I would say your consciousness is who you are, the body doesn't matter. People still consider you YOU if your body changes, but will they still consider you the same if you lets say bump your head and start to act differently?

This post was last modified: 02-22-2008 07:18 AM by NeverMore.

Ok i getcha – now i see why you say there are no universal moral truths. I would say you are correct in the sense that morals have been convenient and useful to humans -living in social groups- but are open to interpretation.

However it seems that the majority of people on this planet have, for whatever reason, developed a similar sense of right and wrong – maybe our sense of morality is slightly different from person to person – and similar is the best we can do. But generally the moral “do to others as you would have them do to you” is widespread. It’s an easy one to understand too and, as i said, doesn’t require adherence to faith or philosophy – although it is philosophy. So yeah i think “moral norms” is about right.

To be honest i was a bit surprised to hear this opinion from you, knowing you to be religious. I would have thought you’d think that we have an innate sense of what is right and wrong, that is separate from the body, or something. But then you continue…

BUT just because we disagree about what's morally right doesn't mean that there are no moral truths

1.maybe one side is right, like for example:

Two cultures disagree about the shape of the Earth, one says it's flat, the other says it's round, obviously one is right one is wrong

Or

2.Both sides are wrong

So I disagree about the doctrine of moral relativism, just because we disagree about moral truths doesn't necessarily mean they don't exist, maybe we just haven't thought of them yet?

Maybe it is the best morals that come to the top and are used the most. And what morals do best can be understood through the evolution of social groups and the complex social interaction that takes place in them. *Looks around for and ethnologist*

Moral relativism does tend to diminish the argument for universal moral truths though doesn't it? Although not as you say the notion of moral truths. Perhaps it is impossible to extinguish a moral truth, it is only possible to move it about. But if it is impossible to extinguish does that mean it is eternal? If so, what is that makes it eternal?

I agree with nevermore our souls aren't in the chest it's in the head. I think the conscience is what makes up most of the person, if i had a friend that turned into a robot I'd still hang out with them.

ethics is tricky, something nice you do for someone might inenvertanly do something bad for someone else. One time I was driving on a not too busy road and I stopped to let some people cross the sreet, and it got the guy behind me angry and he honked at me. Thats not really a great example it was kinda minor, but maybe somethings are too interconnected. My ap enviromental teacheralways said you can never do one thing. I just always thought of it as anything that makes some one happy is good and anything tyou do that makes someone unhappy sad is bad, kicking someone is bad because it cause them pain.

of course once things get more complicated the line grays and appears to dimmish.

Moral relativism can only barely put a damper on the existence of universal moral truths. If we do take moral relativism seriously and say that there are no universal moral truths, imagine the implications:

If we do say that whatever culture your in at the time's morals are right because it is the norm there, then the law would always be just and fair and right according to this way of thinking. Meaning your never given a chance to make your own decisions on morality:what's right is what the law states if you disagree your wrong

Also, wouldn't you say that the world has made progress over history? For instance women used to be nothing but material goods, now they have a chance to live a life, isn't that progress? Well, progress towards what? Are we getting closer to universal moral truths? Morals can't be entirely subjective to culture, there has to be something deeper then the subjectivity that is inherently true for all

And for that reason I do think there is at least one universal moral truth in existence, what that/those are I have no clue, but logically they exist

As for what makes them eternal, you could say that since they are inherent to every situation and every living being, then they will exist as long as there is life, but that begs the question, were they always there? Or will they always be there, if there is no one to adhere to them? Kind of like the old saying if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear, does it make a noise?

I may be wrong, but wouldn't the definition of moral relativism imply that there could be no generally applied moral laws? Moral relativism is based on the idea that what is considered good or evil for one person does not necessarily apply for someone else. By enacting state laws, however, we are establishing morality as an absolute (at least in that region) that everybody must obey.

Personally, I think moral relativism sounds fine when people share similar values, with minor discrepancies. The concept falls short, however, when people operate on a radical set of ethics. Take Ted Bundy, for example: in his written confession, Ted Bundy explained his own justification for killing people. In his mind, people were merely cattle, and their deaths were tantamount to that of killing animals. If our society operated on moral relativism, then we have to accept his viewpoint even though we don't necessarily agree with it.

However, moral absolutism has its issues too, I feel. With that perspective, we must accept the general idea that there are a defined set of rules that dictate what is "right" and "wrong." However, who decides these laws? Even though most people would accept the idea that murder is wrong, there are certain particular situations where that becomes a bit hazy. Is it wrong to kill in self-defense? Is it wrong to kill in order to protect what is yours? What if your life is not in jeopardy? Let's say you're "just" being raped, tortured, and held against your will. You've thought long and hard, but the only way out of this is to kill the person holding you hostage. Are you, then, justified in killing the aggressor? People are often widely divided on such issues. In my opinion, there are simply too many exceptions that make it difficult for ethical rules to work all the time. In order for them to be practical to our world, we'd have to have rules that say "A is wrong, unless B happens, or C... however if D happens, then A is only wrong depending on whether E happens or not"... and so on. When you think about it, though, that's sort of what we do now. In the U.S., when an issue is controversial, then the Supreme Court decides whether or not it is moral. Oftentimes, that leads to a public outcry. The fact that so many people are against the issue, implies that the decision isn't always agreed upon by a large portion of the population. If this is the case, then it can't really work as an absolute rule, even with all the special clauses.

