Right and Wrong- Andrew Hardy

In 1795 Immanuel Kant summed up his thoughts on ethics, morals and the moral imperative in a quote "In law a man is guilty when he violates the rights of others. In ethics he is guilty if he only thinks of doing so." Over two hundred years ago we solved good and evil. Except that solved diddly-squat. The "rights" of man are a loose definition. Even if reduced to life and liberty, you have a conundrum. Every action I participate in involves resources or products that have been obtained in part through violent foreign wars or slave labour. While not direct murder, my continued existence harms other humans. Now one arrives at the mistaken belief that the only option is suicide, either philosophical or physical. Physical suicide not only deprives you of both life and liberty, but destroys much of the life around you and can cause unforeseen consequences. The same can be argued for abandoning civilization or refusing to discuss morals. There's no conceivable way to argue those will never cause suffering or loss of rights.  Whether from this thought process or others, many of us (blog writers and humans) arrived at the same conclusion. Value judgments are subjective. But that dismissal is the same philosophical suicide. The position I've come to adopt is an absurdest one. Value judgements-inconceivable to those who don't hold them- should not be dismissed but examined, for examinations sake. The absence of morals in life should not bring fear, but delight at the challenge of pushing onward, like Sisyphus on his perpetual quest.


(Thanks Camus)