Do you actually think that this “ORDER” you mention exists, or is it what you are allowed to see through the filter of TV, newspapers, etc??? The people “in charge” that enforce these wonderful laws, they have been breaking them behind closed doors, hell even out in the open, with little to no consequence.
Do you know what Ghandi was like “behind closed doors”? John Gacy was a clown at childrens parties, behind closed doors he was a mass murderer. I’m not saying Ghandi was a murderer, just pointing out the fact that you only know what you’ve been allowed to know about him.
Notice how many “laws” have changed because they have become outdated? So I wonder how many current laws, rights/wrongs, will be found lacking in the years to come.
If we hadn’t made up any laws, would humans end up following natural law, as the rest of nature does? (Of course this opens up the question to what is natural law? Survival of the fittest?)
Bear with me and I will try to get this idea across.
There is no absolute right or wrong but there is absolute cause and effect.
Lets take incest for example. If a man and his sister has the hots for one another then who can say that they are wrong? However, an "effect" of that incest would be that any children might have defects. Also if the child grew up and found out that his mom was also his aunt and then killed themself then that would also be an "effect."
You can do whatever pleases you but it will effect the world in some form and may come back to haunt you.
How will this effect the world? Do you honestly think that your mere existence could ever effect nature’s cycle? If the human race were to be wiped out tomorrow, do you seriously think that it would effect nature?
there are no absolute rights and wrongs in the sense of a natural/moral law that we must try to represent acurately with our laws and actions…
ie. as a society we can’t get “closer” or “further away” from what is moraly right… there is only convention and various ways of describing things… that is what our morality is.
however just because a moral prohibition is “social constructed” [everything is…] that doesnt make it invalid or irrelevant.
We only know about our attractive sibling (to use our current example) because we find it useful/practical to direct our linguistic towards that particular constelation of time and space were they are present… make them an object of language… in this banal sense the sibling is “social” not “absolute”, “made” not “found”…
this of course doesnt make your sibling irrelevant (especialy at your trial for incest)
the same goes for our prohibition of incest… it is a practical/useful way of describing the world (or it isnt… thats open for debate). it isnt absolute but as nothing really is that doesnt make it any less valid or important.
As for the idea that an isolated individual wouldnt prohibit incest… well for starters incest cant occur for an isolated individual… none of the capacities required to comprehend the situation will be possessed by a life-long isolated individual.
the key is to see these laws and morals we have as a society not as solely constraining of the individual (as, for instance, in sartre).
rather they are modalities of individual action, and therefore necessary… (sartre implicitly knew this but played it down)… there are no absolutes but that doesnt mean that we can act from a vacuum, from a society-free convention-free blank slate… even if we act against them they still form the basis of our actions, without them we have nothing.
what makes not slightly perhaps degrading evolution moral?
also, little sex is these days had with reproduction in mind. So would it be acceptable to have sex with your family providing you took pains not to pass on your genes?
I find that ridiculous… although it depends on what you think morality is i guess… i tend to think morality is something usefull to people, not something for the benefit of a biological process. (yes yes yes people are a biological process… how very rational and objective)
objectifing morality, (a description of the world designed to serve certain human ends… ends that we choose subjectively of course with no real reasoning) into some absurd and useless nothingness to do with right and wrong breeding is just to change morality into “the most certain and least contingent function that we serve”… that’s not morality… that’s just borrowing science in the name of platonism.
"morality must be what is found, not what is made… so what thing have we definately not made? well… eveolution seems to be something we didnt make… its observable everywhere life is… prior to humans and after humans… … well THAT must be valid morality then… because it couldnt be something contingent… it must emenate from some eternal Truth… what is an eternal truth? well theres the process of evolution… etc etc etc etc…
why do I have to be “outside nature” in order to have moral descriptions of the world that arnt based on natural science? I dont have to be a disembodied mind to decide to have sympathy and sensitivity.
more to the point what makes you think that ESS is part of nature rather than a product of the mind? how is it anything other than a technique of problem solving used by some actors (and not others)… a part of some vocabularies and not others???
As to your first question I will clarify that “world” meant largely the people around us and throughout the world. In other words a human butterfly effect.
As to the second question I could become a terrorist and blow up a lot of nuclear reactors and oil tankers and such and cause a very big effect upon nature’s cycle.
As to the third question. I don’t know.
we are all guided by natural philosophy.
there is no absolute morality. i think (feel free to criticize) morals and ethics have developed because of the human quest for existence and pleasure. things that will hinder pleasure or human’s potential for existence. the incest example is deemed bad because it will produce defected offspring therefore compromising human existence. but is there such a thing as social or agnostic absolutism? no-one has told us but the morals created have stayed for so long they have become absolute? I think every action/decision should be judged seperately and this is where utilitarianism hold some valuble points, although i do not agree with utilitarianism and the constant qualification. how can some one allow gang rape? greatest happiness/good for the greatest number. then we get into mill’s lower/higher orders and it is just best left alone!
a pressing question on my mind is if paedophilia wasn’t so ‘tabooed’ would the child still suffer the mental scaring and would it still be deemed immoral?
Those who are making the point that there are some things which are right or wrong absolutely are obviously correct. Those who believe that nothing is right or wrong in an objective or absolute sense are neither right nor wrong, but only relatively right to the extent that they are not relatively wrong. 
Beware, my friends, this is a word play and there is an objectivist in your midst.
Stay alert.
If there were absolute truths, i’d want a new born baby to be aware of it. If he/she isn’t then it is not a universal truth.
To say there is no absolute truth proves that there is absolute truth.
Nope, not an ‘absolute’ truth. Just mine and may be some others opinions.
If a child comes into this world. It is absolutely true that the child was born from none other than a female human being. If your child knows that, then it knows an absolute truth.
We know that through experience. Events are ‘absolutely true’. But everything else is just matter of opinions.
Thank you.
Thank you.
No it is not. You can play the role of a skeptic and say your mother is merely a projection of your mind, thus you never came out of a female body.
Highly unlikely, but possible.
Therefor not an absolute truth.