I think the world operates on a mixture of absolutism and relativism. Except in the most extreme and conservative regions, most people are willing to overlook others' different values as long as they don't impinge on the rights of others. If the values differ to a significant degree, however, then problems start to arise. Even though people might not be getting hurt, the difference in views simply won't allow social accord. If porn stars moved into Amish country, there'd be trouble. We cluster together with like-minded people, and then try to apply a set of "absolute" values that everyone respects. When people come along with different views, we'll look the other way as long as it doesn't cross the boundaries of our core beliefs.

I think Congressman Ron Paul is aware of this fact. That's why he proposed that issues like abortion and the legalization of marijuana be decided by the state, not the federal government. I agree with his stance. The various states differ socially, to a wide enough extent, that federally enforcing such laws doesn't really work as well as it should. Some states are more conservative or liberal than others, and view certain issues differently.

Just my 2 cents.

Yea I'd still hang out with my friend, I wouldn't mind if he was a robot, I mean look at full metal alchemist, though I've never watched it a lot, so I may be wrong,but that robot guy, he's the guy's brother's soul trapped in that right? And they're still cool with each other

Yea that's true, and that to me is a major problem, we won't have the ability to have opinions on morality, since everyone already knows what's right and has to follow that universal truths no matter what...Kind of a scary thought isn't it?

Personally I think that sounds like a better idea then running it state wide as you said because nationalism is on the decline. Recently I've read two readings on the fall of nationalism, one was written by Ohmae, who argues that the entity of the nation state is being undermined by globalization of economics, and it's a good thing it's happening. He says that our national identification of ourselves is slowly being replaced by a regional identification of ourselves and that economic policy will only be slowed down if everyone keeps trying to keep every region under the same laws and regulations. I thought it was a really good argument and I agreed with most of what he was saying. The other reading was by Huntington who argued that while yes nationalism is dying, our consciousness is not shifting to become regionalized but instead to become a civilization consciousness and there are about 7 different civilizations that will emerge. For example: western(North America and Europe), Confusion, Islam, Africa etc. But I didn't really agree that this was happening, I don't think of myself as a westerner, do you?

But anyways morality,yeah, I read Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals by Immanuel Kant, he was very difficult to understand for me,and in it he identifies what he thinks is a universal moral truth or rule that is formulated three ways:

1.Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law

Basically stating that when making a decision about morality you have to ask yourself, what if everyone else did the same thing, would the world be better or worse, or could it even function at all? For example, I'm deciding whether of not to tell a lie, well I ask myself what would the world be like if everyone lied, and I would come to the conclusion that the world couldn't function without truth, so lying is therefore wrong

2.Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means

Don't use rational beings in a way that diminishes their rationality I think this one is implying not too sure though...

3.Therefore, every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends

Don't act on maxims that create impossible or irrational ends, exactly what the first one implied, is what I got from it

What do you all think of these as being universal moral truths?

I think they work, except I can't possibly imagine not using anyone as a means to an end, that would say you couldn't take a taxi, because you are using the driver as a means to get somewhere i.e. an end...So I'm not too sure what to think of that one maybe I misunderstood it?

Yea I'd still hang out with my friend, I wouldn't mind if he was a robot, I mean look at full metal alchemist, though I've never watched it a lot, so I may be wrong,but that robot guy, he's the guy's brother's soul trapped in that right? And they're still cool with each other

This is a good point; however, doesn't the older brother then devote the rest of his life to "fixing" his brother? I must admit, it's been a while since I saw the series, and I didn't see as many episodes as I would have liked.

I think rationally we know that the person is still there. Emotionally, though, can we make this same claim? Just a thought. Personally, the mere knowledge that this consciousness is not in its original vessel would make an impact on how I perceive the person. I guess, no matter how much I'd like to believe consciousness defines someone, I'd still involuntarily cling to the concrete reality in front of me. I can't help but feel that there might be others who feel the same way. With the continued integration of humankind and technology, this attitude would surely diminish as time went on.

Most definitely.

First off, let me say: I think almost every philosopher's works are difficult to understand or get through. They operate on such a logical level, that it's almost like reading a textbook on some high-level mathematical concept. Sometimes, I'll read a work, and then have to go on the internet to find a summarized version just to find out what I just read, lol!

