Is there such thing as "universal morality"?

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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

Well that is absolutely disgusting. God is a murderous,vain, vengeful, jealous entity.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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

And some people think the Earth is flat. Well I do not disagree with what you are saying, and it does go to show that morality is relative, we xan pragmatically consider it objective in some case.

 

[Picaro]

Making their morality subjective. Thanks for clearing that up.

Nope. I already addressed this on page 1.

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.

"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.

And of course the use of language is the most important standard one needs to use. Best intro, besides the Summa Theologica itself, is ....

Language, Truth and Logic
by Alfred Ayer

Alfred Ayer - Language, Truth and Logic : Alfred Ayer : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

"Classic introduction to objectives and methods of schools of empiricism and linguistic analysis, especially of the logical positivism derived from the Vienna Circle. Topics: elimination of metaphysics, function of philosophy, nature of philosophical analysis, the a priori, truth and probability, critique of ethics and theology, self and the common world, more."

His examination of a priori knowledge is the most relevant for this thread.

also a link for those curious about one of the great teaching texts of western philosophy and logic ...

SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: Home

 

[Picaro]

Or is morality determined by cultures and individuals themselves?

Nothing is universal. At different times and in different places by different societies everything from sacrificing babies to cannibalism has been considered both moral and ethical.

The Christian revolution pretty much corrected all that, hence it's popularity as opposed to pagan butchery and juvenile superstition. Both Jews and Romans loathed human sacrifice, and in fact fought wars against those who practiced it as a matter of policy, so that crap wasn't as 'universal' as some hope it was.

 

[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?

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

I can't think of any country that was not founded on violence. I wonder if the Neanderthals were more ethical than we are?

 

[alang1216]

Or is morality determined by cultures and individuals themselves?

Nothing is universal. At different times and in different places by different societies everything from sacrificing babies to cannibalism has been considered both moral and ethical.

The Christian revolution pretty much corrected all that, hence it's popularity as opposed to pagan butchery and juvenile superstition. Both Jews and Romans loathed human sacrifice, and in fact fought wars against those who practiced it as a matter of policy, so that crap wasn't as 'universal' as some hope it was.

Christianity also brought the inquisition, witch hunts, anti-Semitism, and innumerable religious wars, usually against other Christians. All of which were deemed just by the Christians that carried them out.

 

[alang1216]

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

Well that is absolutely disgusting. God is a murderous,vain, vengeful, jealous entity.

Don't forget genocidal.

 

[Picaro]

Christianity also brought the inquisition, witch hunts, anti-Semitism, and innumerable religious wars, usually against other Christians. All of which were deemed just by the Christians that carried them out.

there were three Inquisitions, and all were very small potatoes; the Protestant propaganda was merely hysterical hyperbole. Witch hunts were pagan affairs, based on pagan peasant superstitions, and also show a geographical pattern. they were also small potatoes in the scheme of things. 'Christianity' had nothing to do with 'witch hunts', as doctrine at the time rejected 'magic' as real. 'antisemitism' also had its base in real life, with Jews allying themselves with the Muslim invaders for centuries, and that after their vicious slaughters of Christians where ever they had a power base or influence. Jewish soldiers and administrators ruled over Spanish cities for centuries, and weren't noted for their 'kindness and hippie love fests, either; they were merciless plunderers, which is why when the locals go the chance they tried to exterminate them to the last woman and child. After retaking the Spanish possessions and driving out the Muslim armies, it was just common sense to also remove any fifth columnists left behind. They got the same offers Muslims got; they could leave if they wished, or had to convert if they stayed. Some thought their 'conversions' weren't sincere, is all, and they were probably right. Some idiots actually complain that if they left they couldn't take all their loot with them, as if it was their right or something to keep what they stole when they left.

'Religious wars'? The Thirty Years War was just the Hapsburgs versus 'Everybody Else', and little to do with religion, otherwise we wouldn't have seen Catholic France allied with the Protestant states. Don't confuse feudal wars with 'Christianity'; they aren't the same, plus most Kings reserved the right to appoint their own church officials, usually relatives or friends, so even those 'bad' Popes had far less influence and power than many like to believe, based again on ridiculous hysterical Protestant propaganda.

If you're going to try and make some minor isolated incidence represent the whole of Christian history in Europe and make it 'equivalent' to the scale of pagan and Muslim atrocities, you will fail miserably; even Jewish historians don't fake their history, so why should you?

 

[badger2]

Aquinas's Summa Theologiae? Nuts. Picaro's choice of texts is questionable, because the project of any merit, any modernity, any style is the overturning of platonism and the idea of a transcendent god.

