individuals seek to create societies which share the most commonly held views of morality...
Remember, I said I'm no philosopher - and I know nothing of Niebuhr's work. So I'm arguing from my own thoughts, that's all.
But, against your point, I'd contend that the 'most commonly' held moral views will be by definition those prevalent in that individual's society. Only some external influence, or an exceptionally unusual and persuasive individual, will change them - in which case, again, we have new morals which will again be those society accepts.
Some -- many? -- of the Germans who actually knew what was going on were repulsed by it, but felt they had no choice but to go along.
I'm not saying I'd have been brave enough to oppose the Gestapo, either... but by living with the status quo, even if I condemn it, then I am living by the morals and laws imposed by those ruling society. [which by 1938 were not those overtly espoused when the Nazi's came to power in 1933].
In time, as culture becomes globalised, then I suspect that certain mores will become the norm over the entire planet - but these may yet not be those of Western civilisation, and these are still not absolutes.
For example, is murder always morally wrong?
If you say 'yes'... so was/is it wrong to (attempt to) assassinate Stalin? Abraham Lincoln? Adolf Hitler? John F. Kennedy? Saddam Hussein? Yasser Arafat? Yitzhak Rabin? Fidel Castro? Margaret Thatcher? All have endured at least attempted murder, by those who thought they were absolutely right and justified in so doing.
What of the execution of prisoners? Is it wrong to execute murderers? How about spies, if they kill? Or should enemy soldiers, on your land, killing your civilians, be safe from summary execution? Think about the cases of the IRA, the PLO, and the US in North Vietnam... or the CIA in Laos and Cambodia at the same time...
For that matter, if you as an individual deduce from your highly-developed moral sense that someone else is evil, is harming the world or your section of it, do you have the right to kill them yourselves? Are you morally justified in doing so?
Is it even right to execute a known, confessed and fairly convicted murderer on behalf of your democratically elected state? What if (as has happened) they are posthumously proven innocent - are you now a murderer?
I just see too many grey areas, depending too much on situational relatives and differences in perception, for something even as cut-and-dried as 'thou shalt not commit murder' to be absolute.
Your arguments make sense... but I disagree with the premise, I think.
For now, however, for me, tomorrow is another day... |
