Is there such thing as "universal morality"?

[Picaro]

both Jews and Romans loathed human sacrifice

The gladiator tradition began as human sacrifices.

No, actually they were condemned criminals, sentenced to the arenas for whatever 'crimes', not religious sacrifices, but thanks for playing; we don't expect much education from 'left wingers and deviants anyway.

 

[Picaro]

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

Of course people have different ideas about morality. But disagreement in and of itself doesn't make morality subjective.

A universal code (like with any universal truths) isn't dependent on us. It doesn't matter how many people believe it, it doesn't matter how many people follow it. It doesn't matter if people disagree on it, any universal truth is not dependent on us at all.

That said, the fact that for the most part, human beings all over the world DO acknowledge the existence of an actual moral standard is telling. They don't always follow it, but most people understand it exists, whether they consciously realize that or not.

I'm sure ding has said this before, but I'll say it anyway. For anyone interested in this topic, PLEASE read the book 'Mere Christianity' by C.S Lewis. Don't let the title put you off. It's an excellent book, it's a classic. And he goes over all this stuff, he talks about natural law, or a universal moral standard. He goes over all the misconceptions people have, the objections, etc. I highly recommend that book, it's definitely one my favorites, especially the first few chapters.

thanks for the book recommendation; I've never read it nor heard of it, though I have read some of Lewis's work and he's a fine writer.

 

[ding]

Hardly. The reality is your argument that societies have never lived in peace and harmony are divorced from reality.

if you're right you should have no trouble citing some examples. Confucius talking about societies that disappeared before he lived is not convincing.

You don’t need examples you have your own experiences to go by.

Furthermore it appears you have an unrealistic standard for societies living in peace and harmony as most people in all societies throughout history have done so.

Are YOU living in peace and harmony now? Or is YOUR life full of disorder and chaos? What is the standard you are asking me to meet? What measure will you consider to determine if a society is living in peace and harmony. Because I would argue that societies which don’t live in peace and harmony are the exception.

Hey wait a minute! Aren't you the guy who just told me that he doesn't argue with anyone that their beliefs are wrong?

Fascinating!

Which religious belief did I argue was wrong?

Catholicism.. You have proven it wrong beyond any shadow of a doubt.

Well done!

Pssst! You must have noticed by now that I am not someone that you should try to play mind games with..

You can take that as a warning, or take it anyway you like. I'm not the one who has spent decades filling his mind with crap, but If you don't care, I certainly don't.

Let the games begin!

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[ding]

You don’t need examples you have your own experiences to go by.

Translation: I don't have examples because there are none so I'll deflect

Furthermore it appears you have an unrealistic standard for societies living in peace and harmony as most people in all societies throughout history have done so.

Are YOU living in peace and harmony now? Or is YOUR life full of disorder and chaos? What is the standard you are asking me to meet? What measure will you consider to determine if a society is living in peace and harmony. Because I would argue that societies which don’t live in peace and harmony are the exception.

The US certainly doesn't live in peace and harmony. I was born while we were at war and we have been fighting wars for my entire life. I was born when segregation was legal and common. Black men were attacked by dogs and are still being shot in disproportionate numbers. Is the US an exception?

I am telling you pretty much all societies live in peace and harmony. My standard is not anarchy. What’s yours? Utopia?

 

[ding]

If it were arbitrary there wouldn’t be a preference for right over wrong and all behaviors would lead to random outcomes.

That’s a totally random statement. And it makes no sense.

Then let me explain it to you.... again.

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.

Reposting nonsense doesn’t change it.

If only you could find the flaw in it.

Its flaw is that it's all gibberish.

Can you explain how it is gibberish?

 

[Taz]

You don’t need examples you have your own experiences to go by.

Translation: I don't have examples because there are none so I'll deflect

Furthermore it appears you have an unrealistic standard for societies living in peace and harmony as most people in all societies throughout history have done so.

Are YOU living in peace and harmony now? Or is YOUR life full of disorder and chaos? What is the standard you are asking me to meet? What measure will you consider to determine if a society is living in peace and harmony. Because I would argue that societies which don’t live in peace and harmony are the exception.

The US certainly doesn't live in peace and harmony. I was born while we were at war and we have been fighting wars for my entire life. I was born when segregation was legal and common. Black men were attacked by dogs and are still being shot in disproportionate numbers. Is the US an exception?

