Quote:
Originally Posted by mkess101
Absolutely. But my argument is that there must be some absolute line of morality. 14? How about 6? How about a 3 year old? Plenty of regions disagree on specifically where (since I started out using the pedophelia example, I'll just continue on with it) the line should be drawn, but a line must be drawn somewhere. 18 vs. 14 is one thing, but how far beyond that until you've become an abomination? There must be a line somewhere. Society will always debate where the line will be, but arguing against the existence of a solid right/wrong (or "good" or "evil") line seems less than human to me.
I guess my argument would be that certain societies may differ on the specifics of morality, (and some of the difference may and do seem huge) but there must at least be a baseline minimum. People can argue where it comes from (god, a unique human internal moral compass, whatever) but I refuse to believe it does not exist.
|
Going back to the post about the professor arguing you can't prove that the chair exists, the fact you believe it does should be enough for you.
If you want to draw the line though, why not just make it at anything which goes against nature. For example, it may be morally wrong to have sex with a minor; but it is evil, no matter the society, to have sex with one that has yet to hit puberty. Another example would be murder in any case other than survival. Even with that argument though you have to account for societies which allowed pedophilia. Were they inherently evil societies? Evil is too relative to be anything other than a construct of the human mind.