wow this is getting interesting!
1. Evil cannot be subjective yet it often is deemed so.
first of all I have to address some of your statements
Either it is "generally regarded" or it is "universally accepted," but it can't be both
on what grounds do you claim this? imho if you cant accept the possibilty of these 2 seperate elements within this one sentence .. then you dont seem to understand the meaning and are taking an entirely linear stand point to this issue.
The point is that univesal law .. was a CONCEPT used to base the existence of the Nuerenburg trials and law upon .. A CONCEPT actually employed to validate the creation of international law.
It is not open for debate because it is an established fact. What can be debated is whether or not these laws or these trials were then lawful. There creation was certainly not orthodox .. which is why there existence is all the more compelling in the light of this discussion imho.
Natural law is not proferred to be a christian concept .. even though the early proponents of natural law may well have been christian .. It [natural law] does claim that law exists beyond human codification .. (and I agree it is an ominous arguement) .. but claims to be as part of the Universe .. hence Universal law .. not being the law of the majority .. but as inherent in Nature, and as claimed the Universe.
Being that we are all natural beings, part of a natural world, in which law exists governing a host of elements: gravity, ecosystems etc.. And as belonging to the natural world - certain things offend natural law - genocide being one of them. Clearly identifiable natural wrong.
And it has been a long time since I have studied natural law .. but I am not sure 'evil' is even a term utilised within this philosophyof law ..
Because you are right Birinair .. 'wrong' is objective.
Like you this is a journey of exploration for me too .. and it is very interesting .. so I am grateful for correction where I may err in fact.
Caamora is absolutely correct:
Caamora wrote:If that were true, and evil is subjective, then what Hitler did to the Jews and the Germans was ok. There has to be some universal rules or beliefs for people otherwise evil would be just a point of view
Exactly!! Under German law Hitler and his regime were justified by existing law - there own law. There needed to be law established which held a nation states to a Universal law. Regardless of there own law, an overarching law that created a universal arguably 'minimum' standard .. or
vis a vis an international standard and law.
Having nothing to do with democracy ..
I think what is being missed here .. is not whether international law exists or even why it exists .. but that this is being confused with the notion of what all people believe.
F&F wrote:But the many societies that operate otherwise, the many that operate very much otherwise, tell me that this morality is not universal
this is not the notion being espoused .. and I totally agree with your assessment. So clearly a subjective view of 'morality' is not going to produce any reliable standard.
Hence the application of Universal or Natural Law. An objective standard .. that scrutinises the divergent range of moralities and sets clear sign posts of Universal Right and Universal Wrong ..
er go numerous actions instigated under Hitler's facist Nazi regime were 'wrong' .. indisputably wrong.
Surely, there is not a soul who could claim 'Universal Law/International Law' errs in this formulation.
Birinair wrote:You are strong enough to impose your will without killing your fellow, and can ensure your survival by starving him. Where does natural law provide you with an answer to what is right and wrong in those circumstances.
Each circumstance must be weighed individually. But on the facts as presented, this is an objective 'wrong'. And the basis for this assertion hinges on the fact that the weaker party had his will overborne by the stronger party. No sense of fairness or equitabilty exists in this scenario that demonstrates that both parties mutually decided the one should perish.
As in the maritime cases of shipwreck and drawing of straws to decide who will survive and who will not. Barbaric maybe, but in the very least a sense of equitability pervailed, and the choice of victim was no one persons choice .. or even a majority against an individual.
Natural law would require that the victims is not decided by the mere presence of compulsion or the imposition of anothers will over yours. This is indeed an objective standard .. as determining a 'wrong' needs to be
And to answer your question Birinair I would do as F&F proferred .. share the available resources .. in hope of a rescue .. because no one knows when a rescue will come .. and if death be the result .. then we die knowing we did attempt to survive at the expense of another.
But at the end of the day .. this very question in and of itself can spawn the most intense of debates.
Getting back to F&F's other point .. on anarchy .. yes I agree and is why we must have an objective standard with which to determine what is a 'wrong'.
And this is quite possibly why most belief systems have similar codes idenitfying 'wrong' .. cos its really not that hard to determine a basic standard. Which also forms the basis of our Western legal systems.
Birinair your example of a popular perception of communism being 'evil' seems to bear up the need of an objective standard .. does it not? As you yourself argue that these notions are fluid over time.