'Christian theology came to have a more distinctly Aristotelian character during the Middle Ages, as a new awareness and appreciation of his philosophy arose out of dialogue with Muslim and Jewish scholars. Nevertheless, Thomas Aquinas's thirteenth-century formulations of christ as the image of god remained within the Platonic Eidetic framework, presupposing a transcendent model as the ground for selecting among rival images.

Thomas made a stronger distinction between image and likeness than Augustine had, suggesting that the image was lost but some likeness remained. Still, the basic point was that christ is the true likeness (and image) of god, beating out all rivals as (the [italics]) icon to which all humans ought to conform. Participation in that image, which requires the ritual mediation of the church, is the (only) road to transcendence.
....
One still finds some contemporary conservative christian theologians who equate orthodoxy with doctrinal formulations forged in platonic categories, but today fewer theologians than ever would embrace the label "platonist." In the deleuzian sense, however, (all [italics]) sacerdotal theologians are platonic dualists, insofar as they continue to try to distinguish between true and false images of transcendence. The classical doctrine of the image of god as created similarity to god (usually tied to righteousness or rationality) lost its textual warrant when critical biblical scholarship discovered that the term "image" in the context of the original redactors of Genesis would have most likely referred to the representation of a regional despot who claimed dominion over a particular area.'
(Shults, Iconoclastic Theology, pp. 33-4)

 

[badger2]

'they could leave if they wished, or had to convert if they stayed.' One violent protection-racket dilemma. Picaro's fascination with territorialism compares to the xian pathology whereby, when it came down to the wire, even the Catholics closed their doors to the victims-prisoners as they reeled from the violence of the State in copula with the Church. For 30,000 desaparecidos (the disappeared), though the borders of Argentina had been closed (thereby generating swastiko-schismogenetic centrifugal and centripetal forces), see Graziano F, Divine Violence: Spectacle, Psychosexuality, and Radical Christianity in the Argentine 'Dirty War.'

 

[badger2]

Picaro's xian mafia fascination:

Life in the Shadow of U.S.-Mexico Border Wall

@ timepoint 6:52: 'The organized gangs are hungry for human resources. So every time a group of returnees arrives, they are ready to extort them, kidnap them or add them to their ranks.'

 

[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

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

Then there is no universal morality

There is a morality for god and one for everyone else

 

[ding]

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

There aren’t multiple realities. There is only one reality. There are however multiple perceptions of reality.

 

[ding]

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

Because they have rationalized wrong as right.

Forced slavery is a perfect example of this. So is abortion.

 

[ding]

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?

Why limit it to cultures and societies? Why not use your own experiences in relationships instead.

Virtue is the greatest organizing principle known to mankind. Societies and relationships which behave with virtue will always have better relationships and be more orderly and harmonious than societies and relationships which are devoid of virtue.

 

[ding]

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?

Confucius made this observation of the earlier Chinese dynasties. So research Confucius.

 

[ding]

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

Well that is absolutely disgusting. God is a murderous,vain, vengeful, jealous entity.

You are taking that off of writings by man and applying it to God?

Maybe you don’t understand what was written but it in any event God did not do those things. Man did.

 

[ding]

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

Well that is absolutely disgusting. God is a murderous,vain, vengeful, jealous entity.

Don't forget genocidal.

Straw man arguments while easy to construct have little to do with reality. They are just nice ways to confirm one’s biases.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Or is morality determined by cultures and individuals themselves?

Well, it really depends on what you mean by "morality". I think there is a very basic morality - what CS Lewis liked to refer to as the "Law of Nature" and "objective morality" - and then I think there are ways of applying that basic morality to life, plus ancillary and more subjective moral rules, that cultures and individuals determine for themselves. Quite often then make up those ancillary, subject rules in order to try to rationalize ignoring the basic objective ones.

Take murder, for example. Every society that exists or has ever existed on Earth agrees that killing other human beings is a Bad Thing. Even when it's necessary and can be morally justified - like with self-defense - it's still bad to have to do. This is a basic objective morality that bridges cultures and even time. Now, every culture has also recognized that there are sometimes when this Bad Thing is unavoidable. They all have different takes on what those occasions are, and why. Those are ancillary and subjective rules based on culture. But the only people who will try to tell you that killing another human being is a GOOD thing are either sociopaths - who tend to still think it's a Bad Thing if someone tries to do it to THEM - and people who know it's a Bad Thing but are trying to make excuses to do it anyway.

 

[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.

Stop digging, you have nothing.

I just explained it to you in great detail. You are the one who has nothing.