Is it a universal absolute standard or a cultural relative?
Can the Noble One be good in one culture and bad in another? What is his standard of good vs. bad? Can culture be true or is it relative to the local group? Is a right action in one group a right action in another group (absolute) or not (relative)
Is it possible for an Empirical Realist to propose an absolute universal standard of good? If so, this could/would lead to Utopia. Is there a foundation for this in an Empirical Realist worldview?
I would argue yes. There is a foundation for an absolute standard, as well as Utopia.
The traditional view of right vs. wrong is tied up in “sin,” “karma” and other cultural backgrounds. For this reason I, in a previous post, defined sin as the act of inflicting pain on the heart of another (and thus damaging human relationships).
This, I put forth as the absolute standard of right and wrong. Daniel asked, if someone driving down the road hits and kills a child who runs into the road would there be a sin/crime. The definition of crime and sin would be synonymous in this utopia. We have had a tendency to divert accusation from ourselves ever since Adam blamed Eve for the Apple episode – she, of course naturally blamed the snake who was left holding the proverbial bag. I digress.
The answer is, yes a sin/crime was committed. The driver was not at fault. (“Intent is 9/10ths of the law” I think, is a cop out for avoiding due diligence, but it doesn’t actually apply here.) As painful as it may be, the child committed the sin/crime (ignorance is no excuse – heard that before right?). Because the child was responsible, but cannot be held responsible, the parent/guardian who allowed the child the freedom to run into the street would bear the burden of guilt – twice, as they lost their child and caused harm to the driver. Remember, in an Empirical Realist world nature is sometimes harsh, but ultimately fair.
I believe it is only by using this standard of sin/crime that we can hold universal actions such as murder, theft, slavery, child abuse, etc as wrong regardless of the time, place or culture.
You may ask, doesn’t this set up a situation where punishment would be harsher in one location vs. another? Yes it may, but the purpose of punishment is not revenge (that would be a sin/crime) but equitable release from the pain inflicted to the heart (human relationships).
On this basis we could extrapolate all law, from running a red light to killing whales and polluting the environment. The judgment level higher or lower based on the level of harm done.
So, is there a "victimless" crime - maybe like drug abuse? No there is never a victimless crime. This is because, by the definition of crime being any pain you inflict on another must be compensated for, did you hurt someone? Father, mother,husbund, wife, children, etc? Others are always involved in "my" actions.
How would this change the face of culture? What is culture but how I (by extension - my society) view myself and the method by which I relate to you, up to how we relate to each other as a group and other groups to each other?
Based on this theory of sin/crime, culture would become an expression (method and tools used) for how I exalt and be mindful of your heart (feelings); the method of how we uplift and are mindful of one another’s heart and the method and tools our group uses to uplift and be mindful of other groups.
This could not possibly ever result in boredom. We would be raised to always be mindful of the needs of others when pursuing our own. For example, imagine if concepts like those put forth in the movie "Pay It Forward" took root in normal society?
Could this work?
No comments:
Post a Comment