Today in class a point was brought up that I had not thought about much before. This was that in this world, for every view one person has, there is someone who has the complete opposite view. So for example, one person might believe that it is within their right to beat animals, and there are most definitely others who believe that this is one of the most horrible things anyone can ever do. There are those who think everyone should learn another language to communicate with the others on this planet effectively, and then there are those who believe we only need to learn the language we were born into. And there are those who believe killing of others can be justified and those who believe it is never morally justifiable. But, as raised in class, which moral or ethical opinions are correct? How do people determine which opinion is correct when they have so many to choose from? How are cultural opinions even determined anyways? Do the majority of people just think in such a way and eventually it is thought of as correct, or is there one authority that determines what is right?
This is all extremely confusing to me. I suppose I just came to the realization today that there are so many views I have assumed and beliefs I have adopted and I am not sure why I have. Have I neglected to see the truth? Are some of the opinions our world has universally adopted such as "killing is wrong" incorrect? I suppose I am just driving myself crazy in a philosophical circle of questions. But, I mentioned before how I have a love of history. Looking back over the years and observing what people did, how they reacted, and how they judge others can be very intriguing if one thinks of the "what ifs". What if the Holocaust never happened? What if our nature was different? What if we never evolved beyond being "cavemen"? It seems I am just questioning history, though there does not seem to be much need for it, for what has happened is over now. There might be a need to examine our lives, but in the spirit of opposite opinions, it might also be pointless to do so!
How do people determine which opinion is correct when they have so many to choose from?
ReplyDeleteThe discussion of which moral beleifs are right and wrong is a very hard one for me, but nonetheless one that i am very intrigued by. Personally, i beleive that their is a set of moral truths that run universal throughout the spectrum of human life and it is based, as we said in class, in the level of suffering. for, example, the killing of a human is more morally wrong than killing a tree. This is something that traverses the cultural boundaries of bias and opinion because no matter where you are, you can't deny that a human suffers more than a tree. Despite this, there still remains a greyish area of in betweeness where the cultural backrounds of a person can seemingly disrupt a universal code of moral truths. for example, the cow is sacred in India, yet the cow is slaughtered in America. In this situation neither Americans nor Indians are more right than the other in what they choose to do with their cows and it may appear that a moral truth is in the eye of the beholder, not universal.
i beleive depite such cultural opinions the moral truth still remains that moral value coincides with suffering.
with that said, no matter where you go all cows suffer at the same level and as a result their moral value remains the same, but as a culture it is decided whether it is worth it too kill despite the moral value. Indians beleive no, American's beleive yes, neither is right or wrong.
in the end their is no correct opinion, only a respect for moral value and an individualistic decision to made. you can be a vegetarian or a meatlover, neither is more right than the other.
if humans made an exact list of moral truths to abide by, would it be ok to go against those truths in order to survive?
if one human has a tendency to suffer more, say they cry everyday and are very emotional, do they have more moral value than a human who rarely cries and is stable minded?