The AntiChris

I agree with much of what you say, although I draw a distinction between the fundamental values and goals that drive us to be moral and the strategies we employ to fulfil these goals.

These strategies will vary from individual to individual and from society to society. Also, as you point out, they will vary over time as circumstances change and human knowledge and understanding increases. However, it seems to me that basic, underlying human values and goals are pretty much static and, in the broadest sense, universal.

Whether or not this 'universality' is sufficient to formulate a "universal morality" (whatever that is), I doubt it. Although I think that as human knowledge and understanding continues to increase, we have a better chance of achieving something approaching universal agreement.

It seems to me that the universality of fundamental human values is not only desirable, it is the only hope for humanity.


Chris

dshimel

Universal morality is very easy, and has been known forever.

Treat everyone the way you and they would like to be treated, unless through some immoral action of theirs, a person has forfitted the right to be treated in such a manner.


The problem with allowing a society to judge morality is that a society could decide to enslave or exterminate a segment of its population. If the enslavers or exterminators would not like to have the same done to them, and the enslaved or exterminated did not want, or through personal action come to deserve, such treatment, then the action is immoral.

If someone is trying to, or has succeeded in, killing someone, then it is not immoral to kill them.

If someone has obtained property through immoral action, then it is not immoral to take such property from them.

If someone has harmed others, it is not immoral to deny that person the oppertunity to harm others.


Any activity between legally consenting adults not resulting in harm to any non-consenting individuals.... not immoral.

dshimel

"We are born equipped to acquire moral beliefs from our social group, our parents in particular. As we mature, we modify those beliefs in accordance with our experience. "

We are born equipped to acquire values and nroms from our society. Morality is a step up from values. It is a way to judge whether those values or norms are.... ummmm.... moral.

I was raised around may racist people, including my own father. Blacks and Mexicans were largely inferior to whites, thus deserving of their lower economic average condition. This is the value I was raised with, but an immoral value none the less. They wish a better life, and if I were in that economic condition I would wish a better life, and it was not through action of their own that resulted in the lower economic condition, thus it is immoral to treat them as if they are getting what they deserve.

Morality can't just be "serving the greater good" for the greater good may be served by treating some members of society differently than others. Slavery and extermination become moral if they serve the greater good? I think not.

Morality can't be "not causing harm" for in many situations, it is not possible to not cause harm of some kind.

Carlos

While I think most people would agree that "maximize aggregate happiness/minimize aggregate misery" and enlightened self-interest (the golden rule) are good goals and even a good basis for morality, the problem is that they are too vague. At some level we agree, but when it comes to determining which action is likely to make more people happy or how we would like others to treat us we are prone to disagree.

Is it really universal if, by following the rule, we each do different things?

DRFseven

Exactly, Carlos. War, the death penalty and abortion debates are perfect examples of a vague "for the good of humanity" moral principle that is so generalized it allows diametrically opposed behaviors. Most people want some sort of vague "good" for the world, or at least they claim to; there is no argument over that. The problem is that generalized goals like that are useless for devising detailed behavioral codes, which can only be formulated through circumstantial experience. We often find that behaviors once lauded as necessary, good, and just come to be thought of as detrimental, bad, and unjust; even gods fall prey to these behavioral mistakes - look at Yahweh's makeover from OT to NT!

dshimel

"At some level we agree, but when it comes to determining which action is likely to make more people happy or how we would like others to treat us we are prone to disagree. "

It is ture that the Golden Rule is only applicaple to the absolutes. This is moral. That is not. It provides no help when determining which is the least or most moral or immoral of multiple options. It provides no asssitance in defining what is and what is not human, or if we should extend moral behavior to non-humans.

Let us say there is a dictator that kills his own people for doing nothing more than disagreeing with him. This dictator also supports terrorists that kill other people for doing nothing more than living in another country. Is it immoral to try to prevent this man from killing more innocent people? Of course not. He has forfit his right to moral treatment by treating others immorally.

Now, is it moral to kill a few 1,000 of his innocent citizens in an effort to remove him from power if doing so will save 10,000s of thousands of innocent lives? No. It is not moral. Killing innocent people is always immoral.

Is it moral to allow him to stay in office? No. If we were living under his rule, we'd want an outside power to help us. We must treat those people as we'd like to be treated in order to be moral.

Which should we do?

This is a lose-lose situation. The immoral actions of another have forced us into a position where all actions (and even lack of action) are immoral. This situation (and all like it) are the moral equivilant to math's division by 0. There is no correct answer.

