Prove or disaprove - morality has a role to play even when a person is in isolation?
morality is too vauge a concept.
We all have a definition of right and worng. Even the depressed hate the wrong.
its funny… i just spent a semester in an ethics class and the more or less closing point of the whole class was basically that there is no ethics.
which only says to me that our current culture cares about nothing.
ethics is nothing more than a hierarchy of values and beliefs made with regard to both a persons own desires and its acceptance by society. We are all the source of our own morality and hence there is no moral authority in men.
It’s silly to try to prove or disprove this, but I can offer some thoughts, which may or may not be presented in a way in which they might be interpreted as proofs.
What is morality? Is it Ethics? Conscience? Courtesy? Awarenes? Religious obedience? One’s code of conduct? Does one invent one’s own morality or is it defined for him by his peers? Does the existence of your question itself suggest that the answer can go both ways? (i.e. if it were definitively one way or another, would it be obvious? does the answer depend on how you define/consider morality?)
I guess it’s a good question, because it’s kind of paradoxical in that morality would seem to only exist interpersonally – morality is about not doing something ‘wrong/bad/evil’, and how can there be a victimless crime? if you only hurt yourself, isn’t that supposed to be just? – yet sometimes victimless crimes are supposed to be immoral by some people, such as homophobes. whom is consensual gay sex hurting? even if the homophobes are wrong in their views, it’s still interesting that something victimless is considered immoral and suggests other victimless things could be considered immoral. perhaps gay sex, as envisioned by the homophobes, is decadent, like eating an icecream sundae, so it hurts the people involved in some strange, metaphysical way. but it’s still consensual, so is that much different than one person hurting himself, alone, by doing something decadent? why is homosexuality considered immoral by some, while eating icecream isn’t by anyone? are there any single-person activities that harm nobody else that are considered by anyone to be immoral? the example may not actually be immoral, but the fact that some people think it is shows that they think, a priori, that immorality can apply to victimless acts for some reason, which must arise from the actual, collectively defined meaning and use of the word morality. (perhaps it has something to do with everyone being connected, whether theyre in isolation or otherwise.)
can we thus logically conclude that, since some acts that are victimless can be immoral, an act a person does alone on an island, perhaps to himself, can be immoral?
or alternatively, can we conclude that, because anything a person does to himself is just and fair (instant karma), even if it is intentionally harmful, it cannot be immoral?
if morality is conscience, morality plays no role in isolation
if it’s a personal code of conduct, it can play one.
if immorality is something disgusting, it can play one.
if morality is religious obedience, it can play one.
etc.
is morality all of these things? some of these things? one of these things? who’s to say which one? is it something one can interpret as being whatever of those things one wants? what is that something? would identifying that something answer your question? if not, what terms would it rely on that leave the answer up to interpretation or the individual?
anyway I guess in my opinion morality can play a part for a person in isolation, but only through his relation to the metaphysical connection between him and everyone else which transcends time and distance.
sorry i coudln’t offer a proof; is a proof that there is no proof enough?