Is there such thing as "universal morality"?

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Radical atheism defines itself precisely as SPECIES SURVIVAL

Well that's completely madeup nonsense.

 

[G.T.]

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.

Id posit that radical atheism is a misnomer. Atheism is the simple state of being unconvinced by something.

The additives come when ego interjects.

 

[ding]

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?

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

 

[ding]

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.

If only you could find the flaw in it.

 

[ding]

I just watched the scene from Molly's Game where the fat guinea beats the shit out of Molly. I'm pretty sure the anger I felt towards him had nothing to do with my survival instincts.

 

[ding]

It never ceases to amuse me when people that believe that they are philosophers make arguments that make no sense to the average person. Albert Einstein said if you can't explain something such that a six year old can understand it then maybe you don't understand it yourself.

Personally I think philosophers just like to hear the sound of their own voices which is why they speak so much gibberish.

 

[cnm]

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

So, as someone pointed out, slavery is moral, right? Well corn ma pone, the South will riz agin'.

 

[cnm]

both Jews and Romans loathed human sacrifice

The gladiator tradition began as human sacrifices.

 

[buttercup]

Spend some time here: Visit Stockholm - Visitstockholm

Then spend some time here: Riyadh

Sharp relief... and your answer...

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

I'm always amazed at how so many people can't seem to grasp that.

 

[cnm]

Every society that exists or has ever existed on Earth agrees that killing other human beings is a Bad Thing.

No. Many societies considered killing other human beings to be among the best things their members could do.

 

[ding]

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

So, as someone pointed out, slavery is moral, right? Well corn ma pone, the South will riz agin'.

I don’t believe so.

Slavery and abortion can be used to show that man’s perception of morality is subjective. But that in no way means slavery and abortion are moral. They aren’t.

 

[james bond]

God provides objective morality. Jesus provides us heaven and hell. Humans not so much.

 

[james bond]

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.

It's the opposite. Radical atheism is someone who wants complete atheism and will kill and stop at nothing to get it.

 

[buttercup]

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.

So true!!! Sadly, I bet 99% of the naysayers here didn't read that post. Because tl;dr

 

[buttercup]

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

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.

 

[K9Buck]

So, as someone pointed out, slavery is moral, right?

To which scripture are you referring?

 

[ding]

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.

All excellent points. That is one of the all time greatest books. It started out as a series of war time radio broadcasts and was then made into a book.

 

[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?

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.

it is not surprising Confucius did not live in an orderly and harmonious society. No one has. Such societies have NEVER existed anywhere/anytime for very long. They are an ideal. Like heaven. Everyone talks about it but no one has been there.

At the level of family we are virtuous socialists. We share everything and take care of each other. At the level of societies we are amoral, free-market capitalists. We compete for resources and only the strong survive. This is the world we or God made so our saying it is virtuous or not is an insult to us or to God. It is what it is and we can accept it or not.

 

[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.

it is not surprising Confucius did not live in an orderly and harmonious society. No one has. Such societies have NEVER existed anywhere/anytime for very long. They are an ideal. Like heaven. Everyone talks about it but no one has been there.

At the level of family we are virtuous socialists. We share everything and take care of each other. At the level of societies we are amoral, free-market capitalists. We compete for resources and only the strong survive. This is the world we or God made so our saying it is virtuous or not is an insult to us or to God. It is what it is and we can accept it or not.

So you are saying that because we don’t meet the standard that invalidates the standard?

Seriously?

 

[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.

it is not surprising Confucius did not live in an orderly and harmonious society. No one has. Such societies have NEVER existed anywhere/anytime for very long. They are an ideal. Like heaven. Everyone talks about it but no one has been there.

At the level of family we are virtuous socialists. We share everything and take care of each other. At the level of societies we are amoral, free-market capitalists. We compete for resources and only the strong survive. This is the world we or God made so our saying it is virtuous or not is an insult to us or to God. It is what it is and we can accept it or not.

My second point is there is a distribution for pretty much everything. So within all societies there are people who do meet that standard. In fact, I believe the vast majority of most people throughout history in every society has met that standard and that you are being overly critical in your negative assessment.