It would be so nice if everyone believed in a single moral code with absolute conviction. But is there a logical way to arrive at one? And till we don’t have such a code, is any other not-so-consensual version serving the purpose? Often the discussions regarding people and cultures come down to the problem of indefinability of morality. And when a discussion starts on this problem of defining morality (like this one), one sometimes arrives at a way of doing it which is as objective as it is abstract. Like in one such session with my brother, we had to check the validity of the following algorithm to decide if an act was moral or immoral.
If, when practiced widely, teleologically with the purpose mentioned ahead and over a period of time, it will lead to our species living longer and fuller, it is moral; shorter and emptier, it is immoral.
This passed a few tests, two very like minded people subject it to.
“Raping-a-cow test” however, did confuse us.
I also read another discussion in Shantaram by Gregory David Roberts, which ended in a similar (slightly more abstract) conclusion: Whatever increases the complexity of the universe is moral and whatever reverses the process of it becoming complex is immoral.
Such conclusions score pretty low on the pragmatical front though (in my opinion).
Anyway, I am writing this to get to know more opinions, or the degree of agreement of readers, with reasons. I am pretty new at blogging and I have adopted a pretty quixotic model to go about it, which restricts me from sharing this on Facebook or other platforms. Since you are already here, you might help me with that as well if you decide to comment with your take on this matter. Please do include your answers to the opening questions:
“..is there a logical way to arrive at one? And until we have one such code, is any other not-so-consensual version serving the purpose?”