Universal Morality

[tessaesque]

I disagree, we need semantics. The word murder is perfect because it means the illegal killing of human life. Society has accepted the fact that there are legal reasons for killing human life (e.g., self-defense, law enforcement, war). Consequently, "thou shalt not kill" is considered a mistranslation in the case of the Ten Commandments.

No it doesn't. No definition in any non-legal dictionary specifies "unlawful" or "illegal" killing. The synonym for murder is "kill". Not "kill illegally", just kill.

 

[Goshin]

No it doesn't. No definition in any non-legal dictionary specifies "unlawful" or "illegal" killing. The synonym for murder is "kill". Not "kill illegally", just kill.

Um, that is incorrect. The very first non-legal dictionary I checked said this:

mur·der (mûrdr)
n.
1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
2. Slang Something that is very uncomfortable, difficult, or hazardous: The rush hour traffic is murder.
3. A flock of crows. See Synonyms at flock1.
v. mur·dered, mur·der·ing, mur·ders
v.tr.
1. To kill (another human) unlawfully.
2. To kill brutally or inhumanly.
3. To put an end to; destroy: murdered their chances.
4. To spoil by ineptness; mutilate: a speech that murdered the English language.
5. Slang To defeat decisively; trounce.
v.intr.
To commit murder.

Colloquially, I don't know of any rational person that says, of someone who defended themself against a lethal threat using deadly force, "He murdered that guy in self-defense". Never heard that even once.

To kill and to murder are not the same. There is a very strong distinction made in almost every human society.

 

[Alyssa]

I disagree, we need semantics. The word murder is perfect because it means the illegal killing of human life. Society has accepted the fact that there are legal reasons for killing human life (e.g., self-defense, law enforcement, war). Consequently, "thou shalt not kill" is considered a mistranslation in the case of the Ten Commandments.

ok, we need better semantics. Koine Greek, perhaps: With a language like that, we could have four different words for love.

 

[VanceMack]

What is the source of 'morality'? I mean...it HAS to come from somewhere. I think societies have a right to establish a defined 'moral code' but beyond that...I think we as human beings play awful fast and loose with the concept of morality. We use it to fit our way of thinking.

 

[tessaesque]

Um, that is incorrect. The very first non-legal dictionary I checked said this:




Colloquially, I don't know of any rational person that says, of someone who defended themself against a lethal threat using deadly force, "He murdered that guy in self-defense". Never heard that even once.

To kill and to murder are not the same. There is a very strong distinction made in almost every human society.

From dictionary.com (you'll notice the word "law" right before the definitions that define legality)

mur·der   [mur-der] Show IPA
noun
1.
Law . the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).
2.
Slang . something extremely difficult or perilous: That final exam was murder!
3.
a group or flock of crows.
Relevant Questions
Why Is Abortion Wrong?
How To Host A Murder Mys...
What Is Murder?
Why Was Julius Caesar Mu...
verb (used with object)
4.
Law . to kill by an act constituting murder.
5.
to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously.
6.
to spoil or mar by bad performance, representation, pronunciation, etc.: The tenor murdered the aria.

Synonyms
10. See kill1 .

 

[Alyssa]

What is the source of 'morality'? I mean...it HAS to come from somewhere. I think societies have a right to establish a defined 'moral code' but beyond that...I think we as human beings play awful fast and loose with the concept of morality. We use it to fit our way of thinking.

Do not kill because why? well.. because if everyone went around killing one another, societies could never have developed to begin with. Even certain animals have demonstrated morality. There are other explanations for morality than religious dogma.

 

[VanceMack]

Do not kill because why? well.. because if everyone went around killing one another, societies could never have developed to begin with. Even certain animals have demonstrated morality. There are other explanations for morality than religious dogma.

I agree that societies can absolutely establish codes. Law and order is critical in any 'civilized' society. That doesnt explain the source and origin of morality beyond acceptance of historical (lets go with historical not religious) dogma.

 

[Goshin]

From dictionary.com (you'll notice the word "law" right before the definitions that define legality)

The definition you posted is almost entirely in agreement that "murder" means a certain type of killing, to wit an unlawful one.

 

[Goshin]

I agree that societies can absolutely establish codes. Law and order is critical in any 'civilized' society. That doesnt explain the source and origin of morality beyond acceptance of historical (lets go with historical not religious) dogma.

My own personal moral code is very religious in nature, and I agree that any moral code that simply hangs in the air unsupported is a weak one. However, the idea of the thread was to see what sort of morals people on DP would think were "universal" to all human beings regardless of nationality, creed, etc.

