Vicar Philip

In a debate with a Christian, Dan Barker made the statement that morality can be defined as not causing harm to others.

Without getting into strict definitions of "harm" or "others," and using the terms in a general sense, would it be fair to say that this is the universal concept of human morality?

I think it is obvious that morality can only be ascribed to sentient beings, like humans. Animals do not possess the thought processes which would enable them to discern "right" from "wrong." I believe they act strictly on instinct, or reactively to their environment.

My point in asking this is to separate what we define as right and wrong from the rules laid down in the bible. If we can make no real distinctions, I would argue that the principle mentioned above can hold true regardless of one's particular religion, or lack thereof.

Seraphim

Nope, there cannot be universal concept of morality.

Why? You and I ain't the same.

99Percent

So morality doesn't exist?

Vicar Philip

Not the same, no; but why can't we share the same ideal of morality?

Surely you and I both agree that killing someone for no reason is wrong.

And surely we would both agree that taking property belonging to someone else is wrong.

Would it really be that much of a stretch to group these ideas of morality under one heading, that causing harm to another is immoral, so, the opposite would then be true as well?

Seraphim

"So morality doesn't exist? "

My question : What is morality?

Carlos

At a very general level, I think we can agree. Yes, harming others is bad. It is in the details, the definitions of "harm" that we disagree. That's not the only concern; sometimes these rules are pitted against each other and the right choice is not as clear cut.

Is it harmful (immoral) to use corporal punishment when teaching children? Is abortion harmful? And so on.

Most people would agree that telling the truth is right and that lying is wrong. Suppose the truth harms someone. What is the moral choice?

Vicar Philip

Carlos,

I would agree that, on second thought, "causing harm to others" is a tad bit simplistic. What I'm attempting to do is define morality in terms that anyone, of any background, would have difficulty refuting.

So often we atheists are accused of "turning our backs on god," in essence, losing our "god-given" morality, even denying it. So how are we to live a moral life if, indeed, we can't even define what such a life would entail?

The details of morality do seem to vary dependent on the individual, as Seraphim pointed out.

So, am I fighting a lost cause here? Is a univeral morality unachievable, or even undesired? Or at the least, unrealistic?

Seraphim

"The details of morality do seem to vary dependent on the individual, as Seraphim pointed out.

So, am I fighting a lost cause here? Is a univeral morality unachievable, or even undesired? Or at the least, unrealistic? "

My reply : Hmph ... kids and kids' attempts to discuss such things which they cannot fully understand ... forgive me for laughing.

My question was simple enough - what is morality? How are you going to achieve something if you cannot even understand what you wish to find or seek?

Celsus

The more general you make the statement, the more universal it can be. However, the more general it is, the less useful it is for specifics. i.e. General statements use many assumptions, specific applications stemming from the general/universal one introduces many qualifiers.

Underlying all this is that the ontological foundation of various "moralities" must have enough things in common that a universal statement can be made that unites them. If a common ontological foundation isn't there, then such a search will be fruitless.

Joel

[ December 13, 2002: Message edited by: joejoejoe ]</p>

Vicar Philip

I'll ignore the patronizing tone, and try to answer your question.

The definition of morality that makes the most sense to me is "the conformity to ideals of right human conduct."

I can see immediately that my question of a "universal" morality is thrown right out the window by one word: ideals, plural, no room for a single statement.

What I am feebly attempting to prove is that it is not necessary to reference the bible to have morality.

If we can't agree on what it means to possess morality, how are we any different from theists arguing over the correct interpretation of the bible?