It is one of the most important questions of philosophy whether a universal moral law will be mentioned for everyone. The philosophers brought various perspectives to this question, which was evaluated under the title of ethics. Many important names have written serious texts on this issue. Let’s look at the subject of those who accept and reject the universal moral law in order to examine the evaluations of philosophers more closely.
Universal Ethics Law Problem
When we look at the origin of religions, we face the existence of the doctrine of the universal moral law.
Even in the ages where systematic philosophy has not yet been mentioned, the moral law has become an important subject of ancient texts and cultures. In a wide area from Far East to Egypt, morality is considered as a fundamental problem.
When we look at the origin of religions, we face the existence of the doctrine of the universal moral law. Almost all religions acknowledge that a universal law of morality is necessarily exist because they claim to appeal to all humanity. This means to accept the existence of moral rules that apply to everyone in every age.
In philosophical thought, a universal moral law, like everything else, has been evaluated open to discussion. Accordingly, some philosophers accept the universal moral law, while others reject them.
Those who accept the universal moral law
Since the first names of philosophy, many names that have accepted the existence of the universal moral law. Evaluating these names with the teachings they are affiliated with will be useful to better understand the subject. So let’s see who can talk about a universal moral law from the very beginning!
Socrates
Socrates
In philosophy, most issues turn around and are based on Socrates. This important philosopher stands out in his moral teachings as well as other teachings. Socrates, above all, argued that the purpose of moral action was happiness. According to him, the ultimate reason for moral action is to reach happiness. The source of this action is knowledge. The view that knowledgeable person is also a virtuous person is a summary of Socrates’s fundamental moral view.
The philosopher argued that no one would do evil intentionally, and that evil and ignorance are the same. The main concept of morality is good, a part that serves a certain purpose that emerges with knowledge, that is, happiness. According to this view, no one will willingly escape the good, but evil is revealed because he escapes from what he does not know.
Again, according to Socrates, the person cannot be moral by acting according to the situation. Moral rules are not the rules that vary according to conditions. It is possible to talk about a universal law of morality that one should follow anytime and anywhere. This moral law can only be achieved through reason and knowledge.
Plato
Plato
According to Plato, the universe is fundamentally divided into two as “shadows” and ideals. Objective beings that are subject to the change of course are shadows and do not have a genuine being. These assets do not have any permanent assets. This is actually the good ideal when we talk about good about the field of shadows, which are copies of ideals.
The good ideal is a universal value because it is in a position above objective beings. Therefore, the existence of a universal moral law can be mentioned. On the other hand, it only takes place through reason that it reaches or grasps this universal moral law. The mind may know what does not comply with the good ideal of what is, so that moral action can be revealed.
Farabi
Farabi
According to Farabi, who has been seriously influenced by Aristotle and Plato philosophy, there are two kinds of beings. The first is the compulsory being, which is the cause of its own. This being takes the name of God in religions. The second is all possible beings that the compulsory being has. The source of the good is the active mind caused by the compulsory Being. Possible assets ultimately reach the good of their interaction with active mind.
Since the source of the good is a partner in these explanations, it is also possible to talk about the existence of a universal law of morality. All people have the opportunity to reach the good by interacting with active mind. This interaction is through reason. Ultimately, the mind is the one who can decide that an action is good or bad.
Spinoza
Spinoza
For Spinoza, a pantheist philosopher, God and the universe are identical. God is inherent in the universe and is the essence of the universe. This leads to the existence of universal principles in many things. Because divine power is everywhere and dominates everywhere.
People who ignore the moral law because of their passions will be able to access the commandments of the universal moral law as they eat their passions.
Kant
Kant
It can be said that we owe even the concept of universal morality law to Kant. According to Kant, one of the greatest names of moral philosophy, the existence of a universal moral law can be mentioned. So much so that even on the tombstone of the philosopher, he writes a word in the sense of “starry sky on me and the law of morality in me”.
The philosopher, who seeks the commandments of morality on a conscientious basis and therefore in human nature, speaks of the existence of a law of morality for everyone. According to him, regardless of the circumstances, human nature grinds the right thing. Again, this explanation is a directly related explanation of the human mind. Because behind the behaviors, the action itself is supported by the power of reason.
Those who reject the universal moral law
There are many thinkers who do not accept the existence of a universal law of morality. The most basic features of these are the claim that moral action depends on the conditions. Accordingly, it can be said that the following philosophers reject a universal law of morality:
Epicuro’s sped Sartre
These names are some of the philosophers who have produced serious arguments that they cannot be a universal moral law.
Epikuros
Epikuros
Epicuros rejected the existence of a universal law in parallel with his views, as he was an important representative of the Hazist understanding. According to him, the purpose of the action is pleasure and a universal moral law cannot be mentioned as the pleasure will vary from person to person.
Proudhon
Proudhon
Proudhon is the most important name of anarchism. Essentially, morality is a set of rules that prevent human freedom. For Proudhon, who sees morality as an obstacle to reach freedom, it is valid for everyone and the moral law that must be followed cannot be mentioned.
