Is there such thing as "universal morality"?

[ding]

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.

Don't be silly. There are standards for everything.

Morals are standards of behavior. Virtue is behavior showing high moral standards. The definition of standard is a level of quality or attainment.

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.

 

[Blues Man]

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.

Don't be silly. There are standards for everything.

Morals are standards of behavior. Virtue is behavior showing high moral standards. The definition of standard is a level of quality or attainment.

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.

There are no universal standards for behavior

There never have been

 

[ding]

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

No. Man's perception of right and wrong is subjective. Subjectivity only exists because of bias. Bias only exists in humans.

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.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

They are?

Like, we can agree that not being shot I'm the face is better than being shot in the face. Then we can use valid logic ro reach a morality from that objective fact.

 

[ding]

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.

Don't be silly. There are standards for everything.

Morals are standards of behavior. Virtue is behavior showing high moral standards. The definition of standard is a level of quality or attainment.

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.

There are no universal standards for behavior

There never have been

You can see man's expectation for universal standard 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.

 

[Blues Man]

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

No. Man's perception of right and wrong is subjective. Subjectivity only exists because of bias. Bias only exists in humans.

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.

Since our perception is what defines our universe our perception is our reality

 

[Blues Man]

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.

Don't be silly. There are standards for everything.

Morals are standards of behavior. Virtue is behavior showing high moral standards. The definition of standard is a level of quality or attainment.

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.

There are no universal standards for behavior

There never have been

You can see man's expectation for universal standard 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.

So why do some people and cultures believe killing for perceived disrespect is acceptable

if there was a universal code as you say this would never happen

 

[Hollie]

Egyptian royalty married brother to sister. That was morally acceptable, at least for them. The Spanish Conquistadors would baptize heathen Indian babies before smashing their heads with rocks. All morally acceptable.

 

[alang1216]

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.

Has there ever been a successful culture or country that lived by the Golden Rule?

 

[K9Buck]

Egyptian royalty married brother to sister. That was morally acceptable, at least for them. The Spanish Conquistadors would baptize heathen Indian babies before smashing their heads with rocks. All morally acceptable.

All cultures are equal. Nothing is immoral because cultures and people decide for themselves what is moral.

 

[alang1216]

Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos.

Can you give an example of such a society? How about a society that did behave with virtue?

 

[Taz]

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.

Stop digging, you have nothing.

 

[Hollie]

Egyptian royalty married brother to sister. That was morally acceptable, at least for them. The Spanish Conquistadors would baptize heathen Indian babies before smashing their heads with rocks. All morally acceptable.

All cultures are equal. Nothing is immoral because cultures and people decide for themselves what is moral.

I agree. Morality is subjective and what is deemed as "moral" has changed with time and within cultures.

 

[cnm]

They are?

Like, we can agree that not being shot I'm the face is better than being shot in the face. Then we can use valid logic ro reach a morality from that objective fact.

Tricky. The shooter - and the shooter's community - may consider shooting some people in the face better than not shooting some people in the face. Seems somewhat subjective.

 

[cnm]

All cultures are equal. Nothing is immoral because cultures and people decide for themselves what is moral.

I guess I have to say it again. Morals are community norms. Valid morals are those which assist the community to survive/prosper.

 

[K9Buck]

All cultures are equal. Nothing is immoral because cultures and people decide for themselves what is moral.

I guess I have to say it again. Morals are community norms. Valid morals are those which assist the community to survive/prosper.

I disagree. Morality is determined by God and, yes, his morality is universal.

 

[Blues Man]

All cultures are equal. Nothing is immoral because cultures and people decide for themselves what is moral.

I guess I have to say it again. Morals are community norms. Valid morals are those which assist the community to survive/prosper.

I disagree. Morality is determined by God and, yes, his morality is universal.

God kills people whenever he wants so no his morals aren't universal if he's not held to them

 

[K9Buck]

All cultures are equal. Nothing is immoral because cultures and people decide for themselves what is moral.

I guess I have to say it again. Morals are community norms. Valid morals are those which assist the community to survive/prosper.

I disagree. Morality is determined by God and, yes, his morality is universal.

God kills people whenever he wants so no his morals aren't universal if he's not held to them

Immorality is that which goes against God. If God does it, it's moral.

 

[badger2]

The problematic for post #75 is that there is imagination involved in the morals that allow a community to survive/prosper. That is why we call religion a universal protection racket based on fairy tales and imagination, a dangerous culpability that leads to crimes. Eric Rudolph (address, supermax installation at Florence, Colorado) is a suggested mascot for this trajectory about morals.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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.

Has there ever been a successful culture or country that lived by the Golden Rule?

... Besides almost all of them? Remember, slavery was wildly successful.