As I mentioned before: I think moral truths are easy to apply in the general case; it's in the specific situations that I'm more hesitant to agree with them.

For example, number 1 sounds like a great rule to follow. It's basically a rephrasing of the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have done unto you." I try to base my actions around this principle, but I feel it's easy for me because I'm not in any stressful or highly intense situations that push me to do otherwise. Most people I meet are nice to me, so it's not too much for me to do the same, but let's consider a special case...

Now, I think stealing is generally wrong. You're taking the honest living of another man for your own benefit. However, what if you were a victim of a financial "perfect storm"? You were a hard-working, honest man who considered the welfare of others, but now you suddenly find your entire family living on the street. Let's also say that much of your misfortune was the result of a powerful and wealthy, yet evil, man's machinations. Your family, including your two infant children, are dying right in front of your eyes. One day, you suddenly find yourself in a situation where you can swipe a bit of food from the evil man's kitchen. Doing so will have no effect on the evil man, since he's rich, and he probably won't even know you did it or that anything was stolen from him. If you live according to Rule 1, you don't, because you don't believe in stealing, and you wouldn't want anyone stealing from you. Instead, you simply return to your family and watch them die.

If I heard this story, and was asked what the poor man should do... I'd say "Go steal from that bastard." I think there are a few out there who would agree with me. Is the stealing justified? No, of course not. The man is still committing a wrongful act (if you consider stealing wrongful, which I hope you do ); however, is it a greater wrong to steal or to let someone die? Though the answer to this question may seem obvious to some, other comparisons can be made where it would be a much harder call. In the situation I described, though, I think many of us would probably be lenient on the poor man, given the circumstances.

The Golden Rule is a nice rule to follow, but I feel it works best in a society of harmony. If everybody followed the Golden Rule, then the world would be a great place to live in. However, how well would it work if you were suddenly dropped into a world based on deceit and lies? If nobody respected promises and betrayal was an everyday thing, would it make sense to live according to that principle?

I think people are often caught between living a righteous life and looking out for their own survival. Being kind and respectful to others works with the right people, but there are situations where other measures are needed. Oftentimes, we're willing to withhold judgment on a normally "good" person if a wrongful deed was committed to preserve his/her survival, as well as the lives of others. In a sense, an act of survival is considered a "get out of jail free" card. If this is the case, then I wonder if moral truths can really exist, or at least be upheld, within a human society?

Ok but, simply put, when one group with one set of laws is judged against another group with another set of laws on the same issue, which set of laws is correct? And maybe it is because there are no universal moral truths that people are able to stand up and say something is wrong. Aside from morals, if everyone thought it a universal truth that our solar system is our universe, would this really be that healthy? They may be right, but holding onto this perceived universal truth is preventing them from seeing a different alternative.

Now if there are no universal moral truths, this does not mean that a species can’t come together and generally agree on certain principles. A species may still ultimately realize that there are no universal truths in their moral or legal system, but for whatever reason, have found a stable path. A path that has been forged by the environment they inhabit – a different environment would forge a different path. Morals come together, evolve and work, just in the same way that matter comes together, evolves and works. And this only happens in the right combinations or circumstances.

So it seems we do sort of agree. But i feel a common moral truth is the result of process and conditions, and i hesitate to use the word universal because we now recognise the possibility of many or an infinite number of universes, each potentially with it’s own set of cosmological laws. So perhaps you would like to use the word multiversal moral truth? I don’t think you would be so confident with this idea though.

As for what makes them eternal, you could say that since they are inherent to every situation and every living being, then they will exist as long as there is life, but that begs the question, were they always there? Or will they always be there, if there is no one to adhere to them? Kind of like the old saying if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear, does it make a noise?

Of course the idea of eternal morals is a human concept, we would be in a better position to debate this if we were in contact with intelligent cultures from other planets. Do they have morals? If so, what kind? And so on. Our morals may be similar, or they may be completely different.

Perhaps what we can say is that the framework for morality is there in the universe. In the same way that the framework for stars and planets. But the question is why is it this way, and why does it seem so right? It seems so right that we cannot comprehend other (theoretical) universes having a better system. Ours is just the best and only way we know. At this point my head explodes because i am physically unable to comprehend a different reality to our own 3 dimensional one.

Without relativism we would be unable to hypothesise that Ted Bundy was acting in a way more traditionally associated with animals. It is possible certain of our ancesters-on the way to homo sapiens-were ruthlessly violent and murderous, with little moral awareness. Bundy could be an unwelcome re-occurrence of our primitive past. Perhaps with prevalent absolutist thinking, Bundy and others like him are not understood but dismissed as worthless and beyond hope. Money is taken away from institutions that can help people like this, and put into the penal system.

You know what? I just realized (with the help of wikipedia) that, when I was talking about moral relativism, I was actually discussing moral pluralism. LOL... my mistake.