• The New Publius
    1
    Brilliant minds have perched themselves in an ivory tower sifting through the various moral frame works, of the past centuries. These minds utilized a medley of different sources in search of an objective moral law for humankind. Sadly, none have succeeded, and some minds are still caught in meta-ethics twisting a web searching for the boarders of moral reasoning. To save my fellow brethren from the never-ending toil I would like to suggest that a Moral Law is a fait accompli (a fact on the ground).

    (Definitions) A moral law is a measurement of what is good and what is evil. A fait accompli is a political term that is an established fact. An example of a fait accompli would be the Russian invasion of Crimea. Although, technically, Crimea was stolen and is still claimed by Ukraine the Russians have it. No, amount of rhetoric, or sanctions will not change the fact on the ground that Russian soldiers are guarding Crimea’s boarders. The fact on the ground is that people submit to Russian laws. The fact on the ground is that Russia is taking Crimea’s resources. This is the definition of a fait accompli. Now I will contend that a Moral Law is a fait accompli by observing the facts on the ground. There are three fact on the ground first people claim they have been wronged, second political systems are in place to punish behavior, and third people claim that these political systems are wrong.

    (People claim they have been wronged) This one is self-explanatory and observed in human behavior. Ever since youth people claim “This man has stolen from me! I have been wronged!” This is a fact! No matter how hard you argue, you must wrestle with this fait accompli; people claimed wrongs have been committed. Obviously, I have no need for further explanation. People have a deep groaning, inside of them, that seek to rectify the wrongs done to them. These claims are so prevalent, in fact, that governments have put in systems to deal with conflicts amongst the people

    (Political systems are in place to punish behavior) First, governments have manufactured limits upon civilians to deter undesirable behavior. Theses limits are called laws. Next governments have established institutions that enforce the laws. Law enforcement is the scaffolding of the police. Lastly, governments establish institutions that interpret whether a law has been broken. These are known as the courts. These three institutions are organized in many ways (depending upon the country). My favorite way that a government is organized is separated into 3 branches defending against corruption. However, the best way to organize these intuitions is still highly debated. I am in favor of a corruption less system, while others may value a speedy system. Arguments can be made for either system (and there are other ways to organize these institutions) but, as it stands, political systems exist to punish undesirable behavior. This transitions us to my final point, society’s disagreement about how the political system should be organized.

    (People claim that these political systems are wrong) While some show there displeasure in others actions it would then, stand to reason, that society would be displeased with the governments execution of a political system. Simply, society disagrees with the current political systems. They say "I am being wronged by the political system. The very system designed to defend the moral law has become amoral" There is really no need to explain further.

    (Conclusion) If these three facts exist than a Moral Law must exist. Philosophers can try to explain these 3 facts away with powerful rhetoric but the fact on the ground (fait accompli) is that people claim they have been wronged, political systems intend to punish behavior, and people claim that these political systems are amoral. Imagine a man with pain in his arm. A sensible doctor may seek the causes of the injured arm. An irrational doctor would try and convince his patient that the arm is uninjured. An outside observe would argue, to the doctor, that the injury is a fait accompli because the owner of the arm has claimed it hurts. In the same way philosophers cannot convince a physically abused woman that no wrong has been committed. Therefore, a Moral Law is a fait accompli (a fact on the ground). Therefore, (since a Moral Law is self evident) let us close the debate. Instead of arguing about a Moral Law let us try to discern what the absolute Moral Law is.

    Regards,

    The New Publius
  • Mww
    4.8k


    So.....where do we start, in trying to discern what such law is?
  • khaled
    3.5k
    people claim they have been wronged, political systems intend to punish behavior, and people claim that these political systems are amoralThe New Publius

    Does not lead to:

    a Moral Law must existThe New Publius

    And I don't see how it has much to do with it.

    What is a fait accompli here is that people feel that they have been wronged and have some sense of justice. That's it.
  • Jack Cummins
    5.3k

    I do not see why you believe that we need to find a new specific moral law. We have had systems of rules in the past ranging from the Ten Commandments, the golden rule of Christianity and Kant's categorical imperative.

    The difficulty with laws including the legal ones is that principles exist, but the application is so much more complicated. If there was a specific formula for morals do you not think that it would have been discovered by now? But it would be interesting if someone could propose a new way of thinking about morality entirely.

    But without a new moral law being discovered this does not mean that ethics is not an area for exploration. Perhaps it is more about fine tuning previous thinking with specific focus on the dilemmas of our times.
  • Mww
    4.8k
    Drive-by thread posting. Gotta love ‘em, huh?

    Fine....I’ll say it: moral law never was, nor could ever be, fait accompli. The notion of moral law stands as a valid object of pure practical reason, but any proof of its universality and absolute necessity.....which in principle are the conditions of any law.....is impossible. Calling it a law doesn’t make it one.
  • Outlander
    2.1k
    I am in favor of a corruption less system, while others may value a speedy system. Arguments can be made for either systemThe New Publius

    One argument supersedes any of the opposing arguments for either and that argument is that the former is simply not possible. Though I think you mean what should be given priority in reduction (corruption/miscarriages of justice vs. extremely long wait times) as opposed to what should be reached absolutely. Am I correct?

    Instead of arguing about a Moral Law let us try to discern what the absolute Moral Law is.The New Publius

    This should be fun lol. What is absolute? Something that doesn't change regardless of circumstance or viewpoint ie. something incorruptible and not subject to relativity. Morality meaning virtues or ideals widely accepted as positive and conducive to an enjoyable and pleasant society. Law meaning established rules and codes, typically with punitive measures that are enacted upon an individual deemed guilty of breaking one or more.

    However, the idea of an "absolute Moral Law" is curious, to myself at least. It attempts to cast something often argued as subjective (Morality) as something that can be absolute, and so codified as Law. Which I think is not only possible but has been done with at least the majority of relevant persons being in agreement. The Golden Rule, as it were. Do unto others as you would have done unto you. We, emotionally, mentally, and biologically don't want to be killed, injured, or stolen from. So this is one potential example for your consideration. Of course, some take this even further. No one wants to be horrendously and brutally insulted or degraded in an extremely loud, rude and savage manner. So, someone doing so can be charged with "disturbing the peace". Though people do argue this is a violation of the concept of free speech, the individual pursuit of happiness (as defined by the individual), and perhaps even the concept of Freedom itself, specifically a free and open society. There's room for argument in either direction I suppose.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.