Is there such thing as "universal morality"?

[Blues Man]

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.

Perception is reality to the person perceiving.

What cannot be perceived cannot be known therefore it cannot be part of your reality

 

[Blues Man]

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.

So then god was wrong to approve of slavery.

and all slavery is forced no one becomes a voluntary slave

 

[ding]

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.

Perception is reality to the person perceiving.

What cannot be perceived cannot be known therefore it cannot be part of your reality

There aren’t multiple realities. There is only one reality. What you are describing are multiple perceptions of reality. Just because two people perceive two different diametrically opposed beliefs does not mean there are two different diametrically opposed realities. There is a final state of fact for all things. This we know to be reality.

 

[Blues Man]

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.

Perception is reality to the person perceiving.

What cannot be perceived cannot be known therefore it cannot be part of your reality

There aren’t multiple realities. There is only one reality. What you are describing are multiple perceptions of reality. Just because two people perceive two different diametrically opposed beliefs does not mean there are two different diametrically opposed realities. There is a final state of fact for all things. This we know to be reality.

Physicists would disagree with you

And because people with the same ability to perceive the universe can come up with different versions of morality is more proof that there is no universal code of morality

you are saying your god's code is universal and you are obviously wrong because there are many different codes of morality and many people who do not believe in your god

 

[ding]

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.

So then god was wrong to approve of slavery.

and all slavery is forced no one becomes a voluntary slave

God didn’t write the Bible. Men did. And no, for the vast majority of the history of mankind most slavery was not forced, it was indentured servitude to repay a debt. In fact, this is the slavery that is discussed in the OT. Forced slavery was forbidden by the Jews.

The commands written in the Bible were about treating their indentured servants better than their contemporaries of that day. Not about justifying forced slavery.

 

[Blues 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.

So then god was wrong to approve of slavery.

and all slavery is forced no one becomes a voluntary slave

God didn’t write the Bible. Men did. And no, for the vast majority of the history of mankind most slavery was not forced, it was indentured servitude to repay a debt. In fact, this is the slavery that is discussed in the OT. Forced slavery was forbidden by the Jews.

The commands written in the Bible were about treating their indentured servants better than their contemporaries of that day. Not about justifying forced slavery.

Indentured servitude by definition is not slavery as it is a contract entered into freely where a slave is held as chattel

 

[ding]

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.

Perception is reality to the person perceiving.

What cannot be perceived cannot be known therefore it cannot be part of your reality

There aren’t multiple realities. There is only one reality. What you are describing are multiple perceptions of reality. Just because two people perceive two different diametrically opposed beliefs does not mean there are two different diametrically opposed realities. There is a final state of fact for all things. This we know to be reality.

Physicists would disagree with you

And because people with the same ability to perceive the universe can come up with different versions of morality is more proof that there is no universal code of morality

you are saying your god's code is universal and you are obviously wrong because there are many different codes of morality and many people who do not believe in your god

Actually physicists don’t disagree with me. Quantum mechanics never violates the laws of thermodynamics. As for the uncertainty principle there are tons of observations that force particles to choose. Particles are constantly being forced to choose. If it were as you believe it is then we would see random shit happening which we don’t. Cause and effect would be invalid which it isn’t. We live in a deterministic universe where every cause has an effect. Which means that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

The reality is that your argument that there is no universal code of morality defies natural selection. Natural selection has two components; functional advantage and transfer of functional advantage. Successful behaviors naturally lead to success and failed behaviors naturally lead to failure. Since not all behaviors lead to equal outcomes there will be certain behaviors which nature selects as being beneficial to mankind; specifically behaviors of virtue.

Morals are standards of behavior. Virtue is behavior showing high moral standards. The definition of standard is a level of quality or attainment. Therefore, 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. Even Darwin says so.

 

[Blues Man]

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.

Perception is reality to the person perceiving.

What cannot be perceived cannot be known therefore it cannot be part of your reality

There aren’t multiple realities. There is only one reality. What you are describing are multiple perceptions of reality. Just because two people perceive two different diametrically opposed beliefs does not mean there are two different diametrically opposed realities. There is a final state of fact for all things. This we know to be reality.

Physicists would disagree with you

And because people with the same ability to perceive the universe can come up with different versions of morality is more proof that there is no universal code of morality

you are saying your god's code is universal and you are obviously wrong because there are many different codes of morality and many people who do not believe in your god

Actually physicists don’t disagree with me. Quantum mechanics never violates the laws of thermodynamics. As for the uncertainty principle there are tons of observations that force particles to choose. Particles are constantly being forced to choose. If it were as you believe it is then we would see random shit happening which we don’t. Cause and effect would be invalid which it isn’t. We live in a deterministic universe where every cause has an effect. Which means that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

The reality is that your argument that there is no universal code of morality defies natural selection. Natural selection has two components; functional advantage and transfer of functional advantage. Successful behaviors naturally lead to success and failed behaviors naturally lead to failure. Since not all behaviors lead to equal outcomes there will be certain behaviors which nature selects as being beneficial to mankind; specifically behaviors of virtue.