Now if you want to discuss how morality originates or how it is upheld as something that should be followed, that's a reasonably relevant topic for the thread.

 

[Alyssa]

I agree that societies can absolutely establish codes. Law and order is critical in any 'civilized' society. That doesnt explain the source and origin of morality beyond acceptance of historical (lets go with historical not religious) dogma.

Moral codes develop over time. There is no single point of origin. It's not like the Ten Commandments, or the golden tablets of Moroni. These stories are founded based on the premise that such revelations are necessary for morality. It gives the false impression of Authority where there is none.

 

[VanceMack]

My own personal moral code is very religious in nature, and I agree that any moral code that simply hangs in the air unsupported is a weak one. However, the idea of the thread was to see what sort of morals people on DP would think were "universal" to all human beings regardless of nationality, creed, etc.

Now if you want to discuss how morality originates or how it is upheld as something that should be followed, that's a reasonably relevant topic for the thread.

Thats the thing...I wasnt trying to make it be 'about' something...merely point out that there IS really no universal moral code. I think there is an ideal 'code' that people would like to be universal, but that is a luxury we have after centuries of trial and error.

 

[VanceMack]

Moral codes develop over time. There is no single point of origin. It's not like the Ten Commandments, or the golden tablets of Moroni. These stories are founded based on the premise that such revelations are necessary for morality. It gives the false impression of Authority where there is none.

We pretty much agree believe it or not. But we CAN NOT deny the learning experience history has taught us. Whether morality be a construct of a God, a fear created by man to control others, or a philosophical construct, it is a learned and ultimately shared experience.

 

[Alyssa]

Thats the thing...I wasnt trying to make it be 'about' something...merely point out that there IS really no universal moral code. I think there is an ideal 'code' that people would like to be universal, but that is a luxury we have after centuries of trial and error.

I think what Goshin is asking is: Can morality be self explanatory? I don't believe it can be. People are too diverse, and there are simply too many variables to consider.

 

[Goshin]

Thats the thing...I wasnt trying to make it be 'about' something...merely point out that there IS really no universal moral code. I think there is an ideal 'code' that people would like to be universal, but that is a luxury we have after centuries of trial and error.

You are correct, there is not a universal moral code that is accepted by all humanity, or even most of humanity.

The nations and cultures of the West hold many core moral principles in common, because in large part they originated from common origins: The Ten Commandments chiefly, along with influences from ancient Greek philosophers and the classical-liberal philosophers of the 17th-18th centuries.

Non-Western cultures often hold to very different value systems and morals. Even in the West, the "common decency" that was once a such a strong binding tie has been deconstructed to a great degree.

There are, as we both know, some cultures that would be baffled by the notion that they should not kill or enslave those who disagree with them or do not follow the same religion or belong to the same tribe. There are sub-cultures that view theft as "righting social injustice"... and so on.

I was simply wondering if there was a core set of values that DP'ers could agree on... then again most of us are Westerners or at least heavily influenced by Western civilization, so it is slanted to start with.

 

[Goshin]

I think what Goshin is asking is: Can morality be self explanatory? I don't believe it can be. People are too diverse, and there are simply too many variables to consider.

Yes! Or at least, is there some bare minimum of morality, some short list, that a very large number would accept as "self-evident" or "natural to the human condition".

 

[VanceMack]

You are correct, there is not a universal moral code that is accepted by all humanity, or even most of humanity.

The nations and cultures of the West hold many core moral principles in common, because in large part they originated from common origins: The Ten Commandments chiefly, along with influences from ancient Greek philosophers and the classical-liberal philosophers of the 17th-18th centuries.

Non-Western cultures often hold to very different value systems and morals. Even in the West, the "common decency" that was once a such a strong binding tie has been deconstructed to a great degree.

There are, as we both know, some cultures that would be baffled by the notion that they should not kill or enslave those who disagree with them or do not follow the same religion or belong to the same tribe. There are sub-cultures that view theft as "righting social injustice"... and so on.

I was simply wondering if there was a core set of values that DP'ers could agree on... then again most of us are Westerners or at least heavily influenced by Western civilization, so it is slanted to start with.

When you say a Universal code we can agree on...do you mean as a code of morals to post by or as a group decide that which would be ideal for the world to follow?

 

[Goshin]

When you say a Universal code we can agree on...do you mean as a code of morals to post by or as a group decide that which would be ideal for the world to follow?

More the latter, but mainly as a thought-exercise rather than anything we could seriously attempt to propagate globally.

