We live in a purely "human" world. That is to say we are all immersed in levels of cultural understandings, mostly but not completely shared with others of our culltural community. The results are a mix of harmony and disharmony in social relations.
BUT, depending on how "philosophical" we wish to be, ALL of our understandings are PROBLEMATICAL--philosophically not just socially. To the purist philosopher EVERYTHING is subject to question, even our most valuable presuppositions.
What JLN said is true; our morals are always in flux, and whether we wish to presume that it has improved over human life is debatable. We are all biased in our thinking, because of our cultural upbringing.
can we all agree that butt f*cking a swan without leaving a generous gratuity is tacky and low rent?
Quote:
What JLN said is true; our morals are always in flux, and whether we wish to presume that it has improved over human life is debatable. We are all biased in our thinking, because of our cultural upbringing.
Exactly, I believe this could be why we cannot ever agree on a moral code solid enough for universal agreement, due to this constant state of flux.
Yes, universal agreement is problematical because of flux (continuous cultural change) and variation (intra-societal and inter-societal diversity).
