Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
I don't think values compete. I think values are determined by instinct. And I think instinctually we all have the same values. However, sometimes people confuse values with other instincts. As an example homosexuality. I think people's hatred of homosexuality is based more from fear than from instinctual values. The people are just confusing the two.
When someone says that how can you critisize two people who love eachother entering into a permanent committed loving relationship? That is not an appeal to logic or rational. That is an appeal to someone instinct of values.
When people condemn homosexuality I think that condemnation is based on fear and prejudice and not from value based instincts. But I think deep down all people understand that it two people love eachother and want to commit to eachother there is nothing wrong with that.
Societies debate of the our legal code, is an attempt to figure out which laws are based on other things as opposed to our internal sense of right and wrong.
|
Of course values compete. Let's look at a much simler example than sexual indentity.
Presumably, we would be hard pressed to find someone who didn't agree that it is generally wrong to kill someone. Penske argued that killing is wrong in an absolute sense. And yet, both you and he are on record as supporting the war in Iraq.
How can killing be an absolute wrong when killing in war is acceptable? There are numerous other examples: self-defense, defense of others, abortion to save the life of the mother (or, conversely, prohibiting abortion to save the life of hte mother).
Does a universal moral code say that it is wrong to kill? How can the code deal with this simple paradox?