"Which should we do? " is not a question of morality. It is a question of value. Both are immoral, and we must decide which immoral act we will take. It becomes a value judgement based on the relative values of the lives involved, the political and economic ramifications of the decision, and yes, even value of winning the next election.

AnthonyAdams45

'Is it really universal if, by following the rule, we each do different things?'

Yes, a rule is universal, even if by following the rule, we each do different things. A falling rock and a dissipating gas each follow the universal rule of gravity, yet they each follow that rule in a different way.

'"Which should we do? " is not a question of morality. It is a question of value.'

How are morals not values? And values require scales -- standards. Why can't the standards of moral judgment be as universal as the standard for how long a metre is, or the atomic weight of lead?

'Killing innocent people is always immoral.'

Why? Uncovering the reason for that judgment might reveal a moral principle to which we can all adhere.

Primal

This is a tricky question. For me morality is a specific type of want or desire. SO the question of "can there be a universal concept of morality?" is kind of like asking "is there a universal concept of want?"

Or more precisesly "is there a universal concept of the specific kind of want we call morality?"

Also, is the issue of there being a universla concept of want, without all wants being exactly the same. For example, I may want to be on dry land, whereas a fish may want to be submerged.

So the answer is, yes. Morality can be "universal" among moral organisms as a specific kind of desire. This would be more or less a generalization based on empirical/concrete similarities.

But this does not mean all organisms have morals, or that even for those with morals: their moral codes will be the same.

admice

Maybe you have all abandoned this thread, but if not...

I would add 'not causing harm to oneself.'

I think the CONCEPT of morality is universal . No culture has been found that did not have some rules for it’s members to abide by. As we know, though, those rules can vary tremendously.

Vicar:
I agree, but can’t that equate to a sense of right and wrong? Can’t you translate that to what will preserve their lives and the species and what will not. I DO think the CONCEPT of morality is limited to sensient beings,.

A Cultural Anthropologist friend of mine was saying they are finding some morals (3 or 4) that are common to all cultures: doing harm to an innocent for example. Unfortuanately I can’t remember what else he listed, we were in a hurry when we spoke of it. He is writing a paper on it. I’ll try to post it or part when he does

I assume by now you have read some on moraility without theism or Biblical justification?. As a Secular Humanist I have explored this some, of course.

Is a univeral morality unachievable, or even undesired? Or at the least, unrealistic?

Some (maybe even me, not sure) are working towards a more global agreement regarding morality. Trying to reconcile and modify the differences in cultures to come up with a more global one. They think it is possible (given a LOT of time.)

Joel

Ya, really good point.

VIcar:

Just because it currently (maybe) doesn’t exist, doesn’t mean it never will. So I disagree the term is meaningless. It is possible to have as a goal. (Whether or not it’s advisable.)

Don’t you love thinking about things like this? I do (no sarcasm meant)

DRFseven


I agree here, with the exception, I think we will find SOME morals don’t need to be changed (possibly “harming an innocent” for example) others will.


Chris:
Morals are important in the short term (thousands of years). May not matter in the long run (Meteor comes, hits the Earth, destroys all life).

Dshimel

Not so, not known ‘forever’. Can’t remember when the concept first appeared in human history (tho I learned it, sucks getting old) but I thiink it was only 6000 years ago or so and NOT universally accepted. Check your facts.

Primal said:

But then you get into conscious or not. Your genes ‘want’ to be well propagated, independent of your moral choices. I wouldn’t define morals simply as wants, by a long shot.

My little pea-brain attempt J
Admice

dshimel

And I would disagree with you... somewhat. There are many situations where giving to someone else is in effect causing harm to yourself. I'd have more money had I not donated toys to the woman's shelter during Christmas.

However, in the end, I've added a little bit to making others happy, and making others happy makes me feel good. So, in a way, I really gave the toys to make myself feel good.

I'm sure, given enough time, I could come up with at least one thing I've done that has caused harm to me, without making me feel good for having done for others.

While I agree with you, it could be argued that some people don't have a morality, and through their actions are killed, imprisoned, or expelled from soceity.



I believe the oldest known documented recording of the Golden Rule is 6,000 years old. That does not imply that the idea was new at that time.

You are correct, however, in that the Golden Rule probably hasn't been around forever.... It is a subject concept only found in those creatures intelligent to understand the results of their actions. Chimps certainly exhibit this behavior though. Only chimps that groom other chimps, are in turn groomed by others. They are intelligent enough to understand that getting others to treat you the way you want to be treated, is to trest them the as they want to be treated and hope that they will return the favor.

So, while a literal forever is incorrect, a "since before the beginning of human life" is probably correct.