Part of being a member of a civil society is the concept of a social contract. Each individual gives up certain of their "natural" rights to the government/administration so that the rights that remain are equally applicable and protected for all.
Meaning, I give up my right to seek personal justice against someone who has wronged me, and allow the police and legal system to mete out justice on my behalf.
This goes back to the idea that queer raised - each individual defines justice differently and would apply it differently. Being part of this social contract is an equalizer for everyone.
An act that violates social contract is not always unethical, is it? Euthanasia is not allowed in Michigan but allowed in Washington. If I am a doctor and I put an old and suffering patient to sleep in Michigan, is it still ethical? Maybe for some people, not for the others. So my question is not if we are obligated to follow the social contract, as we all know that answer. My question is if above scenario seems ethical or not by your standards.
The social contract is not specifically or strictly limited as a legal concept of governance, it's a societal one. Where more than two people co-exist and create standards of behaviour, it makes actions ethical or unethical based on the mutual agreement of the people.
^ Morality is not in all cases absolute. Cultural norms and values, and the idea of wrong and right does change with time.
Let's talk about slavery - that was permitted once, but not anymore. Even in our Prophet's time, he had slaves - he chose to free them. Was it wrong, or was a it social norm that gained and then lost acceptance?
Before I get deep into your second para, let me ask you this. Would you have a different standard of morality for slavery (than what you have right now) if you were living in the times of Prophet Mohammed ? just a simple yes or no
Can't be answered with a yes or no, because of the very change in social norms. I can't answer for my acceptance of behaviour in prior times, when I'm informed with present day norms.
Are you saying that our personal judgments are clouded by the society norms (maybe I am reading you wrong)? I am not sure about that. If it was the case then norms and personal stance would never clash .. but we know that they do, that is why norms keep changing over the period of time cause someone or few people started raising their voices against that norm.
Are you saying that our personal judgments are clouded by the society norms (maybe I am reading you wrong)? I am not sure about that. If it was the case then norms and personal stance would never clash .. but we know that they do, that is why norms keep changing over the period of time cause someone or few people started raising their voices against that norm.
Of course they are. That doesn't necesitate that everyone agrees with the norms all of the time. People may disagree with those norms and challenge those norms to change it, or they may be convinced that the norms were right and their personal judgement was wrong.
The point being, both social norms and personal values are changeable, and both can result in the change of the other.
? just a simple yes or no