Small side trip. I'll try to keep it brief.
I think we can all argree that
Do unto others as you would have others do unto youis an example of a moral statement. We see variations on this in almost every known human civilization (it may have existed in more, just not have survived in the records).
We can also agree that it is a
relative morality: each person makes their own assesment of how they would like to be treated in applying this specific code.
It is also universally applicable - it applies to everyone - and that does NOT make it an
absolute moral code. Universality does not automatically translate into absolute morality.
Person {A} makes a claim that all people should live according to code {X} is making an absolute morality claim - that this particular rule applies to everyone.
That is making a univeral application, but this is NOT the principle of universality.
The principle of universality would mean that ANY Person {B} can make a claim that all people should live according to code {Y}, even if (and especially if) it contradicts person {A} and code {X}, and that both are considered
just as legitimate.
Rephrase: the universality principle says that if you claim that rule {X} applies to me, then that means I can claim that rule {Y} applies to you, even if they are contradictory, and that both are considered just as legitimate.
What this demonstrates is that universality invalidates absolute morality claims, because it allows one code to cancel and neutralize another, leaving relative morality.
Enjoy.
Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
™ Version 4.2
