Is there such thing as "universal morality"?

[Taz]

"Morals are effectively standards." Subjective.

Nope. Humans are subjective. Morals are standards. Standards are not subjective. Standards exist for reasons. The reason make themselves known when the standards are violated and the consequences are suffered.

What standards that apply to everyone are not subjective? Exposure to radiation? That kind of thing?

Again, the standard is not subjective. Man’s perception of the standard is subjective.

What standards? Do unto others... isn't one of them. Got anything else?

Sure it is. In fact, it may be the only one we really need.

So you have nothing else except to quote the bible. EPIC FAIL. Plus, I likely don't have the same standards of "do unto others..." that you do.

 

[ding]

Nope. Humans are subjective. Morals are standards. Standards are not subjective. Standards exist for reasons. The reason make themselves known when the standards are violated and the consequences are suffered.

What standards that apply to everyone are not subjective? Exposure to radiation? That kind of thing?

Again, the standard is not subjective. Man’s perception of the standard is subjective.

What standards? Do unto others... isn't one of them. Got anything else?

Sure it is. In fact, it may be the only one we really need.

So you have nothing else except to quote the bible. EPIC FAIL. Plus, I likely don't have the same standards of "do unto others..." that you do.

If that’s how you want to see it, go for it. But the reality is that it is easier to see wrong when it is done to you than it is to see it when you do it to someone else. So it makes perfect sense to put yourself in the other guy’s shoes to see if what you are doing is wrong. So if you want to dismiss it because it is in the Bible the only person you are hurting is yourself.

 

[alang1216]

Again, the standard is not subjective. Man’s perception of the standard is subjective.

Got a list of universal standards?

I don't believe in universal standards but I do think there are some common ones:
- don't kill one of your own (tribe, clan, nation, etc.) without just cause (just cause is not a universal standard)
- don't take what doesn't belong to you
- respect for authority (parents, police, king, etc.)

 

[ding]

Again, the standard is not subjective. Man’s perception of the standard is subjective.

Got a list of universal standards?

I don't believe in universal standards but I do think there are some common ones:
- don't kill one of your own (tribe, clan, nation, etc.) without just cause (just cause is not a universal standard)
- don't take what doesn't belong to you
- respect for authority (parents, police, king, etc.)

You can sum it up by do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

 

[Taz]

What standards that apply to everyone are not subjective? Exposure to radiation? That kind of thing?

Again, the standard is not subjective. Man’s perception of the standard is subjective.

What standards? Do unto others... isn't one of them. Got anything else?

Sure it is. In fact, it may be the only one we really need.

So you have nothing else except to quote the bible. EPIC FAIL. Plus, I likely don't have the same standards of "do unto others..." that you do.

If that’s how you want to see it, go for it. But the reality is that it is easier to see wrong when it is done to you than it is to see it when you do it to someone else. So it makes perfect sense to put yourself in the other guy’s shoes to see if what you are doing is wrong. So if you want to dismiss it because it is in the Bible the only person you are hurting is yourself.

I’m saying that it’s a subjective standard.

 

[Crixus]

Or is morality determined by cultures and individuals themselves?

The last one probably, some I think we are borne with.

 

[ding]

Again, the standard is not subjective. Man’s perception of the standard is subjective.

What standards? Do unto others... isn't one of them. Got anything else?

Sure it is. In fact, it may be the only one we really need.

So you have nothing else except to quote the bible. EPIC FAIL. Plus, I likely don't have the same standards of "do unto others..." that you do.

If that’s how you want to see it, go for it. But the reality is that it is easier to see wrong when it is done to you than it is to see it when you do it to someone else. So it makes perfect sense to put yourself in the other guy’s shoes to see if what you are doing is wrong. So if you want to dismiss it because it is in the Bible the only person you are hurting is yourself.

I’m saying that it’s a subjective standard.

I know that’s what you are saying.

Standards aren’t subjective. Humans are subjective. Standards are incapable of bias. Standards just are.

Human perception of standards are subjective because humans are biased.

