Is there such thing as "universal morality"?

[Picaro]

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.'

lol please, you forgot to throw in a kitchen sink, another irrelevancy re anything I said. Why not ask Mexico why they encourage illegal entry into the U.S. in the first place? Like most tards, you assume that the border issues are entirely our problem, and then whine when Mexico fails to behave like a decent country?

 

[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?

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

Did you? Did Confucius live in such a society or was he just spouting platitudes? Was he able to point to a society that was virtuous?

 

[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.

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

Did God not kill every man and beast on the planet except for one ark? Sounds like genocide to me. Did he not order the Hebrews to depopulate Canaan? Sounds like genocide to me. You may believe he had the right to but it is what he proudly claims.

 

[badger2]

Picaro is the kitchen sink. We have already called the dipshit out on attempting to swindle the reading prisoners into Summa Theologiae, a good way to warp a modern mind into protection-racket primitivity.

 

[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?

Are you married? Do you conduct that relationship following certain standards of conduct? Is there a reason you do so?

Yes, yes, and yes.

I can't think of any country that was not founded on violence. Can you? Your idealism is nice but has no basis in reality. There is a reason there ever been a successful culture or country that lived by the Golden Rule. We evolved, both biologically and culturally, in a world of brutal competition for resources. You play the game or you say goodbye.

 

[ding]

Then how do you know moral laws aren’t set by God. You don’t even know if God exists.

Because there are no moral laws. Do unto others is all you have and that’s not one, that’s a subjective rule.

If moral laws don’t exist then why don’t all behaviors lead to equal outcomes?

That’s an arbitrary conclusion.

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.

 

[ding]

Then how do you know moral laws aren’t set by God. You don’t even know if God exists.

Because there no moral laws. Do unto others is all you have and that’s not one, that’s a subjective rule.

Sorry but you were the one who said God didn’t write moral laws, right? How do you know?

Because god didn’t write the 10 commandments. Moses did by the accounts.

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.

 

[ding]

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.

You are talking about orderly and harmonious societies yet you don't seem to be able to point to any successful ones??

Critical thinking is the practice of challenging what one does believe to test its validity. You don't seem willing to do that.

So you are saying you can't use your own experiences in your personal life as proxies?

To answer your question directly, early Colonial America.

Upon my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there, the more I perceived the great political consequences resulting from this new state of things.

In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom marching in opposite directions. But in America I found they were intimately united and that they reigned in common over the same country.

Religion in America...must be regarded as the foremost of the political institutions of that country; for if it does not impart a taste for freedom, it facilitates the use of it. Indeed, it is in this same point of view that the inhabitants of the United States themselves look upon religious belief.

I do not know whether all Americans have a sincere faith in their religion -- for who can search the human heart? But I am certain that they hold it to be indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions. This opinion is not peculiar to a class of citizens or a party, but it belongs to the whole nation and to every rank of society.

In the United States, the sovereign authority is religious...there is no country in the world where the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America, and there can be no greater proof of its utility and of its conformity to human nature than that its influence is powerfully felt over the most enlightened and free nation of the earth.

In the United States, the influence of religion is not confined to the manners, but it extends to the intelligence of the people...

Christianity, therefore, reigns without obstacle, by universal consent...

I sought for the key to the greatness and genius of America in her harbors...; in her fertile fields and boundless forests; in her rich mines and vast world commerce; in her public school system and institutions of learning. I sought for it in her democratic Congress and in her matchless Constitution.

Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power.

America is great because America is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.

The safeguard of morality is religion, and morality is the best security of law as well as the surest pledge of freedom.

The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other

Christianity is the companion of liberty in all its conflicts -- the cradle of its infancy, and the divine source of its claims.


One Nation Under God: Alexis de Tocqueville

 

[badger2]

Ding is full of it and is using an escape mechanism to bypass responsibility, which is by default, schizoid: Shults has already explained the moral issue of the theogonic (on another morality thread [italics]), as the pathology that prefers right over wrong, though renders religion's victims as vulnerable to its coercion, which in the head of a religious believer is just this either/or schizoid process. We will take note of ding's attempt to weasel out of debate by introducing it into the thread that does not have the opposing viewpoint, so important to protection-racket mentalities, so important to the territorialism of screenal (dipshit) space.

 

[ding]

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.

You are talking about orderly and harmonious societies yet you don't seem to be able to point to any successful ones??

Critical thinking is the practice of challenging what one does believe to test its validity. You don't seem willing to do that.

You need to take a broader view and look at diametrically opposed behaviors to understand what I am saying about standards and how outcomes reveal the higher standard.

