2006-11-08 01:07:08 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Of course there are. Let me explain. There are moral rules that are clearly a matter of convention – normative rules that are given significant emotional weight so as to cause aversion in those who break them and therefore to guarantee that the rules are not violated. These moral rules might have begun life as nothing more than a good idea, like “you know it might be a good idea if we stop taking stuff from behind each others back” which later became the moral rule “you should not steal”. So that is a kind of a rule that can transcend time – for you can easily imagine a different organisation of society in which stealing is considered absolutely fine. But consider hitting others for example: we – and our ancestors – have an inbuilt mechanism that inhibits aggression in us when some one else displays submission cues, or distress. The point of this is that there is a basic mechanism that guarantees we do not attack someone who submits to us. Of course this very basic process is then rationalised – after all you can give many reasons why it is wrong to hit people, but ultimately the aversion against hitting others is secondary to this very basic process. So not hitting others does transcend time. Incidentally, psychopaths lack this mechanism and that partially explains why they have no guilt or remorse when they do injure other people.
2006-11-08 01:32:16 · answer #1 · answered by ? 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. Nothing can transcend time. Time is defined by change. If there was absolutely no change, there would be timelessness.
Hence even morals must change after appropriate lapse of time. There can be no absolute moral that can transcend time.
2006-11-08 09:22:15 · answer #2 · answered by small 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Through all of human existence and continuing forward throughout time this is what is true: All actions have either positive or negative results. In terms of the person that acts their actions create changes in their soul that have the effect of either bringing their soul closer or further away from God.
2006-11-08 09:44:22 · answer #3 · answered by b_steeley 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
compulsory genital mutilation is hard to defend.
killing people is easy to justify, in comparison.
2006-11-08 09:11:35 · answer #4 · answered by -.- 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Killing will never be smiled upon, and neither will violence.
2006-11-08 09:13:36 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