Philosophers and theologians have debated these large questions for centuries. But sometimes it take the littlest of actions to renew the debate. Consider Sin City (AKA, Las Vegas) where the city council is considering a ban on hula hoops. Hula hoops...? In a community where gambling, crime and prostitution are winked at..? Well, yes, because according to councilman Starvos Anthony, "they're blocking tourist traffic, and we need our tourists." Next, consider the British aquarium which has decided their topless mermaid should have a bathing suit, because "she's a little too buxom."
Silly examples, yes, but these and others like them seem to say: Lets get real, folks, moral values are inevitably situational and therefore relative. Even consequential examples -- like lying, stealing, killing -- are inevitably defined by each local culture and its local mores. What's bad to you may be heroic to me, end of silly argument!
If agreed, read no further. If, however, there are still some questions, then consider two of the foundational choices available: (1) Morality that is situational must mean it comes from somewhere within each of us where we are existing (2) Morality that is absolute must mean it comes from somewhere outside of us no matter where we are existing.
Maybe, just maybe, it comes down to Darwin and/or God....!
Today's Darwinian neuro-biologists examine different genes and genetic codes they suggest can explain the natural evolution of each culture's moral values (its sense of good and evil and divinity and death). In contrast, Judaic-Christian-Islamic philosophers examine what they call humanity's god-given, inalienable rights (its sense of good and evil and divinity and death).
One camp says look inward; the other says look upward; the consensus-seeker says lets do both. But adds -- lets do it now at the prime of our lives, rather than waiting so long that our prime is past...
No comments:
Post a Comment