Ok, I just read through all of these posts, and I’m a bit tired, so forgive me if I’m less than a bastion of clarity and coherence.
First, I have to say that I find any arguement for a lack of morality (true nihlism)–that is, in so far as I have heard them from individuals–to smack of nothin greater than juvenile pratling. Moral Relativism (i.e., something more along the lines of Nietzsche or an exisitential approach) seems to have more basis.
But even this, I think, goes against the basics of what we refer to as “morality.” That is, morality doesn’t just tell us what is right and wrong, it tells us how we should behave with one another, and if we agree to a “personal morality” (a sense of owing to one’s self) also how we treat ourselves.
That is, we have the experience of being wronged or being in the right, and this often links back (I hesitate to say always) to two basics: the harmful, and the beneficent. That which is harmful, we term bad, and that which is beneficent, we term good. And morality tells us, at its most basic, to do good and avoid the bad.
As such, again, any utter statement of moral nonexistence seems not only empirically false, but downright silly, and without basis in any of life’s experiences, but that doesn’t mean a relativity couldn’t work. Save that, by far and large, we have very similar experiences of that which is good and that which is bad. Being raped for instance, or physically harmed, we always find to be bad. And thus, this at least gives us a moral stepping stone of sorts.
It appears that the greatest difficulty arises, when we try to determine what we should do in particular instances with this sort of general guideline. As such, it seems we can cut this down in more or less pragmatic terms. That is, if we by our nature (and I think there is good grounds for this) wish to be beneficent and not harmful, we ought to do the least harm we feasibly can, and the most good.
Though, we arise with a conflicting issue here. That is, we can tend to be selfish. Also, we tend to be social animals. The conflict comes into play when the two meet with opposing interests. So, if we’re going to go with “reason,” which is so highly prized in philosohpy (and not without some just grounds) it seems the reasonable solution is to act in the best interest of all.
Why do I say this? First, we do appear to have compassion, and this does at least tempt us toward what we call “selflessness.” But granted, this isn’t enough. But, in the interest of others, and ourselves, we do the best for all involved, and the least harm for all involved, by working towards the good of all. That is, a society that functions in the best interest of all, will (by necessity) take the overall welfare of its least and greatest into account, and so the individual (you) will be cared for, along with those you most cherish (family, loved ones, friends, etc.) and even those who are strangers to you. As such, all interests are cared for, and there is minimum amount of sacrifice for you, and minimum sacrifices made by others, but an overall greater good, and security is insured.
Yes, I realize this is an egalitarian ideal. But it does seem to go with what we desire for ourselves and others, and it does seem to work within our intial notions of harm and beneficence, our compassion (be it weak or strong) and the interests of all. As an exercise in utility: we get the most gain, for the least sacrifice, which certainly seems reasonable.
Of course, this rest upon the ground of bad and good, but in the most basic instances that doesn’t seem too large of a problem. And personally, I’m partial to Mill’s idea of, “Show me a specific harm from a specific source” approach. That could easily be replaced with “benefit.” And then I think we have a basic structure to work from.
Note, this does present us with something more objective to work with. And thus questions like, “Is the death penalty immoral?” can be answered with an investigative process, that begins with, “Well does it cause harm?” And you can follow from those lines to see what occurs.
Was this too much at once? Yes, I realize this gives us something like utilitarianism. Although, I have a partiality to something like “Virtue” as well, that’s for another discussion.
