Say what you will about Crimethinc, but I’ve always loved this…
The real problem with the idea of universal moral law is that it asserts the existence of something that we have no way to know anything about. Believers in good and evil would have us believe that there are “moral truths”—that is, there are things that are morally true of this world, in the same way that it is true that the sky is blue. They claim that it is true of this world that murder is morally wrong just as it is true that water freezes at thirty two degrees. But we can investigate the freezing temperature of water scientifically: we can measure it and agree together that we have arrived at some kind of objective truth [that is, insofar as it is possible to speak of objective truth, for you postmodernist motherfuckers!]. On the other hand, what do we observe if we want to investigate whether it is true that murder is evil? There is no tablet of moral law on a mountaintop for us to consult, there are no commandments carved into the sky above us; all we have to go on are our own instincts and the words of a bunch of priests and other self-appointed moral experts, many of whom don’t even agree. As for the words of the priests and moralists, if they can’t offer any hard evidence from this world, why should we believe their claims? And regarding our instincts—if we feel that something is right or wrong, that may make it right or wrong for us, but that’s not proof that it is universally good or evil. Thus, the idea that there are universal moral laws is mere superstition: it is a claim that things exist in this world which we can never actually experience or learn anything about. And we would do well not to waste our time wondering about things we can never know anything about. When two people fundamentally disagree over what is right or wrong, there is no way to resolve the debate. There is nothing in this world to which they can refer to see which one is correct—because there really are no universal moral laws, just personal evaluations. So the only important question is where your values come from: do you create them yourself, according to your own desires, or do you accept them from someone else… someone else who has disguised their opinions as “universal truths”?
Haven’t you always been a little suspicious of the idea of universal moral truths, anyway? This world is filled with groups and individuals who want to convert you to their religions, their dogmas, their political agendas, their opinions. Of course they will tell you that one set of values is true for everybody, and of course they will tell you that their values are the correct ones. Once you’re convinced that there is only one standard of right and wrong, they’re only a step away from convincing you that their standard is the right one. How carefully we should approach those who would sell us the idea of “universal moral law,” then! Their claim that morality is a matter of universal law is probably just a sneaky way to get us to accept their values rather than forging our own, which might conflict with theirs.
So, to protect ourselves from the superstitions of the moralists and the trickery of the evangelists, let us be done with the idea of moral law. Let us step forward into a new era, in which we will make values of our own rather than accepting moral laws out of fear and obedience. Let this be our new creed: There is no universal moral code that should dictate human behavior. There is no such thing as good or evil, there is no universal standard of right and wrong. Our values and morals come from us and belong to us, whether we like it or not; so we should claim them proudly for ourselves, as our own creations, rather than seeking some external justification for them.
I’ll take that over the secularized sermonizing of the mainstream Left any day!
~MRDA~
agreed noone should pay attention to people who rely on both sat navs AND sky pixies.
However the objectivist ethic IS based on your own immediately direct experience of existence. the very fact that you exist, are aware of the fact and are capable of action gives rise to the objective truth of self ownership. From that, logically and inescapably, derives the non aggression axiom and only anarchism is compatible with that principle.
there you have it – deontological anarchism based on a universal axiom derived from an objective truth. And not one that has to be instructed to us by any other but an objective truth that is self evident from our own personal experience.
Best of all, this is a self limiting moral code. it says you own yourself and noone may aggress against you and then it is silent. anything above and beyond this basic foundation is, as you say, up to the individual.
if there is no objective universal concept of evil at all then on what basis do we oppose the state? the idea descends into subjectivity, a question of mere aesthetic taste and personal preference. Without any rational first principle at all, there is no reason I cannot rape you. there is no good or evil only what I subjectively choose as my moral value. there is no reason at all why i can or should oppose involuntary laws and taxations as they are entirely legitimised by the subjective moral values of a great number of people I cannot contest.