General is the notion that all ethics is subjective. That is not possible to draw a single system of values \u200b\u200bcommon to all. Different civilizations carry a tribute to other values, and performance evaluation depends on the perspective of the evaluator. It's hard to disagree with that opinion, but I wonder if it is undeniably true.
seems logical that the more profoundly the specific system of ethics relates to the life situation the more such a system is subjective. To try to define an objective ethics, one must start from the values \u200b\u200bthat are common everything and build on it a general system for evaluating human action. Of course, such a system will be used to assess the specific life situations, but not from them should leave. Logic says that if the left side of the implication is true, and the right side must be true. So if you prove to the general principle of fairness, all the principles that will result from the main principles must also be true.
Let us try to find the root base. Over the centuries, different systems were created, and various ethical values \u200b\u200bwere most important. Once they were gods and they will, passed by the priests. Then the gods replaced science. There were also money or bread. There were liberty, equality and fraternity. As the midst of this tangle of values \u200b\u200band justifications find the highest value?
I think I found the value of a common objective, which by definition can be the basis of ethics, one must look in the same sense of that ethic. Why do we need ethics in general? Nature for a long time, well-advised without it. Always survived better suited individual and his genes were database for the next generation. Of course, at different times of adaptation has meant different thing. Usually it was the strength and charisma. Also wits played a major role. When the ice age came, the advantage gained being hairy, or those that were able to clothe and build a fire.
To ensure the survival of vulnerable individuals have in some way to organize and collectively defend themselves against more powerful aggressors. To operate such a system need to enter into a formal or informal agreement of nonaggression. I waive my superiority of strength and cunning to joint action. No longer recognized as one who is better and who can deal with worse to do what he wants. I expect everyone to waive the same claim against me. I'm not from anyone less important, but I am not from anyone more important. All are equally important.
The objective system of ethics must be the equality of human rights stemming from this system. Thus, in the composition of such an objective set of rules, may be formed only maxims that arise from equality, equality of man because it follows directly from the very essence of ethics. Any systems that are not based the equality can not be called ethical. If anyone recognizes that he is stronger, so it can enslave the weaker, it means that it operates in accordance with nature, but not in accordance with ethics. Ethics was established precisely to counter nature.
seems logical that the more profoundly the specific system of ethics relates to the life situation the more such a system is subjective. To try to define an objective ethics, one must start from the values \u200b\u200bthat are common everything and build on it a general system for evaluating human action. Of course, such a system will be used to assess the specific life situations, but not from them should leave. Logic says that if the left side of the implication is true, and the right side must be true. So if you prove to the general principle of fairness, all the principles that will result from the main principles must also be true.
Let us try to find the root base. Over the centuries, different systems were created, and various ethical values \u200b\u200bwere most important. Once they were gods and they will, passed by the priests. Then the gods replaced science. There were also money or bread. There were liberty, equality and fraternity. As the midst of this tangle of values \u200b\u200band justifications find the highest value?
I think I found the value of a common objective, which by definition can be the basis of ethics, one must look in the same sense of that ethic. Why do we need ethics in general? Nature for a long time, well-advised without it. Always survived better suited individual and his genes were database for the next generation. Of course, at different times of adaptation has meant different thing. Usually it was the strength and charisma. Also wits played a major role. When the ice age came, the advantage gained being hairy, or those that were able to clothe and build a fire.
To ensure the survival of vulnerable individuals have in some way to organize and collectively defend themselves against more powerful aggressors. To operate such a system need to enter into a formal or informal agreement of nonaggression. I waive my superiority of strength and cunning to joint action. No longer recognized as one who is better and who can deal with worse to do what he wants. I expect everyone to waive the same claim against me. I'm not from anyone less important, but I am not from anyone more important. All are equally important.
The objective system of ethics must be the equality of human rights stemming from this system. Thus, in the composition of such an objective set of rules, may be formed only maxims that arise from equality, equality of man because it follows directly from the very essence of ethics. Any systems that are not based the equality can not be called ethical. If anyone recognizes that he is stronger, so it can enslave the weaker, it means that it operates in accordance with nature, but not in accordance with ethics. Ethics was established precisely to counter nature.
0 comments:
Post a Comment