>There are two types of situations that we encounter in relation to the
>rightness of our actions. In the first situation, our action (by that I
>mean
>our intentional action)
>either accords with the Law or it does not and it is plain that our
>representation of the Law and the objectivity of our action either are or
>are
>not in agreement.
But basing morals on the law is relativist, not objective. The law is
a fluid, changing construction. The law could say: "Kill all blacks."
If it did, would you kill them? It is obvious that morality exists
before and beyond the law. What Rosa Parks did was illegal, but was
it wrong?
>In the second situation, all of our actions which are not prescribed by the
>law come under norms about which other people may disagree. (Some people
>consider laws norms and norms as laws, but only valid norms that are agreed
>upon as laws can actually be law.) We might consider the situation to be
>that the law limits our actions, but that norms actually prescribe
>preferred
>ways of living life. Some actions are prohibited by the law, other actions
>are considered inappropriate by other people, but are not prescribed by the
>law.
Peoples' different conceptions of morality can create conflict, as the
debate on homophobia has shown. But letting other people define your
moral code, i.e. the law, can end in genocide.
>But, the real tension begins within the
>private realm when each individual asks and answers for him/herself the
>question, "How shall I live?" Each person's answer may or may not accord
>with others who are emotionally outraged and hence enter into conflict.
I don't really understand the pertinence of this point. Please
elaborate and clarify.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>rightness of our actions. In the first situation, our action (by that I
>mean
>our intentional action)
>either accords with the Law or it does not and it is plain that our
>representation of the Law and the objectivity of our action either are or
>are
>not in agreement.
But basing morals on the law is relativist, not objective. The law is
a fluid, changing construction. The law could say: "Kill all blacks."
If it did, would you kill them? It is obvious that morality exists
before and beyond the law. What Rosa Parks did was illegal, but was
it wrong?
>In the second situation, all of our actions which are not prescribed by the
>law come under norms about which other people may disagree. (Some people
>consider laws norms and norms as laws, but only valid norms that are agreed
>upon as laws can actually be law.) We might consider the situation to be
>that the law limits our actions, but that norms actually prescribe
>preferred
>ways of living life. Some actions are prohibited by the law, other actions
>are considered inappropriate by other people, but are not prescribed by the
>law.
Peoples' different conceptions of morality can create conflict, as the
debate on homophobia has shown. But letting other people define your
moral code, i.e. the law, can end in genocide.
>But, the real tension begins within the
>private realm when each individual asks and answers for him/herself the
>question, "How shall I live?" Each person's answer may or may not accord
>with others who are emotionally outraged and hence enter into conflict.
I don't really understand the pertinence of this point. Please
elaborate and clarify.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com