Morals are standards of behavior. Virtue is behavior showing high moral standards. The definition of standard is a level of quality or attainment. Therefore, 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. Even Darwin says so.

5 Reasons We May Live in a Multiverse

 

[alang1216]

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

Seriously?

We do meet the standard. Your standard is wishful thinking, a fantasy divorced from reality.

 

[ding]

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.

So then god was wrong to approve of slavery.

and all slavery is forced no one becomes a voluntary slave

God didn’t write the Bible. Men did. And no, for the vast majority of the history of mankind most slavery was not forced, it was indentured servitude to repay a debt. In fact, this is the slavery that is discussed in the OT. Forced slavery was forbidden by the Jews.

The commands written in the Bible were about treating their indentured servants better than their contemporaries of that day. Not about justifying forced slavery.

Indentured servitude by definition is not slavery as it is a contract entered into freely where a slave is held as chattel

Here are a few links that might help you place this discussion in its proper context. The context of 3000 years ago. Not the context of today. And not the context of forced slavery. Because that's not what the OT is referring to.

Jewish views on slavery - Wikipedia

Limiting the Slavery of Jews - OU Torah

Does the Bible Condone Slavery? | My Jewish Learning

Now let me tell you what I have learned about forced slavery. The Greeks believed that forced slavery was justified by moral superiority. That they were better people. The Romans believed that forced slavery was against the natural law but that forced slavery was justified on the grounds of state superiority. That even though it was against the law of nature that it was justified on the grounds of financial superiority so to speak. The Founding Fathers of America believed that forced slavery was against the law of nature but knew not how to end it and form the union but did set in motion and follow through with ending it. The Democrats - both North and South - believed as the Greeks did that forced slavery was justified based upon moral superiority. That in effect they were better people.

Forced slavery in this country was unique. It was entirely brought here by the British and the British established the unique law that no mixing of races was to be allowed which was different than every other forced slave holding nation. They also enacted laws which established that slaves could be born into slavery. Every bad thing which happened from forced slavery in this country was the product of British and Democrat actions.

 

[ding]

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

Perception is reality to the person perceiving.

What cannot be perceived cannot be known therefore it cannot be part of your reality

There aren’t multiple realities. There is only one reality. What you are describing are multiple perceptions of reality. Just because two people perceive two different diametrically opposed beliefs does not mean there are two different diametrically opposed realities. There is a final state of fact for all things. This we know to be reality.

Physicists would disagree with you

And because people with the same ability to perceive the universe can come up with different versions of morality is more proof that there is no universal code of morality

you are saying your god's code is universal and you are obviously wrong because there are many different codes of morality and many people who do not believe in your god

Actually physicists don’t disagree with me. Quantum mechanics never violates the laws of thermodynamics. As for the uncertainty principle there are tons of observations that force particles to choose. Particles are constantly being forced to choose. If it were as you believe it is then we would see random shit happening which we don’t. Cause and effect would be invalid which it isn’t. We live in a deterministic universe where every cause has an effect. Which means that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

The reality is that your argument that there is no universal code of morality defies natural selection. Natural selection has two components; functional advantage and transfer of functional advantage. Successful behaviors naturally lead to success and failed behaviors naturally lead to failure. Since not all behaviors lead to equal outcomes there will be certain behaviors which nature selects as being beneficial to mankind; specifically behaviors of virtue.

Morals are standards of behavior. Virtue is behavior showing high moral standards. The definition of standard is a level of quality or attainment. Therefore, 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. Even Darwin says so.

5 Reasons We May Live in a Multiverse

I'm totally on board with inflation theory. Whether or not there are other universes out there doesn't trouble me in the least. If there are then they each have their own space and time and we will never know about them as and they will never know about us as we cannot see past our space and time because our space and time is curved just like theirs is.

In fact, it is inflation theory along with red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, the First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics which tells us tells us that no thing created our space and time. There are only two possibilities for how space and time were created. Either spirit (i.e. consciousness without a body or material form) created the material world (i.e. space and time) or everything proceeded from matter. The key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if everything was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

 

[ding]

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

Seriously?

We do meet the standard. Your standard is wishful thinking, a fantasy divorced from reality.

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

 

[alang1216]

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

Seriously?

We do meet the standard. Your standard is wishful thinking, a fantasy divorced from reality.

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.

 

[ding]

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

Seriously?

We do meet the standard. Your standard is wishful thinking, a fantasy divorced from reality.

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.

 

[hobelim]

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

Seriously?

We do meet the standard. Your standard is wishful thinking, a fantasy divorced from reality.

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!

 

[ding]

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

Seriously?

We do meet the standard. Your standard is wishful thinking, a fantasy divorced from reality.

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?

 

[hobelim]

We do meet the standard. Your standard is wishful thinking, a fantasy divorced from reality.

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!

 

[alang1216]

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?

 

[Taz]

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.

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

 

[Taz]

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.

Its flaw is that it's all gibberish.