Is there such thing as "universal morality"?

By definition, no. You can have community ethical standards, But morality, by definition, is the code of behaviour of an individual, not a community.

Ethics is a code of behaviour shared by a community.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #4
...morality, by definition, is the code of behaviour of an individual, not a community.

So it would be erroneous to describe a community as acting "immoral" for, as an example, building a wall or legalizing abortion? The correct word would be "unethical"?
 
...morality, by definition, is the code of behaviour of an individual, not a community.

So it would be erroneous to describe a community as acting "immoral" for, as an example, building a wall or legalizing abortion? The correct word would be "unethical"?

You can refer to a person as amoral or immoral. You can even refer to a community as amoral or immoral (in that everyone in the community is lacking morality).

But, the word to use when speaking of a community standard is unethical, yes.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #7
...morality, by definition, is the code of behaviour of an individual, not a community.

So it would be erroneous to describe a community as acting "immoral" for, as an example, building a wall or legalizing abortion? The correct word would be "unethical"?

You can refer to a person as amoral or immoral. You can even refer to a community as amoral or immoral (in that everyone in the community is lacking morality).

But, the word to use when speaking of a community standard is unethical, yes.

I don't share your view, but I'm willing to be persuaded. Perhaps you can provide a link to a scholarly source that can corroborate your definition.

In my view, morality is universal and it comes from God. It is what we inherently know (or should know) to be "right" and "wrong". That which is "immoral" is that which goes against God. In my view, both an individual and a community can be acting immorally.
 
Or is morality determined by cultures and individuals themselves?

Moral is universal ... I would say: "good is what's good for all and every life" ... but:

"Es gibt nichts Gutes, außer man tut es."
Erich Kästner

and

"En un mot, l'homme doit se créer sa propre essence; c'est en se jetant dans le monde, en y souffrant, en y luttant qu'il se définit peu à peu; et la définition demeure toujours ouverte; on ne peut point dire ce qu'est cet homme avant sa mort, ni l'humanité avant qu'elle ait disparu"
Jean Paul Sartre





 
Last edited:
By definition, no. You can have community ethical standards, But morality, by definition, is the code of behaviour of an individual, not a community.

Ethics is a code of behaviour shared by a community.

And there is no universal standard for either.
 
Morals are standards of behavior. Virtue is behavior showing high moral standards. The definition of standard is a level of quality or attainment.

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.
 
Spend some time here: Visit Stockholm - Visitstockholm

Then spend some time here: Riyadh

Sharp relief... and your answer...


Ok, so your view is that morality is relative, correct?

In other words, hanging people for being gay isn't immoral because another culture believes it is appropriate. Is that your belief?

"
In other words, hanging people for being gay isn't immoral because another culture believes it is appropriate. Is that your belief?"


there are certainly many conservatives who agree with that.


Roy Moore for one.
 
Ok, so your view is that morality is relative, correct?
Yes, as it is a human construct, if that's how you judge relativity. But we can agree on some objective facts and argue from them with valid logic, meaning the conclusions aren't really "subjective" or "relative". So your question is not so simple as you think.
 
Ok, so your view is that morality is relative, correct?
Yes, as it is a human construct, if that's how you judge relativity. But we can agree on some objective facts and argue from them with valid logic, meaning the conclusions aren't really "subjective" or "relative". So your question is not so simple as you think.
Morals are effectively standards. Standards exist in and of themselves. In other words they exist independently of man and for specific reasons. While you may wish the standards were something else, outcomes tell us that not all behaviors lead to equal outcomes. That some behaviors lead to better outcomes and some behaviors lead to worse outcomes.
 
By definition, no. You can have community ethical standards, But morality, by definition, is the code of behaviour of an individual, not a community.

Ethics is a code of behaviour shared by a community.

Which of course is what one would expect from a society built by mammals, especially one where children have to be cared for for years; empathy plays a role in ethics and morals, which do have to be defined and taught to some extent.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top