Quote:
|
No, the term 'require' is rooted in logic -- in philosophical conversations, it amounts to "it must" -- since I know people employ notions (vague impressions) when considering what's what, I know they lack something as concrete as a code. If humans had codes and followed through with them, then their behavior would be more orderly and less flaky.
|
My point is that everyone must be able to judge what is good or bad for them in order to live. They cannot avoid this judgement. Reality, is what it is. If someone fails in regards to judgment, reality will not care.
Not everyone is successful at rationally integrating reason to support their ethical choices. You think that because people fail at reasoning that this renders reason and ethics impotent or non-existent? Most people do not use reason as the standard to support ethics. They do however, abide by a code of ethics non the less. Most religious people have accepted a code of morality by means of faith.
What does it mean to have a code in regard to ethics. This means to have a systematic and hierarchical method of thinking which one can and must apply in order to live. A person's life is the ultimate standard in this respect.
Let's take a non intellectual person which you think has no code of values if I understand you correctly. He is not religious? He is not non-religious. He does not want to use reason to identify why he should or should not act. What is left for such a person? Do you believe it is possible to exist without morality? Someone who lacks rational ethics, still has a code of values. A code of values does not have to be rationally developed to still be considered a code.