subjective morality. So, in response to "Are there universal moral principles....":

The previous author asserts that there cannot be universal moral principles for all people all the time because
1) The phrasing "all persons" and at "all times"
2) The wording assumes life has moral principles that people should follow, and there may be exceptions to this
3) Universal application is impossible


For her first point, she tries to say that because people are different the same moral standards cannot hold true for all. She goes on to say that since times are constantly changing and situations are different, morality must change. Just because people interpret things differently and are in different times, does not mean that the same standards of ethical behaviour ought not apply to them. If we are going to have any grounds for which to discuss morality in any logical sense, we must have a standard from which we may judge. Without a standard, one may claim that stealing is right "to them." While we must look at the intent behind the stealing, on a whole stealing is immoral. Although people may have different ethical perspectives or different morals, a moral standard must be constant. Such a standard is the Categorical Imperative.
Before briefly explaining the CI, I will first use an analogy to simplify the meaning of "moral standard." Dipsticks are used in cars to measure the amount of oil in the oil wells. Well, the oil is like the morality. Some cars may have more oil than others, some less. The dipstick is like the CI because it measures the morality. Simple enough? (Really, all philosophy is is apples and dipsticks.)
The CI, formulated by Immanuel Kant, has three basic tenets that can be used to judge the morality of an action. The first is the Universality Principle. For an action to be moral, one must be able to will that the maxim of the action become through his will a universal natural law. In other words, if one wouldn't want the principle of the action to apply to everyone, then it is immoral. The second tenet is that a man cannot be used as a means to an ends from which he does not benefit. This particular tenet rules out slavery and other unjustices that disrespect man's inherent dignity. The third is called the Realm of Ends; Kant states, "all maxims as proceeding from our own lawmaking ought to harmonize with a possible kingdom of ends as a kingdom of nature." This particular tenet combines the first two, imagining if they'd exist in the perfect society. (This is only a rough explanation!)
Do these basic principles apply to all people at all times? Yes, but that doesn't mean they are respected. People do immoral things at times. (I will address this further in my attack of the previous author's third point.)

In attack of point 2 and point 3 (which are essentially the same things as her point 1), "it [the question] assumes life has moral principles that people should follow", I must say that there are moral principles, even if unrespected. She supports her claim by saying people disagree on morality. Yes, they do. Why? because they can have different morality, but still have the same measuring stick, the CI. Yes, people have different definitions of "right," but not all of them are right! There is no right without the necessary standard! Not everyone will agree on morality because not everyone has the same intent behind their actions. Different intents call for different actions. The previous essay goes on to say that humanity rarely agrees. True, but that doesn't mean an ideal isn't a just aim.

The previous essay claims universal moral principles are futile. It says the chances of achieving such a goal are slim. But a universal standard of morality can serve as a judge of what is moral and what is not. It can allow us to discuss ethics in a rational way, where we can all know what is moral and immoral. A standard is highly important to be able to have any reasonable grounds of discussion of moral-related issues.

To submit a comment, click here.

Elaine <keying@netscape.net>

The author of this response claims that the answer to the question "Are
there universal moral principles that are right for all persons at all times?"
is Yes. He/she says, "Although people may have different ethical perspectives or different morals,
a moral standard must be constant." and "Yes, people have different definitions of 'right,' but not all of them
are right!" So, my question is that if not all of them are right, WHAT IS this "universal moral principle"
that the author claims as a "dipstick" to measure morality? If this "universal principle" exists, what is its origin?
I don't know much about philosophy or ethics, so please enlighten me by clarifying who/where/under what circumstances
was this principle developed? How was he/she sure that this was "right" AND this was going to apply to all persons at all time when he/she might not even know what "all people" consisted of?
Such as canibals or slave-owners. Nowadays, you can say taking another human being's life is immoral (based on what?), but in certain circumstances, it is accpetable to kill people as if they were animals or lower beings.

Elaine


Leah <coco_c_007@hotmail.com>

This is most certainly an interesting response you've written. Of course, just because I think it's interesting doesn't mean I think it's right.

