Are There Any Universal Morals?

[Sunstone]

Are there any universal morals? By which I mean morals that are applicable to anyone, regardless of anything else, merely by virtue that they are human?

If so, what establishes these morals as universal?

If so, how can it be known what these morals are and that they are universal?

 

[Sunstone]

As for myself, I think that, if you first posit an appropriate axiom or two, you can derive from it a great deal of universal morality. But the necessity is to first posit an appropriate axiom.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I'm not sure what you mean by 'universal'. If you mean 'universally applicable in my opinion' then some version of the Golden Rule, maybe? (I always prefer the Confucionist construct, but whatevs...)

If you mean 'universally accepted' then I'd say no. Not sure if ANYTHING is universally accepted.

 

[निताइ dasa]

I think certain fundamental rights (autonomy and life) are an unalienable part of being human, and so apply to all humans. We are humans because we have self agency over our thoughts, actions etc. We are humans because we live etc. But the problem here lies in differentiating humans from other species. Some philosophers don't (Mill for example) others do (Kant for example claims that only humans are capable of understanding moral truths and acting on them, therefore morality only pertains to them).

Personally I think we can actually argue from agreeement, certain universal moral axioms that apply to all moral agents. This is because there are certain commonalities and tendencies found in all humans beings. If we define morality as purpose based (it exists to help us towards a goal) and we can identify such moral "ends", we can come up with a universal system.

There are three desires, I think, that are fundemental to all humans, and hence their fulfilment can be thought of as moral "ends". I would argue that all humans seek pleasure rather than pain, so pleasure (happiness) is an ultimate moral end. All humans seek to exist rather than non-existence, hence preservation is an ultimate moral end. All humans seek knowledge rather than ignorance, hence Truth is an ultimate moral end. We can easily make a universal moral system on the basis of the above.

Another way we can seek universal principles is through a test of will (take an action, universalise it, and see if it leads to a logical contradiction or a contradiction of will. If t does, such an action is immoral). This is basically a form of "do unto others as they do unto you" type of reasoning. Moral actions must apply to all, and for this to occur, they must not contradict logically or through Will.

 

[Sunstone]

I'm not sure what you mean by 'universal'.

I mean morals that are applicable to anyone, regardless of anything else, merely by virtue that they are human.

 

[Spiderman]

The golden rule

 

[Dawnofhope]

Are there any universal morals? By which I mean morals that are applicable to anyone, regardless of anything else, merely by virtue that they are human?

They are present in 'most or all' the main religious faiths.

If so, what establishes these morals as universal?

The writings we have available that inform us to what the Prophets taught.

If so, how can it be known what these morals are and that they are universal?

As above

 

[Jeremiahcp]

I like to think of universal morals not as something specifically defined but as the optimal compromise for all involved.

 

[icehorse]

As for myself, I think that, if you first posit an appropriate axiom or two, you can derive from it a great deal of universal morality. But the necessity is to first posit an appropriate axiom.

This is my approach as well.

To answer the OP, it strikes me that there is no solid argument against pure relativism, but since that's no fun, I choose to work from "maximizing the well being of conscious creatures for as many generations as possible" as my axiom.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

This is my approach as well.

To answer the OP, it strikes me that there is no solid argument against pure relativism, but since that's no fun, I choose to work from "maximizing the well being of conscious creatures for as many generations as possible" as my axiom.

"no solid argument against pure relativism"

I think there is. For example: "If you promise not to steal my hello kitty slippers, I promise not to poop on you while you sleep." Now that person can pretend the promise is all relative, but if they take my hello kitty slippers then I am pooping on them, and that is an objective truth.

 

[निताइ dasa]

Pure moral relativism is an untenable position actually. If it's principles are accepted, it would be at great odds with our own moral intuitions. More then that, most of our concidered moral principles become arbitrary, and there is no room for meaningful criticism.

 

[allfoak]

Are there any universal morals? By which I mean morals that are applicable to anyone, regardless of anything else, merely by virtue that they are human?

If so, what establishes these morals as universal?

If so, how can it be known what these morals are and that they are universal?

There can be no universal morals but there is an ability to generate and develop morals from within ourselves which is universal.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Pure moral relativism is an untenable position actually. If it's principles are accepted, it would be at great odds with our own moral intuitions. More then that, most of our concidered moral principles become arbitrary, and there is no room for meaningful criticism.

