At the end of chapter 2 of Mere Christanity, C.S. Lewis argues that what we think are changing morals are in reality a change in our understanding of factual information.
For this post I'd like you to write about one example of factual information changing our understanding of right and wrong. Then explain how the underlying principle is still correct.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
An example of the change of facts with the continuity of morality is that of the work towards ecological preservation. Lately, it has been said through many media sources that there is a lot being done to help preserve our environment, and as a result many people choose not to do anything to help the process because they assume its being taken care of. While there is truth in saying that much of the ecological work being done is a result of car and factory quality augmentations, this doesn't make it any less necessary for one to do their part in upholding the quality of our environment.
I think a lot of information can help change the moral standard. It's as if you spoke to a murderer and listened to his reasons for murdering; though the act is typically considered amoral, maybe the reasoning behind it was something that you could totally relate with. That would completely change your standard and maybe make you have a different view on what you thought you would be set on always. However, in most cases, that still makes the justification of murder incompetent, and therefor still shunned.
The death sentence would be a decent example of this.
If a criminal is killed for his crime, those who support the death sentence believe this is morally correct.
But if evidence is later found to prove the mans innocence to where he is no longer a criminal, the killing is no longer moral to most of those who supported the sentence.
Of course theres always the few who supported it just cause they support killing but they belong in a different disscussion all together.
Like the example i gave in class about murder. Many people see murder as a absolute wrong, however when the circumstances change our understanding of it changes. If a girl is being raped and kills the her rapist then we no longer see her as a murderer and we no longer see her murdering the man as wrong, even though the underlying principle that murder is wrong is still correct.
The belief in a higher being is something that morality plays a great deal in. In our American society our morals tend to come greatly from the most common Religion here, Christianity. If an American were to say he believes in the Greek gods who live in Olimpia on the top of a mountain people would find it very strange and think you were weird. It can be proven that there is no "gods" on these mountains now. If you were to live in the time Greece rained prosperous though no one would think you were crazy or insane. They would actually believe you were if you believed in only one god such as the Christian God. The belief in a higher being or beings has still not changed, just that some have now turned from Religion to Mythology.
In the Catholic religion, it is very much frowned upon for people to have premarital sex. It is equally frowned upon to use any form of birth control. But when the facts are all taken into consideration, the truth of the matter that remains consistent is that birth control does indeed drastically lower one's chances of becoming pregnant and thus raising a child in, sometimes, not the most ideal of environments or situations. This fact challenges one's perception of right and wrong. Is it wrong to go against your religious beliefs and have premarital sex using birth control? Or is it wrong that a religion condemns such safe sex practices in order to maintain an image of purity that may or may not have been tarnished by worse scandals throughout its history?
One example could be the introduction of evolution into society. At a time, most people believed that we came from God and were created by him, and that he created the world, environment, and everything. Well, since science has evidence of evolution through procedures such as carbon dating, many people shifted their views from "intelligent design" to evolution. Therefore, this created an argument that the religions were morally wrong by the evolutionists, and vice-versa. So while the underlying principle, that God created us all could still be valid, the introduction of the theory of evolution changed many people views on which topic was right or wrong.
A good example would be talking on the phone while driving. It is seen as a bad a distracting thing to do. However in the case of an emergency (wife in labor, death in family, horrible accident) it is perfectly OK to talk on the phone because the conversation is now important. People's morals still stand that talking on the phone while driving is bad. Yet they understand certain desperate situations to make it seem as if there is a change in moral.
The best example would be America’s stance against genocides, which is that we as a nation must put an end to it. But we believe that to be true only when there is “American interest” there. Like the genocide that took place in Darfur, the US didn’t do much to stop it because the ruling party was giving us information on Bin-Laden.
Another case of differentiation in the moral standard is the case concerning cloning. Many people believe that the process of cloning is morally wrong due to religious beliefs and other beliefs. The possibilites of cloning can be extremely beneficial though. They bring the possibility of extending the life of someone.
Post a Comment