The thing that struck me as most odd about your attack (and that's the only word that can be used for your response, considering the nature of your comments)was this particular statement, "[people] can have different morality, but still have the same measuring stick, the CI."

Let's consider the full ramifications of this comment. Yes, people can have different moralities. No one disputes that. But the measuring stick you mention is what throws me for a loop. If you take the time to set up your much-vaunted Categorical Imperative (I won't even discuss wiht you the notion of who you feel has the right or knowledge to set up such an imperative, because I feel that answer, in a word, is nobody), then you will have a measuring stick of sorts. The problem comes when you try to apply it. Who wants to use a measuring stick that tells them that they're less than perfectly moral? So you have a dipstick. So what? What does it mean, and what does it matter, if no one wants to measure him or herself against it? It all becomes rather pointless, doesn't it?

It's become somewhat obvious that your argument wasn't completely reasoned out because you ignored one of the most basic tendencies of the human species -- the tendency to do everything possible to make one's self look blameless in any situation. I know you know what I mean. You must've done it as a child -- everyone has. "It wasn't my fault, Mom. If little Suzy wouldn't have poke me, I wouldn't have punched her in the eye. Besides, it's not as bad as what STEVIE did. He broke Suzy's jaw!!" You instinctively divided the blame between Suzy and Stevie, trying to make yourself appear completely justified and moral in your actions -- trying to measure up to the Categorial Imperative that your parents may have set for your behavior. In your eyes, you were blameless. So you measured up.

Another point to consider -- the idea of a set of morals being effective for all times. That notion is nothing short of ridiculous. Little more than 100 years ago, it was considered immoral for a woman to show her ankles in public. Yet now, women prance about in costumes that leave little of their charms to the imagination. Does that make them immoral? Certainly not. It simply means that the times have changed and people have become more comfortable with the human body. Yet, if there were some set of morals established a century ago, the women of today would be labeled brazen hussies who were bound straight for the fires of hell. Times change. So do attitudes about what is and isn't acceptable. As a more concrete example of that -- less than 10 years ago, the state of Alabama finally got around to voting to remove a law from its books that made slavery legal. I think that example speaks for itself.

Now, for a quick summation. Kant and his Categorical Imperative isn't the be-all and end-all of the philisophical world, as you seem to believe. Though his ideas are good in theory, they're hardly practicable. And even if they were, one standard for all people and all time is illogical.

John Archie <johnarchie@emeraldis.com>

hmmm..... a flame war already?

Shew <ashmo28@hotmail.com>

To Elaine: the "universal moral principle" that i was referring to above were the tenets of the CI. This principle was developed by Kant, but he claimed that anyone who took the time to reason it out would come to a similar conclusion. Now about the cannibal and slave business, it is unacceptable to kill humans because it denies the dignity due all humans. You see, everyone has inherent dignity, but people can choose whether or not to respect that dignity.

To Leah: You ask what the dipstick means. And you ask me what it's use is. Well, in order to ever be able to talk about morality in any organized sense we must have a standard. The CI is just a handy-dandy measuring-stick for morality. You say that I ignored human nature. But if all humans attempted to rationalize the issue of morality and look at motivations, they'd all come up with forms similar to the CI. You talk about a parents' CI, but the CI is the same for everyone (hence the term "universal moral standard"). You talk of women's ankles being inappropriate 100 years ago being immoral. But, the CI only measures the morality of actions based on intent, so the CI can't be applied here. You also talk of Alabama's laws, but just because something is law doesn't make it moral. Perhaps people once thought certain things were moral, but if they'd have taken the time to look at the situation objectively, they would have drawn the same conclusion that we may gain through the CI.

To John Archie: yep.

Thank you for you comments Leah and Elaine!

Michael T Tucker <tuckerm@greenwood.net>

Shew,
Nice paper I understand your view, good job. Leah and Elaine, take it easy.

Matthew Knight <mknight_dsb@hotmail.com>

Very well thought out and organized.

Brian W. Bearden <bbearden@student.lander.edu>

You give a good argument, but don't get so frustrated, after all each person has their own views and opinions.

daniel <hollytreeds@hotmail.com>

well thoughtout paper and good ideas