All meaning comes from within people, which is what makes it truely universal. Universal is not synomymous with objective.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Are There Any Universal Morals?
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
What source would that be that everyone can agree on?
allfoak
Alchemist
The source that morals come from.
Would you agree that there is a source?
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Sources-more than one.
allfoak
Alchemist
Where do those sources come from?
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Why do they need to come from anywhere? That is why they are sources, right? If it comes from something, it's no longer a source.
There are large scale moral tendencies, eg, murder is wrong.
But these "macro" morals are just that, ie, only tendencies.
(Occasionally, societies will embrace murder in some circumstances, eg, honor killings.)
They're universal only in the sense of a probable system response, the "system" being
genetics, culture, & environment over time. Less probable responses will emerge at times.
But these "macro" morals are just that, ie, only tendencies.
(Occasionally, societies will embrace murder in some circumstances, eg, honor killings.)
They're universal only in the sense of a probable system response, the "system" being
genetics, culture, & environment over time. Less probable responses will emerge at times.
allfoak
Alchemist
All things must ultimately have one source.
There must be a substantial reality from which all things have their source.
That is just basic reason.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
There isn't once source. Even Atoms are not one source. There are many atoms (and so forth) that make up life. We come from different sources. Expand a bit more, an alien on the other side of the galaxy (millions of galaxies from here) doesn't come from the same source we come from.
This is a polytheistic universe. Saying there is one source is like saying you are a part of me and I you. We are both humans, yes; and, that doesn't mean I am you and you are me. We are two distinct individuals regardless of what makes us up as human beings.
There was a thread I put:
and (think I was talking about jesus and god debate a-gain) .... we look the same, smile the same, even have white teeth, but we are not from the same source. We have different parents, from different areas, have different cultures, beliefs, and backgrounds. All of these distinct and unique differences are what makes up our sources that makes life so vibrant on this planet.To make everything "god" is to deprive millions of people who do not have god in their reality a change to say "No. I am not part of your source. There is no source."
If we respect each other's differences, then the source (if one likes) would be a collective term for the diversity of things and people we have on the planet.
allfoak
Alchemist
There must be a source for everything.There isn't once source. Even Atoms are not one source. There are many atoms (and so forth) that make up life. We come from different sources. Expand a bit more, an alien on the other side of the galaxy (millions of galaxies from here) doesn't come from the same source we come from.
This is a polytheistic universe. Saying there is one source is like saying you are a part of me and I you. We are both humans, yes; and, that doesn't mean I am you and you are me. We are two distinct individuals regardless of what makes us up as human beings.
There was a thread I put:
To make everything "god" is to deprive millions of people who do not have god in their reality a change to say "No. I am not part of your source. There is no source."
If we respect each other's differences, then the source (if one likes) would be a collective term for the diversity of things and people we have on the planet.
That is a basic law of life.
All that there is, is part of the same source.
We are all connected by default because we all are part of the same source.
The many come from the one.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
What is that one source?
We are made up of a combination of sources. If only one, whats the nature of it?
allfoak
Alchemist
All thinkers, in all lands and in all times, have assumed the necessity for postulating the existence of this Substantial Reality. All philosophies worthy of the name have been based upon this thought. Men have given to this Substantial Reality many names-some have called it by the term of Deity (under many titles). Others have called it "The Infinite and Eternal Energy" others have tried to call it "Matter"--but all have acknowledged its existence. It is self-evident it needs no argument.
In these lessons we have followed the example of some of the world's greatest thinkers, both ancient and modern--the Hermetic. Masters--and have called this Underlying Power--this Substantial Reality--by the Hermetic name of "THE ALL," which term we consider the most comprehensive of the many terms applied by Man to THAT which transcends names and terms.
We accept and teach the view of the great Hermetic thinkers of all times, as well as of those illumined souls who have reached higher planes of being, both of whom assert that the inner nature of THE ALL is UNKNOWABLE. This must be so, for naught by THE ALL itself can comprehend its own nature and being.
The Hermetists believe and teach that THE ALL, "in itself," is and must ever be UNKNOWABLE. They regard all the theories, guesses and speculations of the theologians and metaphysicians regarding the inner nature of THE ALL, as but the childish efforts of mortal minds to grasp the secret of the Infinite.
