To the editors:
Best of Chicago voting is live now. Vote for your favorites »
I am writing in response to Francisco Ruiz’s letter of March 23 about Natural Ethics. Quoted below is the key paragraph of the article. “Natural Ethics is independent of any religious creed; it depends on the common characteristics of people’s understanding of right and wrong. For instance, most agree that killing is wrong; anyone who disagrees with this is considered a pathological case. The same can be said of lying or stealing. These, and other subtler points are engraved in our minds with a strength that goes beyond the barriers of creed, language, or culture. Natural ethics’ only ‘belief’ is that these rules are an integral part of human nature. The evidence of centuries overwhelmingly supports this assertion.”
I close this letter with a question addressed to the adherents of Natural Ethics. If a majority of people share my opinion of Natural Ethics, does that prove Natural Ethics is invalid?
