If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Is there a universal moral rule?
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Do any of the moral rules apply everywhere and at all times?
You know, things like "Thou shall not kill", stealing is wrong and so on...
Here's what I think.
Yes. There must be moral rules that apply to everyone and at all times.
You know, things like "Thou shall not kill", stealing is wrong and so on...
Here's what I think.
Yes. There must be moral rules that apply to everyone and at all times.
0
Comments
If someone is trying to kill my family am I wrong to kill them to protect others?
If I'm starving to death is it wrong to steal a loaf of bread?
I am not entirely sure. the thing is, if there isn't a universal rule, then you can do whatever you want, but of course that would be a universal moral rule.
Are they "good" things, or understandable bad ones?
there is no universal maorality in this world. Anyone who can prove it, I will conceed but I don't think you can.
Except that's a universal moral rule. :rolleyes:
Another thought I have had is that when asked people always come up with immoral things that are done in the face of greater immorality as a backup for a "no" answer.
As if picking the least immoral option makes that choice moral. :chin:
Well, it might still be there even though everyone ignores it. We all know we have done things that we know to be wrong because we have placed a higher value on something else at the time.
Good question. I don't think anyone thinks non consensual sex is moral, and animals can't consent. Well, maybe Skippy and Flipper can but generally it doesn't happen. "Twitch ear" "What's that Skippy? You want it long and hard?"
If people's perceptions of morality vary, we can compare it to people's differing view of an object. The object is there but looked at from alternate angles.
Killing a rapist would be morally wrong, it wouldn't be a good thing, but we could understand why someone would do it and we would subsequently forgive or even approve of their actions.
You can never truelly have a universal morality as what is immoral to one is fine to another and so on.
I mean 99% of the world wouldl say raping a baby is wrong and immoral, but there are people out there who rape babies who would obviously say/belive its not wrong etc.
Of that list, only one exists.
But that's a universal moral pronouncement! How can you not have a universal moral law and have that apply to everyone?
Would they believe it was a "right" thing to do , or would they have justifications for it? Like the lies of african witchcraft etc.
Some would justify it, some would say its right. Not a baby raper myself so can't say what they think.
lol, its just a statement of fact that you can't have a universal moral code or whatever coz not everyone would believe in the same moral., its not a universal morale in itself, is it???
ok, I know you don't belive in countries and such but for the sake of argument, I just meant everyone.
It's only a "statement of fact" if you equate "statements of fact" with your personal belief. To say that there is no moral code that applis to everyone is in itself a moral argument.
Good point. But! If one of those feral children is holding onto something (i.e. they own it) and you try to take it from them, you will soon hear about it.
Its a arguement about morality and maybe even a morale argument but does that mean it is a universal morale as in th same contect of everyone beliving the same right & wrong?
Universal morality is a blue drunk up a gum tree is a statement from myself about universal morality.
Well, belief doesn't change anything in material reality, although it does change the way humans interact with that material reality. Fundamentalist religious types change their behaviour in relation to the real world based on their beliefs. Their beliefs are still utter utter rubbish and not born out by that material reality.
My assumption of course is that material reality usurps or is better than belief.
Everyone used to believe that the world was flat. They were ALL wrong. how did they find this out? by refernce to the real world.
But your acceptance of murder becoming accpetable in, for example, war, relies on your ability or agreement with the idea that one person can make the moral rules for everyone else and in particular yourself*. It also depends on things like countries, which of course do not exist.
Is it a reasonable hypothesis to say that you can get people to do things they otherwise wouldn't (due to some undefined moral law they all share) IF you can convince them of certain fictions?
After all, if it was a universal rule that killing other people was fine, then you wouldn't need to brainwash them with ideas of religion, countries, states etc.
*Theres a BIG problem with this, because if one person is in charge of applying a universal moral standard, then that standard must also apply to themselves. If there is no universal moral standard, that person has no business applying a universal standard on everyone else. Theres also the problem of that universal moral standard not actually being universal or it wouldn't need men with guns to force it on others.
I just don't think everyone ever did or ever will agree completely on whats right or wrong.
To say that morality does not exist is a moral standpoint.
To say we really don't understand it is also a moral standpoint.
Your reason for saying that must be to do with the morality and not the universlity, care to elaborate?
Why thank ya! :yippe:
Good quote. And it brings me to an interesting point that any universal morality must take place in the universe. This isn't as kooky as it sounds, because it implies the physical plane. So many moral debates centre around the weird non-physical interpretations of concepts that have no relation to reality.
So they would think of morality as independent of humans, like it was a rule you could empirically verify like gravity or the speed of light. Interesting viewpoint.
SO questions arise of how we come up with them if they don't already exist, like a car already exists in it's parts, we just reform the material world until that car which has been sleeping in a mountain or whatever is made into it's useful form by our efforts.
Not many of us have an accurate map of material reality either, so that might account for our inability to not easily find a moral universal and to think we are acting morally when we really are not. If you were to ask me, there are no kings, there are no prime ministers, just men who have convinced others they are somehow special using fraud, but that's because I always look to the material world for evidence of what people are talking about.
Yes, but of course those groups don't actually exist. The problem there is not with the morlaity, but with the false thought that the real world has groups in it as opposed to only our own minds.
Probably. Like I said, my definition of "innocence" is pretty broad though. Lots of people are guilty as sin, including myself.