The Kybalion
chapter 4
That's exactly what I disagree with, though. What you are calling 'arbitrary' is not. For example, let's say that the guiding principle of my morality is to not do to people what I don't want them to do to me. There is a degree of reason in this, since it's a social contract establishing a pact between people to try and encourage mutually beneficial behaviour. The moral code I derive from this basic premise is certainly not 'arbitrary' (ie. random or based on whim). Nor is it objective though, since clearly the original premise (to not do harm) can be argued, and the resultant moral code is variable.
Subjectively, I would suggest it's possible to justify a murder, but in almost all cases murder is wrong. This isn't written in the stars, or etched in my soul, but it is a very consistent belief across a variety of human societies. A common subjective belief, if you will, which finds itself differing in detail from place to place. In some, for example, murdering a murderer is considered okay, if they have been found guilty of their crimes by their peers. In others, burning a witch is considered okay if the rest of the village largely agrees.
I know of very few groups who would say 'we cannot fault a murderer for following her morals' though, since her actions have obviously and irrevocably harmed another. Only where that harm can be justified by the moral code of the group can it be justified.
Having lived in Papua New Guinea and seen some of the violence done against 'sorcerers' first hand, I can tell you that the moral code that was operating in those locations was severely flawed, and that a 'better' moral code would not have included justification for murdering sorcerers. You can tell me that my beliefs (not to kill people based on accusations of witchcraft) and local beliefs (kill witches by burning) are both equal, and neither is 'better' than the other, but you don't actually believe that. You're simply trying to tell me that ONLY objective morality makes that a meaningful differentiator . And to me, you know which moral code is 'better', just as I do. And it's quite possible to explain why.
Arbitrary means whimful, without reason, random. Our criticism of Nazi Germany is anything BUT random.
You example doesn't truly hold though. Any moral code, be it subjective or objective (and remember, to me, ALL moral codes are subjective), has underlying principles. Consistent application of these is kinda the point.
Your example completely skips this need, since there is no measureable difference between 'blue' or 'green'. If my underlying principles underpinning my moral code are around harm minimisation, or world peace, then the ball example IS arbitrary. There is no morality tied to how people see the ball. But if a random holy book said that people who saw Red were possessed by the devil, then a VERY destructive moral belief can be readily introduced. The people holding to this belief would swear that they are following objective morality. And me, with my subjective morality, would swear that their holy book and literalist beliefs have resulted in a poorer moral code than mine.
I've already argued that 'arbitrary' is entirely the wrong word when talking about 'subjectivity'. So for a different discussion, let's play the mirror game for a second, then. If there are objective morals, how do you know what they are?
Yes. Or at least, a means of measure (since I could be progressing in the wrong direction, or down a particular variable path).
No. Not arbitrary. If the underlying principles of my subjective morality is to minimise harm or pain in the world, then buying free range eggs is measurably better than buying battery eggs. Shunning Aztec traditions of human sacrifice would also be a progressive step.
Subjectivity indicates variance, and is an acknowledgement that there is more than one approach to defining and measuring morality. It does not suggest that morality is not measurable. In different places it will be measured in different ways, which I would imagine is your point (ie. there is no RIGHT way), but there are common themes around social cohesion. Ultimately we will all measure other people's morality based on our own. But like ANY body of knowledge, the cognitive dissonance this process can introduce can lead to change and improvement (or the opposite!) to our moral code.
For example, my dad has some issues with race and sexuality. I have measurably improved my own moral code (don't treat others as I wouldn't want to be treated) by educating myself on these issues, and shaking free of some of the baggage of my childhood.
निताइ dasa
Nitai's servant's servant
Yes, but this is not moral relatavism. By its definition, moral relativism cannot help us determine which moral principles are better then others. Even when you say, that we ought to pursue mutually beneficial behavior, the assumption you are making is that an action that is mutually beneficial is morally superior to an action that is not. This is an objective moral principle you are implying.
