Quote:
Originally Posted by v1k1ng1001
Actually I think this is one of the outstanding meta-ethical questions.
Why or how is one morally obligated to observe moral obligation in the first place?
|
Okay, I give.
Mods? Uh... would it be possible to remove the "silliness" tag from this thread?
So, to join in with the spirit, which I am apparently helpless to oppose:
The key is society. There is literally no one on these threads who can say that they would be here without society... we depend on it, and it depends on us.
I say ethics do not exist on the individual level... they exist on the societal level, and we apply them to ourselves depending on how we see ourselves in society.
Is the state of ethics, then, tied into the state of society? Does an ambiguity of ethics indicate a collapsing society? Or is it a temporary state, more indicative of a societal "deep breath," pausing to re-evaluate itself, and considering whether it needs to unravel the Twizzlers and re-tie them in new and interesting ways?
When people admit to having "their own set of ethics," are they in essence declaring themselves as apart from society (a specious statement, at best, unless you really intend to just wander naked into the woods and live off of nuts and berries)? Are they stating that society is bankrupt to them, and undeserving of their effort on its behalf?
If so: What did society do to deserve their brush-off?