Moral universalism

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - Cite This Source

Moral universalism (or universal morality) is the meta-ethical position that some system of ethics, or a universal ethic, applies universally, that is to all people regardless of culture, race, sex, religion, nationality, sexuality, or other distinguishing feature. The source or justification of this system may be thought to be, for instance, human nature, shared vulnerability to suffering, the demands of universal reason, what is common among existing moral codes, or the common mandates of religion (although it can be said that the latter is not in fact moral universalism because it may distinguish between Gods and mortals). It is the opposing position to various forms of moral relativism.

History

An enormous range of traditions and thinkers have supported one form or another of moral universalism, from the ancient Platonists and Stoics, through Christians and Muslims, to modern Kantian, Objectivist, natural rights, human rights and utilitarian thinkers. The UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an example of moral universalism in practice.

Universal ethics

A universal ethic is an ethic that applies universally to humanity. It thus transcends culture and personal whim. The criteria for a universal ethic are that it is universal to humanity, it comprehensively applies to all acts, its content is non-arbitrary, and it is logically consistent. Ethical philosophers have examined “natural moral law” to discover or deduce a universal ethic. They have included John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and Ayn Rand. The formulation of the universal ethic by Fred E. Foldvary in The Soul of Liberty includes three rules:

Acts which are welcomed benefits are good.
Acts which coercively harm others are evil.
All other acts are neutral.

Moral or natural rights are a correlative of an ethic. The universal ethic therefore determines natural rights. A moral right to do X means that the negation of that act is morally wrong. For example, the right to own property means that it is morally evil for others to forcibly take that property. The characteristics of the universal ethic depends upon the wishes of the group of people to whom it applies. To continue the previous example, if the accepted universal ethic states that the ownership of private property unjustly deprives others the right to use that property, then owning property is morally wrong.

A society has liberty when its mandates conform to and enforce the universal ethic accepted by its citizens.

One who practices the universal ethic would not do anything that harms himself or others, however they would take the necessary steps to protect others from harm. Likewise, they are tolerant of others beliefs, sexual orientation, race, etc., so long as they cause no harm to others, and they would expect the same in return. Additionally, they would seek out acts that benefit humanity and would call those acts good.

A universal ethic society has complete liberty or freedom if its laws prohibit and punish evil as prescribed by the universal ethic, and if any act which is good or neutral is allowed but not required. The u.e. also tells us what our human or natural rights are: we have the right to do anything that does not coercively harm others, and the right to be free from coercive harm.

The universal ethic prescribes that we have a property right to our own bodies and lives, since if some control others, this violates the premise of equality and becomes an invasion. This self-ownership right implies a property right to our labor and the products of our labor. But self-ownership does not extend to what labor does not produce: natural resources. The premise of equality implies that all persons have an equal property right to the benefits of nature other than our own bodies.

Principle of Universality

One of the, maybe the most, elementary of moral principles is that of universality, that is, If something's right for me, it's right for you; if it's wrong for you, it's wrong for me. Any moral code that is even worth looking at has that at its core somehow.

Noam Chomsky states that

... if we adopt the principle of universality : if an action is right (or wrong) for others, it is right (or wrong) for us. Those who do not rise to the minimal moral level of applying to themselves the standards they apply to others -- more stringent ones, in fact -- plainly cannot be taken seriously when they speak of appropriateness of response; or of right and wrong, good and evil.

In fact, one of the, maybe the most, elementary of moral principles is that of universality, that is, If something's right for me, it's right for you; if it's wrong for you, it's wrong for me. Any moral code that is even worth looking at has that at its core somehow. But that principle is overwhelmingly disregarded all the time. If you want to run through examples we can easily do it. Take, say, George W. Bush, since he happens to be president. If you apply the standards that we applied to Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg, he'd be hanged. Is it an even conceivable possibility? It's not even discussable. Because we don't apply to ourselves the principles we apply to others. There's a lot of talk about 'terror' and how awful it is. Whose terror? Our terror against them? I mean, is that considered reprehensible? No, it's considered highly moral; it's considered self-defense. Now, their terror against us, that's awful, and terrible. But, to try to rise to the level of becoming a minimal moral agent, and just entering into the domain of moral discourse is very difficult. Because that means accepting the principle of universality. And you can experiment for yourself and see how often that's accepted, either in personal or political life. Very rarely.

References

External links