Therefore, it is best to remain skeptical when discussing morality. It is a process that must remain harmless and respectful of individuals and their freedoms.
There are five basic principles that Thiroux and Krasemann have devised to act as a general blue print for morality in Ethics Theory and Practice. These principles were devised to counter Michael Scriven's "'Everyone has equal rights with you in moral matters until they prove otherwise.'" (Thiroux 163) Thiroux and Krasemann claim that such a statement is much too vague to act as an actual morality principle. I believe that the real case is how to interpret the statement. It allocates freedom between people until otherwise proven. The only logical reason someone should not have equal freedoms is when they violate other people's freedoms. When that occurs, people are going against the principle itself and are therefore void of its morality. Thus, the interpretation of Scriven's principle should be to the effect that people have equal freedoms until they violate the freedoms of other people through deliberate physical or economic harm.
This is not to say that Thiroux and Krasemann did not develop very beneficial principles. Their five principles honor the reverence of life, the encouragement of good deeds, justice, honesty, and individual freedom. These are worthy principles of any morality code, but justice and life can be categorized under freedom: the freedom to live and to be treated justly with the same morality. In conjunction with this, the encouragement of good deeds and honesty may be preferable to perform in a moral system, but they do have the potential of doing more harm than good. This is why I believe that life and freedom should take precedence over such principles. If any moral code can ensure that no principle can be abused, it would be that of individual freedom for all people.
To comment on these principles, I am most satisfied with individual freedom and the reverence of life. Freedom and life are the foundation of a society. In order for there to be any moral system at all, there must be living humans to execute those morals. Without such a society, morality would be insubordinate to primal instincts. Freedom is necessary to facilitate the desire to live. People want to live a certain way and to do otherwise would null the reason for living in the first place. To put it plainly, there is no point to life if a person cannot live the way they wish.
The Principles Subjugated to My Morality
My concern with the exclusive justice and fairness principle is that not all people's morality codes are the same. For instance, Thiroux and Krasemann bring into example a couple living together out of wedlock. To the conservative parents, engaging in sexual relations without marriage is a sin and thus immoral. The couple is therefore being emotionally unfair to their parents and violating the justice principle to a small effect (Thiroux 176). However, the couple is not violating any other person's freedom and obeying the parents would lead to a violation of the couple's very own freedom. Hence, Thiroux and Krasemann declare the principle of justice and fairn