Moral relativism doesn't suggest that 'all morals are equal' or support a reductive argument of same.

 

[निताइ dasa]

Moral relativism doesn't suggest that 'all morals are equal' or support a reductive argument of same.

I never said that. Moral relativism claims that morals are byproducts of circumstance and hence ultimately arbritary (because it denies any universal moral end).. Without an objective moral end, there is no way one can meaningfully evaluate one moral system as over another. There is no such thing as good or bad moral systems, and moral progress does not exist.

 

[Willamena]

I like to think of them as universal mores.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I never said that. Moral relativism claims that morals are byproducts of society and hence ultimately arbritary.

It's the conclusion that this makes them 'arbitrary' that I disagree with

Without an objective moral end, there is no way one can meaningfully evaluate one moral system as over another.

There is no 'objective moral end'. There are only subjective morals. And yet people manage to measure moral systems against their various subjective moral 'truths' all the time.

There is no such thing as good or bad moral systems, and moral progress does not exist.

Only if your definition of 'progress' is limited to 'progress towards the objective finish line'.

 

[निताइ dasa]

It's the conclusion that this makes them 'arbitrary' that I disagree with

My reasoning is sort of, If there is no objective moral end, then no moral system is greater than another. Therefore we cannot fault a murderer for following her morals. If we evaluate her actions from the perspective of our morals, then even that evaluation is arbitrary in the general sense. Why would our criticism in accordance with our morals hold any more weight compared to a criticism in accordance with another system? From our moral standards, we could criticize Nazi Germany policies as bad, but does that criticism hold any weight? If moral ends are truly subjective, then we don't have a solid basis to reason that our criticisms of Nazi Germany policy are any greater than the policies themselves. That is why I say arbitrary.

Ill give an example to illustrate:

Imagine that we had an object (lets say a ball). Now, we also assume that there is no objective fact regarding the color of this ball (just as moral relativism sees no objective principle relating to the morality of actions). Person A, see the ball and says that it is red. Person B, sees the ball and says that is is blue. Now, no matter how much they arguer or criticize each other's position with regards to their own references, we cannot ever make a meaningful evaluation that Person B's claim is any way better or superior to Person A's (or vica versa) simply because of the fact that there ball does not have an objective color. In a similiar way, if we assumed that morality is truly relative, then we cannot meaningfully favor one society's morals over another.

There is no 'objective moral end'. There are only subjective morals. And yet people manage to measure moral systems against their various subjective moral 'truths' all the time.

If moral truths were subjective, it allows for evaluation against other subjective morals, but ultimately that evaluation itself is false, because the very values in question are subject to relativity. Arbitrary morals and subjective morals go hand in hand.

Only if your definition of 'progress' is limited to 'progress towards the objective finish line'.

Progress is not simply change. It is directional change. It implies a goal. There must be an end towards which progress is directed. If that end is subjective, then it is arbitrary.

I'll illustrate the example with the ball scenario. Person A and Person B, now decide to work together and try and find out the actual color of the ball (but remember there is no actual objective color). They perform a series of tests, observations, and now they see the Ball as green. Could we say that they have made progress regarding the color of the ball? No, because the ball does not have an objective color. Only if the ball did have an objective color (lets say green), could be evaluate the efforts of Persons A and B and label it as progress. Progress implies we are moving towards an end which exists as an objective standard.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Are there any universal morals? By which I mean morals that are applicable to anyone, regardless of anything else, merely by virtue that they are human?

If so, what establishes these morals as universal?

If so, how can it be known what these morals are and that they are universal?

No. I'm realizing that more and more I'm studying language, culture, and learning how to mediate between language/culture for mutual understanding. We have mutual understanding and hopefully respect but I was just starting our next chapter of "Does America have a Culture?" and it says that one of things Americans (and Western-minded people) tend to do is find similarities between everyone. It was interesting because we we find "universal morals" we, again, are trying to define people as one unit. Life doesn't work that way.

There are no universal morals. That's a part of life: It's polytheistic in nature. To say it's theistic (having one-moral, one-outlook, one-source, one-this, or one-that underlining it all) unrealistic religious or not.

 

[allfoak]

I like to think of them as universal mores.

Doesn't that include many other things besides morals?
Things that essentially create a culture?

 

[allfoak]

To say it's theistic (having one-moral, one-outlook, one-source, one-this, or one-that underlining it all) unrealistic religious or not.

I am of the opinion that the many can come from the one source.