As an aside to all this discussion on the notion of the Social Contract which I find quite fascinating, I find it strangely ironic that it is this very same notion of the ideal Social Contract espoused by both Hobbes and Rosseau where they both seem to be in agreement (to a certain extent at least) that the ideal comes in the form of a strong central government chosen by the people that is for all intents and purposes cannot be challenged when set in place. Hobbes suggested that for anarchy to be avoided, this central government had to be close to being supreme and thus, rights to rebellion and similar rights had to be disallowed, an idea revived and put into popularity by Rosseau.
The irony? It's based on this same notion that certain actions now deemed evil could be perpetrated by the state under the justification that it is the will of the government duly elected by the people. Rosseau even mentions (can't remember where in the Social Contract it is, but he mentions it fairly early) that once the strong government is in place, people can pretty much surrender their rights to the exercise of political will. This is of course, all under the assumption that the general population knew what it was doing in the first place. In that sense maybe Shaw was right, people deserve the government they elect.
The main problem with trying to figure out the origins of good and evil, or morality a more proper term, is that no one can really agree if if there's a single, universal truth to the boundaries and classifications of morality. "Man in the state of nature" is at best a hypothetical existence in man's early days formulated by Hobbes and Rosseau, and Nietzsche tried to make sense of it all in his
A Genealogy of Morals. Even though he doesn't exactly take definite sides in his work, it is fairly evident in the writings (which is itself based a lot off of conjectures and deductions, not a lot of it is even based on evidence) that the notion of morality changes. Morality itself is affected and shaped by those in "power" at the time, and can likewise shift again when the position of power changes.
Quote:
|
The way I see it, "goodness" is simply a social construct, something which has meaning because it is people and society who ascribe the meaning to it, not because it is something "innate" in itself. In other words, from what you've said, does that mean you agree with my viewpoint?
|
A social construct it is, but as I stated mostly due to the fact that there really isn't a universally accepted truth to morality. One of the aspects of religion was to put a definitive separation and classification to the entire morality play by stating that "God" has the authority to say what is good and what is evil, and thus define what the innate nature of man is. In a sense, religion was an answer to this eternal question of man as to what defines good and evil.
The only way to have a definite end to the argument is to have said Creator come down from the heavens, tell everyone what's cool and what isn't, and smite with bolts of high-level chain lightning the foolish unbelievers.
Oh wait... sounds very much like Moses and the ten commandments...
Religion, at least I know those of the Abrahamic line, have their own versions on the origin of morality most of which of course are scientifically unverifiable obviously. This in turn is where faith again comes in, which returns itself to the original problem: how can you verify truth without evidence?
(For the record of this thread, I'm a devout Roman Catholic.)