 

[alang1216]

Again, the standard is not subjective. Man’s perception of the standard is subjective.

Got a list of universal standards?

I don't believe in universal standards but I do think there are some common ones:
- don't kill one of your own (tribe, clan, nation, etc.) without just cause (just cause is not a universal standard)
- don't take what doesn't belong to you
- respect for authority (parents, police, king, etc.)

You can sum it up by do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

A universal standard universally ignored? I'd argue that any culture or country that lived by that rule quickly became extinct (or soon will if a recent adaptation of the Golden Rule).

 

[Taz]

Again, the standard is not subjective. Man’s perception of the standard is subjective.

Got a list of universal standards?

I don't believe in universal standards but I do think there are some common ones:
- don't kill one of your own (tribe, clan, nation, etc.) without just cause (just cause is not a universal standard)
- don't take what doesn't belong to you
- respect for authority (parents, police, king, etc.)

You can sum it up by do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Which is subjective.

 

[Taz]

What standards? Do unto others... isn't one of them. Got anything else?

Sure it is. In fact, it may be the only one we really need.

So you have nothing else except to quote the bible. EPIC FAIL. Plus, I likely don't have the same standards of "do unto others..." that you do.

If that’s how you want to see it, go for it. But the reality is that it is easier to see wrong when it is done to you than it is to see it when you do it to someone else. So it makes perfect sense to put yourself in the other guy’s shoes to see if what you are doing is wrong. So if you want to dismiss it because it is in the Bible the only person you are hurting is yourself.

I’m saying that it’s a subjective standard.

I know that’s what you are saying.

Standards aren’t subjective. Humans are subjective. Standards are incapable of bias. Standards just are.

Human perception of standards are subjective because humans are biased.

Do unto others isn’t a standard that is universally applied, it depends on the person.

 

[ding]

Again, the standard is not subjective. Man’s perception of the standard is subjective.

Got a list of universal standards?

I don't believe in universal standards but I do think there are some common ones:
- don't kill one of your own (tribe, clan, nation, etc.) without just cause (just cause is not a universal standard)
- don't take what doesn't belong to you
- respect for authority (parents, police, king, etc.)

You can sum it up by do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

A universal standard universally ignored? I'd argue that any culture or country that lived by that rule quickly became extinct (or soon will if a recent adaptation of the Golden Rule).

Man is subjective and has free will. What can I say. But in the end consequences suffered reveal the standard and the reason the standard exists.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

And there is no universal standard for either.

I believe that God disagrees with this statement.

So slavery is OK with God right?
We know God thinks he can kill anyone he wants to for any reason

those are hardly universal morals

God can kill anyone He wants for any reason He wants. The mistake is when a man thinks he can do it too.

 

[Blues Man]

And there is no universal standard for either.

I believe that God disagrees with this statement.

So slavery is OK with God right?
We know God thinks he can kill anyone he wants to for any reason

those are hardly universal morals

God can kill anyone He wants for any reason He wants. The mistake is when a man thinks he can do it too.

Like I said there is no universal morality if the guy at the top isn't held to the same standards as everyone else

 

[ding]

Sure it is. In fact, it may be the only one we really need.

So you have nothing else except to quote the bible. EPIC FAIL. Plus, I likely don't have the same standards of "do unto others..." that you do.

If that’s how you want to see it, go for it. But the reality is that it is easier to see wrong when it is done to you than it is to see it when you do it to someone else. So it makes perfect sense to put yourself in the other guy’s shoes to see if what you are doing is wrong. So if you want to dismiss it because it is in the Bible the only person you are hurting is yourself.

I’m saying that it’s a subjective standard.

I know that’s what you are saying.

Standards aren’t subjective. Humans are subjective. Standards are incapable of bias. Standards just are.

Human perception of standards are subjective because humans are biased.

Do unto others isn’t a standard that is universally applied, it depends on the person.

Like I said before, we are good at seeing wrong done to us but not our wrongs we do to others. It doesn’t change the standard. The standard just is.

 

[ding]

And there is no universal standard for either.

