So, today I got into a discussion with a classmate about weather or not there is an Absolute Morality. Mind you, I'm not necessarily talking about God, I'm a little lukewarm on the subject myself, just the concept that there are certain social mores that are more or less present in all cultures and all times. He was of the opinion that anything can be justified, a position I find apalling. That implies that Joseph Stalin, Phol Pot or a thousand other despots are in the clear simply because their actions were "justified." Just because they felt they had justification, does that mean their justification still holds, or was ever even valid to begin with? Justification to youself does not imply that it holds up under a more objective light. It was a difficult position for me to defend, because as little as two years ago I argued long and hard for this point of view, and was not sure how to go about the whole thing. Part of this blog is to marshall my thought for when I see him again Friday. I think that are just certain standards of behavior that run through the gamut of human culture. I hesitate to actually write down what they might be, because they're so base and integral to us, that if you got as specific as words, the definition wouldn't apply across the board, but to make my argument sound, I'll have to at least try. I'm speaking of things like loyalty, feeling loved by your family, feeling safe in your community, a sense of accomplishment, people respecting each other, whatever form that respect takes, just being decent and honest with one another. I feel things like this exist because if you look at ancient texts, the Bible, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Confuscious, Buddha, and many many others, you find the same, or at least similar themes running through them all. These writings evolved, sometimes seperatly other times jointly, but these core values, if you will, remained essentially the same. Also, if you believe that anything can be justified, then there is no point to having any kind of system of laws or puishments for crimes. The laws and punishments are just as arbitrary as the crime, and as long as you can justify things, then there is no fault. Society would devolve into a might makes right type system where the strong would rule weak, because they were the best at "justifying" their actions. Machiavellian tactics may get you ahead in business and life, but they don't make you ethically right. Niccolo Machiavelli even says in The Prince, I think, that to employ these tactics you must be indifferent to moral considerations. That's the key to things: Moral Considerations. Or Ethics, if you prefer the term, I find no difference in them. Legal justification is probably too easy to come by in this counrty, but legal justification does not imply moral/ethical justification.

Well, I think I've prattled on enough about this. I know this a cheap way to close things, but this is my space, not yours, so bug off.