I awoke this morning with a question mulling in my thoughts of why there isn't a universal set of ethical standards for all. It seemed like a simple concept, but as I came to my senses I realized the error. The reality that this isn't a new problem, it may be THE problem society has struggled with since the dawn of consciousness.

What I took away from the thought experiment I conducted between waking up and getting around is that from Hammurabi's code through the advent of the major religions to the Magna Carta and the U.S. Constitution, we keep building on the answers to this question and refining the processes of acceptance and fairness. But even though global societal rules are more consistent than they may have been in the past, these ideals still drive conflict that individuals are willing to die to maintain.

What I also took away is that I live under a substantial rule set. Some unwritten, some written. Some I am aware of, but some I can only trust are reasonable by my standard set. I spend a substantial part of my day navigating right and wrong, from the morning commute to interactions at work, home, and points in between.

The last takeaway was about an individual whose personal standards become separate from the standards of the society/community in which they live. This one I didn't resolve, other than that it's the test of individual courage. Why it's not simple is that an individual with the courage to challenge is an anomaly and will face societal friction. Only time will show if the societal system backs their ideas or rejects them. Examples that came to mind were Paul Revere and Joan of Arc, whom society "revered" over time, and Robert Owen who initiated the New Harmony experiment in Indiana, an idea that didn't survive the test of time.

Why isn't there a universal set of ethical standards? Because there isn't universal Providence, this was my conclusion.

Ultimately I decided to quit thinking about it and just watch football. The oblong kind and probably a good word to illustrate why there will never be universal consensus --> ๐Ÿˆ

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] 2 points 6 hours ago

Well there could be universal ethics but the set would be tiny. You can only expand the ethical standard by expanding the shared assumptions.

For example, if your assumptions are DNA based life that survives in an oxygen rich environment with low carbon dioxide that are not powered by sunlight and have to consume other life forms to survive.

  • source