I didn't mean it as an accusation. Even though I think I disagree with you in that area I don't think disagreeing with me is something that I would "accuse" someone of.
My point wasn't an accusation but an attempt at a description. Even if it was innaccurate it wasn't a slam or a way of saying you did something wrong. What I was describing was the fact that most of your post seemed to deal with the idea that morality should be and/or is a personal thing rather then what religion or society or some external code tells you. That in and of itself doesn't make for moral relativism (one could believe that moral ideas they came up with themselves where objectively true), so perhaps it was innaccurate to say you where supporting moral relativism. It would be more accurate to say that the post was about favoring the idea of a person determining what they think is moral for themselves rather then blindly accepting an externally imposed code.
People are not fixed in opinion or judgement or circumstance. If we were, then all learning would be a mockery and a pretence. Our assessment of the "right" thing to do is relative to the circumstance of the moment, and it involves the assessment of subjective perceptions and "facts", and the weighing and balancing of various strands of oughts and ought-nots.
As I said, the act justifies itself at that moment. There is no perfect (or objective) course of action. People WILL to choose the course of action which is least undesirable from their relative and subjective point of view. They discard an infinite number of alternative acts which were more undesirable. A choice is clearly the synthesis of many disparate (and sometimes incompatible) motives of value.
Yes something justifies the act (assuming it was an actual deliberate choice) but "least undesirable" doesn't equal "morally right" at least not for everyone. Something morally wrong (in the opinion of the person making making the decision) may be practically beneficial. A person could be tempted to do what they feel is wrong by the desire to gain this practical benefit. If any desire strong enough to cause action can by definition not be considered as an example of a person violating their own moral code, and if you don't accept external moral codes as having importance or validity then it doesn't make sense to even have the philosophical study of ethics.
At each moment in time, it becomes necessary (if we are to act) to prioritize all the factors which inform our self interest and our goals of freedom, happiness, and the power to run our life (which as Rand suggests is our preeminent value), and to act to create our essence and our being. The synthesis at the time informs the predominant ethic.
I disagree with the idea that all of peoples actions are motivated by some ethic.
eth·ic Pronunciation Key (thk)
n.
1.
1. A set of principles of right conduct.
2. A theory or a system of moral values: “An ethic of service is at war with a craving for gain” (Gregg Easterbrook).
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
ethic
n 1: the principles of right and wrong that are accepted by an individual or a social group; "the Puritan ethic"; "a person with old-fashioned values" [syn: moral principle, value-system, value orientation] 2: a system of principles governing morality and acceptable conduct [syn: ethical code]
Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University
dictionary.com
An ethic is a moral principle. A "principle of right conduct" Or a system of such principles. Many actions are motivated by desires that have nothing to do with moral principles, either principles of the moment or principles consistently held.
Tim |
