"After all morality is simply a system of "rights and wrongs" or "goods and bads" standards"
Yes, but the question is whether those standards are relative to human subjectivity and opinion or whether they are Ultimate. Listing qualities which we have predefined (virtuous qualities such as compassion are virtuous qualities, i.e. the good) does not address the matter of whether there are absolute moral principles rather than relative moral principles. Morality is how one ACTS. So rather than duplicate the job of Roget by giving us synonyms for "good" or "virtuous" why not attempt to give us a universal principle of conduct which you believe to be external to human opinion. For example: Killing is ALWAYS bad, giving is ALWAYS good, gathering sticks on Sunday is ALWAYS bad, having sex with your boots on is ALWAYS good, fighting in a war is ALWAYS bad, not fighting for your country is ALWAYS bad. Eating pork is ALWAYS bad, eating any meat is ALWAYS bad, turning your back on Jesus is ALWAYS bad, demoting Jesus and praising Allah is ALWAYS good, stealing money is ALWAYS bad, letting your child die when you could have stolen eggs from the hen house to feed her is ALWAYS good...and so forth.
Are there such absolute moral principles which exist in some rarified medium awaiting our discovery and our universal acceptance? I have not heard of any.
When a society defines a word as meaning some varient of "bad", it does not make it an absolute principle but merely a definition, as in : greed is bad because greed means bad ("excessive or reprehensible acquisitiveness"). But is aquisitiveness ALWAYS bad? Is excessive acquisitiveness ALWAYS bad? What is good or bad about collecting spoons or bells or hockey cards?
Is it good to share? Well...not if you're sharing HIV. |
