In my previous posts I contemplated on the subjects of morality where I provided a simple definition of morality and explored some issues, like how our morality is crucially tied to the actions we make and how those actions bear meaning themselves as to whether they are considered good or bad.
The basic conclusions that I have arrived are the following:
- Each person has a unique morality.
- A person's morality is pretty much defined by his life experiences.
- The choices of a person in relation to his actions also define his morality.
- Facts/actions bear themselves the designations ''good'' or ''bad''.
Following the logic established in my previous two articles on morality it is pretty easy to assume the following: According to a person's deeds we can make the assertion that a person is good or bad. This is pretty straightforward and my whole argumentation so far was in order to establish this premise as sound.
In this part I would like to stand on one particular notion, that of uniqueness.
Every human being, ever born, is unique. If we examine the physical, biological and the historical contexts it is obvious to see that there never was someone like me or you, or anyone in the past, there is nobody like you expect you in the present and there will also never be one like you in the future. Simply, there is no repetition.
The fact that every one of us is unique has also some serious implications on moral matters and especially legal theory. I will consider two frames of reference, positive law and natural law philosophy and I will explore how uniqueness could be considered under those two contexts. I understand that these subjects themselves are pretty debated as to their exact definitions and my personal interpretation is simply ''human law'' and ''natural law''. I believe that these two are not neccesarily considered antithetical and they also seem to overlap on many cases.
In positive law theory, the actions of the individual are the ultimate designators of his morality. The fact that a person has a unique morality is probably assured but it is not being considered in a judgement call. It is true that in a court case for example, mitigating factors can be considered in relation to a person's morals but these again are based on the actions of the person ( or lack thereof ). The only instance where individual uniqueness seems to be taken into account is that of case law. Thus, in positive law, uniqueness does seem to play an inferior role and everything is ultimately being considered under the light of actions and the meaning they bear.
Under natural law philosophy, the pressuposition is that human beings have inherited rights based on the fact that they are human. Here uniqueness does seem to play a role. Those rights are considered to be endowed by nature or a transcendent source, God. In the natural world, our individuality is indeed assured as there can be no repetition of us under any time, place or any other frame. We are simply unique and this is a basic observation. However, also assuming that we inherit certain rights from nature on the basis that we are simply unique requires explanation. One can assume correctly that we indeed inherit various traits from our ancestors according to the circmustances or the physical enviroment in which they lived, like physical strength, dexterity or appearance, but nothing in the scope of moral values. It is far easier to eastablish a moral obligation towards nature than a right.
Whatever the case... I strongly believe that life is something remarkable and extraordinary! I think we should just appreaciate that and not search for reasons to do so! :)
Thank you for reading!
If you liked this post you can also check out my previous posts on morality It's all -not so- relative, Moral assertions and sense perception.