I am telling you pretty much all societies live in peace and harmony. My standard is not anarchy. What’s yours? Utopia?

So school shootings mean peace and harmony?

 

[ding]

And yet man has an innate sense of right and wrong that he didn’t put there and can’t get rid of.

It’s a survival instinct which is a result of evolution.

Ohhh... natural selection, right. Let me explain that to you too.

The data overwhelmingly shows that man prefers right over wrong. That man is hardwired for moral and virtuous behavior. From the atheist's vantage point morality and virtue exists because of evolutionary forces. But the reality is that even that argument confirms that morality and virtue offers a functional advantage over immorality and behaviors devoid of virtue. According to natural selection there are two main components; functional advantage and transfer of functional advantage to the next generation. So natural selection confirms that morality and virtue are behaviors which leads to survival and success. Otherwise, according to natural selection, morality and virtue would have been abandoned long ago.

So even natural selection says that morality and virtue are universal behaviors. Otherwise, they would have been discarded long ago for more successful universal behaviors.

Total nonsense again. Do you make this shit up as you go along?

No. I use reason and experience. We can learn much from studying the evolution of space and time and our experiences as creators.

No wonder your theories are so whacky. You think to can figure it out yourself, lol.

It’s self evident.

 

[Taz]

That’s a totally random statement. And it makes no sense.

Then let me explain it to you.... again.

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.

Reposting nonsense doesn’t change it.

If only you could find the flaw in it.

Its flaw is that it's all gibberish.

Can you explain how it is gibberish?

Because you’re a retard, and gibberish is pretty much all you have.

 

[ding]

You don’t need examples you have your own experiences to go by.

Translation: I don't have examples because there are none so I'll deflect

Furthermore it appears you have an unrealistic standard for societies living in peace and harmony as most people in all societies throughout history have done so.

Are YOU living in peace and harmony now? Or is YOUR life full of disorder and chaos? What is the standard you are asking me to meet? What measure will you consider to determine if a society is living in peace and harmony. Because I would argue that societies which don’t live in peace and harmony are the exception.

The US certainly doesn't live in peace and harmony. I was born while we were at war and we have been fighting wars for my entire life. I was born when segregation was legal and common. Black men were attacked by dogs and are still being shot in disproportionate numbers. Is the US an exception?

I am telling you pretty much all societies live in peace and harmony. My standard is not anarchy. What’s yours? Utopia?

So school shootings mean peace and harmony?

So there must be none?

 

[Taz]

It’s a survival instinct which is a result of evolution.

Ohhh... natural selection, right. Let me explain that to you too.

The data overwhelmingly shows that man prefers right over wrong. That man is hardwired for moral and virtuous behavior. From the atheist's vantage point morality and virtue exists because of evolutionary forces. But the reality is that even that argument confirms that morality and virtue offers a functional advantage over immorality and behaviors devoid of virtue. According to natural selection there are two main components; functional advantage and transfer of functional advantage to the next generation. So natural selection confirms that morality and virtue are behaviors which leads to survival and success. Otherwise, according to natural selection, morality and virtue would have been abandoned long ago.

So even natural selection says that morality and virtue are universal behaviors. Otherwise, they would have been discarded long ago for more successful universal behaviors.

Total nonsense again. Do you make this shit up as you go along?

No. I use reason and experience. We can learn much from studying the evolution of space and time and our experiences as creators.

No wonder your theories are so whacky. You think to can figure it out yourself, lol.

It’s self evident.

And that’s supposed to be proof?

 

[ding]

Then let me explain it to you.... again.

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.

Reposting nonsense doesn’t change it.

If only you could find the flaw in it.

Its flaw is that it's all gibberish.

Can you explain how it is gibberish?

Because you’re a retard, and gibberish is pretty much all you have.

I didn’t think you could.

 

[ding]

Ohhh... natural selection, right. Let me explain that to you too.

The data overwhelmingly shows that man prefers right over wrong. That man is hardwired for moral and virtuous behavior. From the atheist's vantage point morality and virtue exists because of evolutionary forces. But the reality is that even that argument confirms that morality and virtue offers a functional advantage over immorality and behaviors devoid of virtue. According to natural selection there are two main components; functional advantage and transfer of functional advantage to the next generation. So natural selection confirms that morality and virtue are behaviors which leads to survival and success. Otherwise, according to natural selection, morality and virtue would have been abandoned long ago.

