The concepts of right and wrong, and good and evil, in a universal sense, are irrational and valueless and even damaging to the society. Logical concepts are based upon a series of verifiable premises which, when are placed side side, create an argument leading to a conclusion via the rules of logic. In order for a concept to have logical clarity, the accuracy of the premises or the validity of the argument may be disputed, but these essentials of logic structure must be present. Traditional moral concepts fail in this regard.
Universal morality is not grounded in verifiable facts, but in faith. Its apologists claim factual basis as evidenced by overwhelming mutual agreement. "We all sense morality, thus, it must exist." But can mutual sensation evidence fact? Des Cartes correctly argued, "I think, therefore i am." Though Des Cartes' example may demonstrate that sensation can evidence fact, it is the certainty founded in self-sensation that compels his argument. This certainty is lost in the mutuality of a group. For instance, " We think, therefore we are", relies upon faith in the existence of others. How can one be certain that the thought of existence of others is not a self-manufactured illusion? It is this uncertainty of mutuality that determines any logic validity of a concept of universal morality. Right and wrong in the moral sense relies upon feelings of others that can never be ascertained with confidence.
住戶編號:313077
檢舉原因
心情: 
