I'm not Blind

‎"If no set of moral ideas were truer or better than any other, there would be no sense in preferring civilized morality to savage morality, or Christian morality to Nazi morality."

"If your moral ideas can be truer, and those of the Nazis less true, there must be something-some Real Morality-for them to be true about. The reason why your idea of New York can be truer or less true than mine is that New York is a real place, existing quite apart from what either of us thinks."

-C.S. Lewis

Almost everyday I go through a point where my beliefs are subject to criticism (mostly via indirect Facebook posts).
Recently, I've been reading a bunch of comments that read like "Morality isn't defined by anything other than common sense."
But statements like that always get me responding with, "Well, give me the empirical definition of common sense."

Wikipedia gives it to ya like this:

Common sense is defined by Merriam-Webster as, "sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts."[1] Thus, "common sense" (in this view) equates to the knowledge and experience which most people already have, or which the person using the term believes that they do or should have. The Cambridge Dictionary defines it as, "the basic level of practical knowledge and judgment that we all need to help us live in a reasonable and safe way".[2]

So my question is this: if morality is based off of common sense, and common sense is derived from knowledge and experience which most people already have, what is the foundation of morality, given that it is based off of general knowledge and experience of a majority of humanity?

It seems that one of the only things all of humanity has ever historically come into agreement with on a greater majority scale is that they all want to live.
And then you throw in the "outliers" (if you wish to be politically correct and call them so) of suicidal cases for the sake of self, religion, or people that live for the sake of their afterlife, and bam!, all the sudden you have people that have arguable reasons for living a lifestyle that doesn't invest itself in merely survival.

So the next logical inquiry to come to is whether those lifestyles are justified by any means; if they are backed by any amount of evidence or objective reasoning.

Simply put: is there any real standard of morality?
Is it provable that genocide of the genetically inferior is wrong when you can treat them as normal people?
Can you actually hold the Nazi's accountable for being wrong if Right and Wrong are completely relative?
If morality is subjective, you couldn't criticize massacre for being wrong any more than you could criticize someone for liking the color red and not blue.

So instead of people spouting ignorance of "Religion defies what is Right", they should try and investigate what "Right" is and whether the religions they criticize have any evidence to support their claims to "true morality".

With a vastly incomplete fossil record and an impossible existence of the universe and life itself, I cannot believe with any amount of confidence that all the universe and its contents are an accident.

No comments:

Post a Comment