I believe that God disagrees with this statement.

So slavery is OK with God right?
We know God thinks he can kill anyone he wants to for any reason

those are hardly universal morals

God can kill anyone He wants for any reason He wants. The mistake is when a man thinks he can do it too.

Like I said there is no universal morality if the guy at the top isn't held to the same standards as everyone else

Moral laws are not like physical laws. The consequences of violating physical laws is immediate. Not so for violating moral laws. Often times we get away with it but that doesn’t change the standard or the fact that eventually we will suffer predictable surprises for violating the standard.

 

[Taz]

So you have nothing else except to quote the bible. EPIC FAIL. Plus, I likely don't have the same standards of "do unto others..." that you do.

If that’s how you want to see it, go for it. But the reality is that it is easier to see wrong when it is done to you than it is to see it when you do it to someone else. So it makes perfect sense to put yourself in the other guy’s shoes to see if what you are doing is wrong. So if you want to dismiss it because it is in the Bible the only person you are hurting is yourself.

I’m saying that it’s a subjective standard.

I know that’s what you are saying.

Standards aren’t subjective. Humans are subjective. Standards are incapable of bias. Standards just are.

Human perception of standards are subjective because humans are biased.

Do unto others isn’t a standard that is universally applied, it depends on the person.

Like I said before, we are good at seeing wrong done to us but not our wrongs we do to others. It doesn’t change the standard. The standard just is.

No such standard. Stop digging.

 

[Hollie]

And there is no universal standard for either.

I believe that God disagrees with this statement.

So slavery is OK with God right?
We know God thinks he can kill anyone he wants to for any reason

those are hardly universal morals

God can kill anyone He wants for any reason He wants. The mistake is when a man thinks he can do it too.

That would suggest that the gods are immoral and capricious. As the gods are a human invention, it is not surprising that the gods exhibit all the human attributes of mankind.

 

[Blues Man]

And there is no universal standard for either.

I believe that God disagrees with this statement.

So slavery is OK with God right?
We know God thinks he can kill anyone he wants to for any reason

those are hardly universal morals

God can kill anyone He wants for any reason He wants. The mistake is when a man thinks he can do it too.

Like I said there is no universal morality if the guy at the top isn't held to the same standards as everyone else

Moral laws are not like physical laws. The consequences of violating physical laws is immediate. Not so for violating moral laws. Often times we get away with it but that doesn’t change the standard or the fact that eventually we will suffer predictable surprises for violating the standard.

There is no standard there never has been there never will be.

 

[ding]

If that’s how you want to see it, go for it. But the reality is that it is easier to see wrong when it is done to you than it is to see it when you do it to someone else. So it makes perfect sense to put yourself in the other guy’s shoes to see if what you are doing is wrong. So if you want to dismiss it because it is in the Bible the only person you are hurting is yourself.

I’m saying that it’s a subjective standard.

I know that’s what you are saying.

Standards aren’t subjective. Humans are subjective. Standards are incapable of bias. Standards just are.

Human perception of standards are subjective because humans are biased.

Do unto others isn’t a standard that is universally applied, it depends on the person.

Like I said before, we are good at seeing wrong done to us but not our wrongs we do to others. It doesn’t change the standard. The standard just is.

No such standard. Stop digging.

Sure there is. Let me highlight the relevant parts.

Point #6: Man believes in a universal right and wrong.


If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.


Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.


So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.


Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.


If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

 

[Blues Man]

I’m saying that it’s a subjective standard.

I know that’s what you are saying.

Standards aren’t subjective. Humans are subjective. Standards are incapable of bias. Standards just are.

Human perception of standards are subjective because humans are biased.

Do unto others isn’t a standard that is universally applied, it depends on the person.

Like I said before, we are good at seeing wrong done to us but not our wrongs we do to others. It doesn’t change the standard. The standard just is.

No such standard. Stop digging.

Sure there is. Let me highlight the relevant parts.

Point #6: Man believes in a universal right and wrong.


If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.


Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.


So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.


Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.


If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

right and wrong are entirely subjective terms