So even natural selection says that morality and virtue are universal behaviors. Otherwise, they would have been discarded long ago for more successful universal behaviors.

Total nonsense again. Do you make this shit up as you go along?

No. I use reason and experience. We can learn much from studying the evolution of space and time and our experiences as creators.

No wonder your theories are so whacky. You think to can figure it out yourself, lol.

It’s self evident.

And that’s supposed to be proof?

I’ve already given the proof you dismissed it without cause. I’m afraid I can’t help you.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Different ideas on morality has ZERO to do with whether or not a universal morality exists.

Wrong. If you are to determine the truth of such a proposition, then you would have to take evidence into account. And if you are admitting you not only have no use for the evidence, but will also come to a conclusion which contradicts all the evidence available, then you have already embarrassed yourself, exposed yourself as a charlatan, and now belong on a shelf with people who have conversations with their houseplants.

 

[Taz]

You don’t need examples you have your own experiences to go by.

Translation: I don't have examples because there are none so I'll deflect

Furthermore it appears you have an unrealistic standard for societies living in peace and harmony as most people in all societies throughout history have done so.

Are YOU living in peace and harmony now? Or is YOUR life full of disorder and chaos? What is the standard you are asking me to meet? What measure will you consider to determine if a society is living in peace and harmony. Because I would argue that societies which don’t live in peace and harmony are the exception.

The US certainly doesn't live in peace and harmony. I was born while we were at war and we have been fighting wars for my entire life. I was born when segregation was legal and common. Black men were attacked by dogs and are still being shot in disproportionate numbers. Is the US an exception?

I am telling you pretty much all societies live in peace and harmony. My standard is not anarchy. What’s yours? Utopia?

So school shootings mean peace and harmony?

So there must be none?

Robberies, murders, rape... no harmony in any country.

 

[Taz]

Reposting nonsense doesn’t change it.

If only you could find the flaw in it.

Its flaw is that it's all gibberish.

Can you explain how it is gibberish?

Because you’re a retard, and gibberish is pretty much all you have.

I didn’t think you could.

I just did. You’re just in constant denial.

 

[ding]

If only you could find the flaw in it.

Its flaw is that it's all gibberish.

Can you explain how it is gibberish?

Because you’re a retard, and gibberish is pretty much all you have.

I didn’t think you could.

I just did. You’re just in constant denial.

I couldn’t be happier for you to see it that way, brother.

 

[Taz]

Total nonsense again. Do you make this shit up as you go along?

No. I use reason and experience. We can learn much from studying the evolution of space and time and our experiences as creators.

No wonder your theories are so whacky. You think to can figure it out yourself, lol.

It’s self evident.

And that’s supposed to be proof?

I’ve already given the proof you dismissed it without cause. I’m afraid I can’t help you.

Go buy a dictionary.

 

[ding]

You don’t need examples you have your own experiences to go by.

Translation: I don't have examples because there are none so I'll deflect

Furthermore it appears you have an unrealistic standard for societies living in peace and harmony as most people in all societies throughout history have done so.

Are YOU living in peace and harmony now? Or is YOUR life full of disorder and chaos? What is the standard you are asking me to meet? What measure will you consider to determine if a society is living in peace and harmony. Because I would argue that societies which don’t live in peace and harmony are the exception.

The US certainly doesn't live in peace and harmony. I was born while we were at war and we have been fighting wars for my entire life. I was born when segregation was legal and common. Black men were attacked by dogs and are still being shot in disproportionate numbers. Is the US an exception?

I am telling you pretty much all societies live in peace and harmony. My standard is not anarchy. What’s yours? Utopia?

So school shootings mean peace and harmony?

So there must be none?

Robberies, murders, rape... no harmony in any country.

So would the number have to be zero?

 

[Taz]

Its flaw is that it's all gibberish.

Can you explain how it is gibberish?

Because you’re a retard, and gibberish is pretty much all you have.

I didn’t think you could.

I just did. You’re just in constant denial.

I couldn’t be happier for you to see it that way, brother.

You’re mad, I’m happy.

 

[ding]

No. I use reason and experience. We can learn much from studying the evolution of space and time and our experiences as creators.

No wonder your theories are so whacky. You think to can figure it out yourself, lol.

It’s self evident.

And that’s supposed to be proof?

I’ve already given the proof you dismissed it without cause. I’m afraid I can’t help you.

Go buy a dictionary.