Two loving people will always have a better relationship than two hateful people. To honest people will always have a better relationship than two dishonest people. Two thankful people will always have a better relationship than two thankless people. Two humble people will always have a better relationship than two arrogant people. Two selfless people will always have a better relationship than two selfish people. Two people who practice fidelity will always have a better relationship than two people who practice infidelity. Two people who are kind to each other will always have a better relationship than people who are cruel to each other. Two forgiving people will always have a better relationship than two people who hold grudges. Two responsible people will always have a better relationship than two irresponsible people. Two accountable people will always have a better relationship than two people who make excuses and blames others for their failures.

Not some of the time. All of the time. These behaviors are independent of man. These behaviors exist in and of themselves. These behaviors are in effect standards of conduct.

 

[G.T.]

Ding is full of it and is using an escape mechanism to bypass responsibility, which is by default, schizoid: Shults has already explained the moral issue of the theogonic (on another morality thread [italics]), as the pathology that prefers right over wrong, though renders religion's victims as vulnerable to its coercion, which in the head of a religious believer is just this either/or schizoid process. We will take note of ding's attempt to weasel out of debate by introducing it into the thread that does not have the opposing viewpoint, so important to protection-racket mentalities, so important to the territorialism of screenal (dipshit) space.

This is all just a function of philosophy and theology over-thinking our simple naturalistic evolution.

 

[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?

... 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?

Are you married? Do you conduct that relationship following certain standards of conduct? Is there a reason you do so?

Yes, yes, and yes.

I can't think of any country that was not founded on violence. Can you? Your idealism is nice but has no basis in reality. There is a reason there ever been a successful culture or country that lived by the Golden Rule. We evolved, both biologically and culturally, in a world of brutal competition for resources. You play the game or you say goodbye.

So then you are saying if you beat your wife you will have a loving and harmonious relationship?

C'mon, man.

 

[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.

Did God not kill every man and beast on the planet except for one ark? Sounds like genocide to me. Did he not order the Hebrews to depopulate Canaan? Sounds like genocide to me. You may believe he had the right to but it is what he proudly claims.

I don't think he did and since you don't believe God exists I know you don't think God did. God didn't write the Bible.

 

[badger2]

The great political consequences of things that ding has perceived also includes the deceptive use of prepositions in the U.S. Constitution (or was that the Declaration of Independence?).

 

[Taz]

Because there are no moral laws. Do unto others is all you have and that’s not one, that’s a subjective rule.

If moral laws don’t exist then why don’t all behaviors lead to equal outcomes?

That’s an arbitrary conclusion.

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.

 

[Taz]

Because there no moral laws. Do unto others is all you have and that’s not one, that’s a subjective rule.

Sorry but you were the one who said God didn’t write moral laws, right? How do you know?

Because god didn’t write the 10 commandments. Moses did by the accounts.

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?

 

[badger2]

ding:....reigns by consent....virtue is the greatest organizing principle known to mankind.'

'Virtue I have quit your tyranny.'
(Marguerite Porete, burned as a heretic, 1 Jun 1310, Place de Greve, Paris)

Shults has aptly described this theogonic "organizing principle" and its natural coercive power in Iconoclastic Theology. Technically, Ding has already gotten screwed by information anarchy, yet is unaware of it, which is why we used the term 'protection-racket primitivity' for Picaro's case as well.

 

[G.T.]

ding:....reigns by consent....virtue is the greatest organizing principle known to mankind.'

'Virtue I have quit your tyranny.'
(Marguerite Porete, burned as a heretic, 1 Jun 1310, Place de Greve, Paris)

Shults has aptly described this theogonic "organizing principle" and its natural coercive power in Iconoclastic Theology. Technically, Ding has already gotten screwed by information anarchy, yet is unaware of it, which is why we used the term 'protection-racket primitivity' for Picaro's case as well.

Ahh, someone who studies philosophy, finally.

Wouldn't you say that ....SPECIES SURVIVAL..... is the greatest organizing principle?

DingDong says a LOT of things that have been out-rationalized and are out-dated.

 

[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.

Did you? Did Confucius live in such a society or was he just spouting platitudes? Was he able to point to a society that was virtuous?

Yes, absolutely I did study the major religions.

Confucius did not live in an orderly and harmonious society. Victors would routinely boil their enemies and feed them to the families of their victims. This is the world Confucius lived in.

Confucius studied ancient Chinese societies; specifically the first three dynasties and found that tradition and rituals are what led those societies to virtuous, orderly and harmonious.

In fact there are no great philosophers or thinkers in the history of the world who do not recognize the importance of virtue. Virtue is not a man made construct. Virtue exists naturally in relationships between humans at all levels; personal, communities and societies. You cannot have a harmonious society or relationship without virtue.

 

[badger2]

Radical atheism defines itself precisely as SPECIES SURVIVAL We will refer to Haegglund's Radical Atheism: Derrida and the Time of Life, for further exegesis of this moral pathology.