Friedrich Nietzsche
Nietzsche
F. Nietzsche is one of the philosophers who reject the universal law of morality. It can even be said that Nietzsche is the most famous enemy of classical Christian morality. The morality, which prevents human development and transforms it into something it is not, deserves to be completely destroyed. The laws of morality that dull, passive, weaken motives are the rules that need to be destroyed.
Jean-Paul Sartre
Sartre
J. P Sartre is a philosopher who is considered the most important representative of existentialism and approaches in this relationship on the moral law. According to Sartre, man is an entity that builds his own existence with his own actions and choices. Moral laws, on the other hand, involve an imposition of self.
It is unacceptable for man to adopt the values of others like their own values. The person who is completely free in his choices and therefore in his responsibilities is rebuilding himself at any moment. In this process, universal or love laws that will guide him cannot be mentioned.
Opinions that say universal morality law is not possible
Famous philosophers such as Nietzsche and P. Sartre state that there will be no universal morality. As we mentioned before in our article, they argued that morality depends on some conditions. It is not appropriate for human beings to carry out an action without pleasure or to accept the wishes of another as their own wishes. Let us examine the philosophical currents that reject this understanding.
Hedonizm
The thought that lies at the basis of hedonism is that life consists of pleasures, and the life of man passes after them. In this thought, which is also known as pleasure, it is very important to escape from pain. It is not possible to talk about a general morality because of the belief of hedonism, which differs from person to person. Because the pleasure from an action is also individual.
Selfishness
Egoism is one of the important ideas that do not see the Universal Ethics Law.
In Egoism, he believes that people behave according to this priority in the face of events by taking their own interests in the first place. Since people behave around the “I” center, it will not be possible to adapt to a general concept of morality. People’s desires and tendencies are constantly focused on request. It will create an individual morality, as it will always want more for itself.
Anarchism
In philosophy, anarchism is considered as questioning the existence of the state and defining its damages. It is suggested that the state maintains the right of certain social classes and has various expenses for its own interests. In addition, anarchism is divided into certain headings. The individualist anarchism, which is among them, goes beyond all the rules and believes that property is in the hands of the individual. In this case, it will not be possible to talk about universal compliance.
Opinions that say universal morality law is possible
Great thinkers, such as Socrates and Plato, advocate that a universal law of morality is possible and the necessity. According to those who have this view, people have to follow certain rules if they want to live together. At this point, the concept of “good ve and is considered a superior need.
Subjective opinion
According to the subjectivist view, the concept of identity is a phenomenon that can manage to remain the same by not changing much. The main purpose of saying this is to state that man can distinguish the good and evil at a basic level and behave in accordance with the rules. At the same time, the subjective view also conveys that it can adapt to its identity and the rules of social morality.
Utilitarian morality
It is argued that the most useful decisions for the maximum number of people in the utilitarian moral understanding can be applied. It is believed that each individual deserves, and the rules that will provide the greatest benefit are created. For this view, it is possible to establish a universal moral law.
Intuitive morality
According to the intuitive moral understanding, the law of universal morality is possible.
The basis of the thought in the intuitive morality understanding is that morality is grasped through intuition. Accordingly, it was decided that moral values are universally binding. It is also believed that all people will comply with the right and necessary social principles by making inferences in the face of events.
Objectivist opinion
When you examine moral objectivity from a philosophical point of view, you can see that the truth must be objective. According to the objective view, moral responsibilities are the rules that transcend people and must be obliged. For this reason, it contains the universal.
The universal moral law is influenced by many philosophical views. It is believed to be possible for some thinkers, but it is impossible for some. Those who think positively say that the rules of morality often transcend people and the good is common for everyone. Those who say that it will not be possible, put the basis of their personal pleasure thoughts. They refer to the impossibility of the universal moral law by reference to egoism and anarchism.
Frequently asked questions
[toggle title=”Ödev Ahlakı Nedir? ” state=”close”]The importance of the purpose is reviewed before any behavior is performed. At this point, intent wants to do good for him and for himself. The concept of good good is the situation that is in accordance with the law. This thought belonging to Kant is called homework ethics and also as well as goodwill ethics. [/toggle]
[toggle title=”Farabi’nin Sudûr Teorisi Nedir? ” state=”close”]According to Farabi, it is unthinkable that Allah will realize a creation in the sense of meeting a need. Since Allah could not have acquired the world as a purpose, the realm overflowed from him because of some kind of necessity. Sudûr and Feyezan expressions are also used for overflowing action. [/toggle]
[toggle title=”Altın Oran Nedir? ” state=”close”]According to Aristotle, it is necessary to have the ability to make moral decisions. Since it will not be possible to be based on a scientific basis of moral behaviors, there is no general formula in accordance with the events. He did not specify a name for this view of Aristotle. However, among the philosophers, it is called “Golden Ratio .. [/toggle]
Bir yanıt bırakın