 

[AGENT J]

I actually think th some of the 10 Commandments sums it up fairly well . . . (combined with yours of "Do unto others....")

5th -- Honor your parents.
6th -- Don't kill anyone.
7th -- Don't commit adultery.
8th -- Don't steal.
9th -- Don't lie.
10th -- Don't envy.

Inter-lace those with the 7 Deadly Sins -- and I think that sums it up fairly well:



Just curious. What does Tigger have to do with this thread?

I wouldn't honor my parents if they were criminals or abusive or my dad beat my mom

if you are trying to kill me or my family I will kill you

adultery is pretty solid unless its voluntary adultery

what if I steal your heart? awwwwwww LMAO

what if someone asks me if they are a huge fat grotesque ugly pig and thats what my opinion is of them? Im going to lie and water that down.

i have envied and it has inspired me to do better

now of course I was TRYING to come up with reasons to do the opposite but it was just to prove a point.

yes there are universal morals but they are still grey

its very interesting though

 

[Alyssa]

Yes! Or at least, is there some bare minimum of morality, some short list, that a very large number would accept as "self-evident" or "natural to the human condition".

It would make things much easier for us (as a species) if at least basic morality could be self evident. But that's just not the case. I don't celebrate differences in people because those differences create problems. If we could function like the Borg or a colony of ants, imo we'd already be a space-faring species with hundreds of light years explored and even colonized. Instead, we're still on earth beating each other over the heads with religion. So much wasted potential and energy on fruitless endeavors. Billions of manhours and resources squandered on entertainment or A-muse-ment. As a species, we are just too inefficient.

 

[Goshin]

It would make things much easier for us (as a species) if at least basic morality could be self evident. But that's just not the case. I don't celebrate differences in people because those differences create problems. If we could function like the Borg or a colony of ants, imo we'd already be a space-faring species with hundreds of light years explored and even colonized. Instead, we're still on earth beating each other over the heads with religion. So much wasted potential and energy on fruitless endeavors. Billions of manhours and resources squandered on entertainment or A-muse-ment. As a species, we are just too inefficient.

Hm. I don't think I would care to be Borg. :mrgreen:

 

[Alyssa]

Hm. I don't think I would care to be Borg. :mrgreen:

Me neither. But at least everyone would get along. And we'd be more successful as a species.

 

[Zyphlin]

I don't actually believe in the notion of Universal Morality. In part because I believe a notion of "Universal Morality" would need to apply not just in a society, but within nature as well, and I don't believe many would. In nature, I would see nothing morally wrong with "stealing" because the notion of property would be only that which you could forcibly keep as your own. Murder, as well, couldn't even function within such a thing because there is no "law" without society. Just two examples of things commonly thought of as universal morality which I think can't possibly apply.

Now, when talking about Universally "Common" Morality, in the notion of moral norms that would routinely be viewed as part of a moral code of any society, then I do think there are some common ones. Some of which have been hit on. But I just don't think there's an inherent "universal" set that is present inherently within man.

I believe the closest you could get is the golden rule of "Do unto others..."

The reason I say this is because while that is a set notion, it also allows for subjectivity from person to person regardless of society.

For example, take stealing...

I would find stealing wrong. I would not steal from someone in general because I would not want someone to steal from me. HOWEVER, if I was poor, starving, and saw food I would attempt to take it and as such it would be wrong of me to have a MORAL issue with someone doing that to me. In that instance, "stealing" could not be the moral baseline because I'm already establishing levels of variance making the broad notion of "stealing" as immoral incorrect.

So beyond the "golden rule" I think you'd be hard pressed to find something I'd view as "universal morality" or even many things that would fit as universally commonly held morality. I would disagree with the "non-interventionist" notion as one such things because it can contradict with the golden rule.

If your family was dieing, you saw shelter, but it required you to either force your way in along with the person inside it or force that person out, and you'd choose to do it anyways for the good of your family.....then by the golden rule, it'd be moral for someone to do such a thing to you in such a situation. However that would contradict the interventionlist principle. I think really, the golden rule is that one overriding thing when talking about any sort of universal morality. If you're okay with yourself doing it, then you must be okay with others doing it TO you. If you're not okay with someone doing it to you, then you shouldn't do it.

 

[Alyssa]

I could kill others to save my own family. Most people would.

Some people even rape infants because they believe that sex with a virgin cures HIV. But how many people would go that far to save themselves? No way-- I'd prefer death. Universal morality only exists in religion.Only an absolute Authority can create and enforce absolute morality. But moral relativism doesn't seem effective, either.