HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
July 13, 2006 There are differing views on morality and how we came about them. To some, morality evolved along with humans. Moral behavior isn’t an absolute but relative to society and culture and ethical behavior is nothing more then a social contract to insure survival. Individuals are obligated to obey those rules. If morality isn’t absolute then it does raise some interesting problems. During the Nuremburg Trials, the Nazis indeed raised this as a defense. In his book, The law above the law, John Warwick Montgomery describes the argument as follows: “The most telling defense offered by the accused was that they had simply followed orders or made decisions within the frame work of their own legal system, in complete consistency with it, and they therefore ought not rightly be condemned because they deviated from the alien value system of their conquerors.”(1) This was obviously not accepted as a defense as in the words of chief counsel for the United States, Robert H. Jackson, “[the tribunal] raises above the provincial and transient, and seeks guidance not only from international law, but also from the basic principles of jurisprudence which are assumptions of civilization…” (2) As we see, some things are just wrong regardless of what society says, forced labor and genocide being a few of them. Another problem is that there can be no such thing as an immoral law. As society is the final measure of morality, then all of its judgments are moral by definition. Before new laws are enacted doesn’t it make sense to question not only the legality but also is the law just and good? If these are good questions then there would appear to be a difference between sound moral behavior and what a person has the right to do. If courts and law define morality, then neither laws nor the courts can ever be immoral. Moral reform, from either inside the society or outside the society is also a problem. Reform is typically from the inside, reformers judge society and then if there is perceived problems, they campaign for change. With morality being defined by the present society, then wouldn’t the challenge be considered immoral? After all, they would be considered going against what the culture considers ethical and moral behavior? Then there is the question of how moral behavior evolved. If moral behavior evolved then isn’t it no more then self-interest in disguise, since evolution is all about survival? Doesn’t it break down to if you don’t conform to society’s standards, then we’re going to insure that your gene’s don’t get passed on? How about immoral behavior that doesn’t interfere with survival? Picture torturing a condemned criminal to death, someone that society has agreed shouldn’t be allowed to live. Still repugnant isn’t it? How about lying? Does lying threaten survival? Probably not however we still know that it’s morally wrong and we take offence when we are lied too. If morality is defined by society, then one society does not have to right to force its views on another. The individuals in that society are morally obligated to follow the rules and laws of that society and even to participate in the activities of that society. The Christian believes that our moral behavior is God given. So, morality does not change with the ebb and flow of cultural beliefs. Certain things have been wrong in the past, are wrong now and will continue to be wrong in the future. Our conscience tells us that. (1) – John Warwick Montgomery: The Law above the Law : (Minneapolis: Bethany House; 1975) 24 (2) – Robert H. Jackson; Closing address in the Nuremburg Trial, Proceeding in the Trial of the Major War Criminal: Before the International Military Tribunal 397 (1948) ------------ Email Tracey Stevens: phoque62@hotmail.com Comment on this article here! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com. Please link to this article rather than copying and pasting it onto your site (which would be unauthorized and illegal). |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
