"Why should you shove in first?"- "How would you like it if someone did the same to you?"- "Come on, you promised."- "Give me some of your candy, I gave you some of mine." This is common to every ear as well as every mouth. What is uncommon is that this simple quarrelling can be a clue to the meaning of our existance. The accuser seems to be appealing to, or measuring by, a standard of behavior that (s)he expects the other to know. What would be the sense in this unless both had an agreement as to what the rules are? The accuser is not merely saying the other person's behavior is not pleasing. If right and wrong is simply preference ( like prefering beer over cider), calling a foul would lose validity. Suppose the quarrelling continued. We would hear the accused rationalize that (s)he is, in fact, adhereing to this standard; or that in his/her particular case it has been suspended. Very rarely will the accused reply: " To hell with your standard." Quarrelling , therefore, must be under the assumption that this standard of behavior is a real thing that ought to be practised.
If, while reading this, you notice yourself disagreeing with me, are you not measuring me by the standard of behavior that truth is a thing that I ought to practise? We begin to see the direction this is pointing. When anyone quarrels they appeal to something or someone that exists apart from themselves and their situation.
How can this be a clue to the meaning of our existance? Well, perhaps there does exist a bird's eye-view of the human situation; an actual living standard that knows what our right and our wrong is. This would justify appealing to it and give quarrelling more validity than mere representation of taste. Could it be that our moral ideas are more a reflection of a source than a reflection of an accident? What, or whom might this source be?
No comments:
Post a Comment