See, consistency of a belief, is a sign that a moral principle is absolute, and recognizable. In-fact, the presence of a consistent belief accross a variety of human societies actually points to an objective moral intuition which guides societies into having similiar principles. If morals were simply products of circumstance (as relativism claims) then we would expect societies to be very different in their moral understanding. I think fundamentally, this is a misunderstanding of the term subjective. In Moral Relativism, morality is something which is dependent on the agent (either their environment, their culture, their whims etc) and because it is simply only a byproduct of these, we cannot rank any moral system greater than another (as this would require an absolute standard),
But this a non-moral issue. Generally, in all societies, unjustified murder is wrong. This is an objective moral principle. But what is considered justified , or not differs with societies. However, the moral issue here, which is universal, is that unjustified murder is incorrect.
Okay, I admit there may be underlying principle, but we cannot argue for the superiority of our morals through these principles. Why, because this admits an objective standard. Moral Relativism cannot claim that person A's morals are superior to person B's. Because in order to measure any form of superiority, an absolute scale (standard) is needed.
I think you sort of overlooked my point. The color of the ball does not objectively exist (just like Relativism claims that morality does not objectively exist) therefore we cannot argue whether our perception of the ball is true or not (because its color doesn't exist). In a similiar way, we cannot say that our morals of this society are greater then the morals of another society, because according to moral relativism, a moral standard does not exist. There cannot exist such as thing as a "poor moral belief" unless we assume certain moral principles as absolute.
Read my first post. I gave two methods to recognize them. (arguing from moral intuition, and arguing from consistency).
Okay, buts say that the underlying principles of my subjective morality was to maximize harm of pain in the world. On what basis is your moral principles greater than mine? Without admitting some objective moral end (even if it is general) we cannot ever argue for or against any moral system in a meaningful way.
See, the essence of moral relativism, is that morality is only a human construct. It has no purpose apart from what we give it. Just like, we can't say my preferences for certain food, are better than someones preferences for other foods, we cannot meaningfully argue for one moral principle over another. Only if we admit some absolute moral principles (like in the food example, say something like, cooked food is better than burnt food) can be make an evaluation. In order to evaluate, we need objective principles.
Last edited:
Outside of the context of any one moral system. I'm pretty sure you meant that. Am I wrong?
निताइ dasa
Nitai's servant's servant
No, you understand correctly. Obviously we can evaluate morals with reference to our own system, which is generally what relativists do. But we cannot elevate a system as greater than another in any stable way.
Strictly speaking, I agree with you. It seems logic only takes us so far. Of course, as a practical matter there are various methods that people routinely use to create consensus -- however imperfect -- about which moral systems are superior to which others. I am not endorsing such means, nor necessarily disavowing them. Just pointing out what everyone knows anyway: There are means of creating an imperfect consensus, such as by indoctrinating children in a moral system, etc.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
The laws of physics say we are made up of atoms (source), 2. Water (source), H20 another source among others.
These make up one body, yes "and" they are distinct and their own unit. We have multple sources. Our elders can philosophize and draw conclusions and that doesnt change the laws of physics. The amount of people who philosophize does not mean that statement is true. We are just trying to explain the unlnown. But the unknown isnt one thing. Like the universe, there are many things that are the sources of the whole. Those sources are my focus not the result of them.
Last edited:
Augustus
…
I subscribe more to the idea of value pluralism (I keep meaning to make a thread on this but never get round to it, like most topics I mean to make threads on
).This approach avoids the pitfalls of pure relativism (cooking a baby in a cauldron is not objectively less moral than saving a family from a burning building), and also pure value monism (Western liberalism is the universal destination of civilised society).
In its most basic sense, this is the idea that humans, like all other animals, have some kind of nature: we are not a totally blank slate. There must therefore be some kind of universal values, however we are complex and there is often tension between these values which often contradict each other. Because there is no objective way to rank these competing universal values, cultures evolve different ways to balance these with significantly different results:
Value-pluralism implies that there may be no way of comparing the overall value of different cultures, but this is not because cultures have intrinsic value: ‘The bottom line for value-pluralism is the diversity of goods and evils, not of ways of life’ (Gray 2000: 8–9). Cultures are not organic wholes that are so different from one another as to be incommensurable. They are different ways of settling universal conflicts, and when their worth cannot be compared it is because no one settlement is best or right. Nor are cultures hermetically sealed off from one another. Now as in the past they are intermingled with many people belonging to several at the same time. When different cultures come together to make conflicting demands in the life of a single individual the result is moral conflict, but it need not be a clash of rival cultural ideals. It may be a choice between different ways of combining universal values.
