I think I made my question a little unclear. It's not about what morality should be. It's about whether morality will exist.
As gekko has pointed out, there may be a reason for everything we do. We just haven't discovered it yet.
Think about it another way. There is a disease that makes the victim homicidal. I forget the name of the disease, but the point is that the victim will tend to assault people unless restrained. This disease is traceable to a chemical imbalance. In other words, our hypothetical victim is not homicidal because he chose to be but because that's just the way he is. If brought to court, he would be able to plead insanity because we can't blame him for something he had no control over.
The brain is, after all, a bunch of chemicals organized in a certain fashion. It's made up of a trillion individual neurons, so naturally it will take a really long time to determine how it really works. But if there is a physical basis for the way the brain works, will we be able to predict how people will act under certain circumstances and given certain environments?
If so, can we blame people for anything they did? After all, it can be traced back to the physical makeup of their brains and the way their environment influenced the makeup of that brain.
The point isn't about whether we should consider certain acts to be moral or immoral. The point is about whether we can consider anything to be moral.
I'm still going to hold off on my own opinions for now. But it's time to hand out some doubloons...
|