revealing universal, objective morality
UPDATE: I added some examples, since this is kind of hard to understand on its own.
i have always thought that morality was universal and objective. in other words, that it doesn't matter what your opinion is, morality is the same, for everyone, at a basic level, like 2+2=4. it doesn't matter if you like to write 2+2 in blue ink and =4 in green calligraphy, the fact remains that 2+2=4 is true, for everyone, all the time. even though i have thought that morality was universal and objective for a long time, i never had a good, logical argument for it. i'm going to take a shot at it now.
i'm defining morality as the principles involved in determining right from wrong.
property is defined as those material things to which no other person has an equal or higher claim, or to which no one else can be logically assigned responsibility. property might be one's own body, or some other material asset.
property is a constant among human beings. all humans own property: their bodies. this property can never be transferred. each person has sole control over this property and no one has a higher claim to it, nor can others logically be assigned responsibility for it. of course, this isn't the only property people own, but it is the only property that everyone owns.
humans are incapable of consenting to have their property violated. the violation of property, is, by definition, non-consensual. Does not being able to consent necessarily equal nonconsent? yes. if a person were to want an action to be taken by others with his property, then he could merely consent. the fact that he doesn't consent is evidence of nonconsent. in other words, nonconsent is equal to agreeing that property should not be violated. therefore, all humans agree that their property should not be violated. in this way, we can say that everyone agrees that violating one's property is bad, or wrong. the fact that all humans agree that their property should not be violated reveals a universal morality.
the universality of property creates a morality that is universal and the objectivity of property creates objectivity in morality.
For example: an ardent, anti-property communist, Karl, is sitting in the park. If a man, Mike, punches him in the face, Karl will either consent or not consent to being punched. Even if he doesn't act, he still must consent or refuse consent, if only in his mind. If, even as an emotional reaction, he objects to being punched, then he is refusing consent. If he has a negative emotional response, but is more dedicated to his beliefs than he is opposed to the punch, then he consents. If he agrees to be punched, even on an emotional level, he consents. If he does not agree to be punched, even on an emotional level, he refuses consent. If he doesn't want to be punched, but does want to show his anti-property mentality more than he objects to the punch, he is consenting.
Karl also cannot remain neutral. Even if he truly does not care if he is punched or not, he is giving consent for Mike to make Mike's own decision concerning Karl's property (Karl's face). Karl's consent or lack of consent reflects Karl's innate acceptance and understanding of property. Since property is an innate feature of humanity, it is impossible for him to avoid consent or non-consent.
i'm defining morality as the principles involved in determining right from wrong.
property is defined as those material things to which no other person has an equal or higher claim, or to which no one else can be logically assigned responsibility. property might be one's own body, or some other material asset.
property is a constant among human beings. all humans own property: their bodies. this property can never be transferred. each person has sole control over this property and no one has a higher claim to it, nor can others logically be assigned responsibility for it. of course, this isn't the only property people own, but it is the only property that everyone owns.
humans are incapable of consenting to have their property violated. the violation of property, is, by definition, non-consensual. Does not being able to consent necessarily equal nonconsent? yes. if a person were to want an action to be taken by others with his property, then he could merely consent. the fact that he doesn't consent is evidence of nonconsent. in other words, nonconsent is equal to agreeing that property should not be violated. therefore, all humans agree that their property should not be violated. in this way, we can say that everyone agrees that violating one's property is bad, or wrong. the fact that all humans agree that their property should not be violated reveals a universal morality.
the universality of property creates a morality that is universal and the objectivity of property creates objectivity in morality.
For example: an ardent, anti-property communist, Karl, is sitting in the park. If a man, Mike, punches him in the face, Karl will either consent or not consent to being punched. Even if he doesn't act, he still must consent or refuse consent, if only in his mind. If, even as an emotional reaction, he objects to being punched, then he is refusing consent. If he has a negative emotional response, but is more dedicated to his beliefs than he is opposed to the punch, then he consents. If he agrees to be punched, even on an emotional level, he consents. If he does not agree to be punched, even on an emotional level, he refuses consent. If he doesn't want to be punched, but does want to show his anti-property mentality more than he objects to the punch, he is consenting.
Karl also cannot remain neutral. Even if he truly does not care if he is punched or not, he is giving consent for Mike to make Mike's own decision concerning Karl's property (Karl's face). Karl's consent or lack of consent reflects Karl's innate acceptance and understanding of property. Since property is an innate feature of humanity, it is impossible for him to avoid consent or non-consent.
Comments