Something I wanted to get off of my mind...

[Kyle]

I think you all have overlooked one simple fact: Morality is defined only in the eye of its beholder.

Um, no.

I have been specifically arguing against this point of view from the beginning. Morality is not relative or defined by society. It is absolute.

So speaks Apophis? Do you have any proof of this whatsoever?? I mean, I'm inclined to believe morality IS in fact relative. Everyone has different moral values, there is no ONE moral.

By the way, if it were absolute it would be possible to define "morality" in words and describe it so that there can be no doubt anymore.

[DSOK]

So speaks Apophis? Do you have any proof of this whatsoever?? I mean, I'm inclined to believe morality IS in fact relative. Everyone has different moral values, there is no ONE moral.

By the way, if it were absolute it would be possible to define "morality" in words and describe it so that there can be no doubt anymore.

First, the "no" referred to the accusation that we had overlooked something, when it had actually been a central subject of the debate.

Second, I obviously do not have "proof" that my position on morality is correct. This is a question of philosophy, and must be addressed within that domain.

Third, there is no requirement that something needs to be expressible in words to be unambiguous (or, as in this case, usually unambiguous). Words exist merely as epistomological constructs, which have meaning only if we already understand the underlying concepts to which they refer. You can explain the meaning of a word only if there are other words, describing more fundamental concepts, which are known the the listener. At root, "good" and "evil" are very basic concepts, so there is no necessity that they can be explained. This does not, however, preclude our understanding of their meaning. It does make grasping that meaning difficult, as one must overcome such sollipsistic concepts as you have put forth, but the truth is there to be puzzled out, even if it is difficult to express.

[Takarious]

No, morality is not concrete. It is not absolute. Yes, there are natural trends in society that dictate somethings as obviously "immoral", but that perception is simply bound within the society itself. To say morality is absolute is to say that its perception is viewed exactly the same from everyones perspective which is complete nonsense, and that is far from the case. Yes, YOUR own personal views may be absolute but that applies simply to you. Remember, judge not lest ye be judged yourself.

[Glenn47]

Due to human nature, you are judged whether or not you judge at all. People are cruel that way.

[Takarious]

Indeed, if you chosing not to judge something in itself is a judgement.

[DSOK]

No, morality is not concrete. It is not absolute. Yes, there are natural trends in society that dictate somethings as obviously "immoral", but that perception is simply bound within the society itself. To say morality is absolute is to say that its perception is viewed exactly the same from everyones perspective which is complete nonsense, and that is far from the case. Yes, YOUR own personal views may be absolute but that applies simply to you. Remember, judge not lest ye be judged yourself.

I didn't say that morality was perceived the same way by all peoples. Clearly it is not, but equally clearly, there are many societies which find manifestly immoral practices acceptable (e.g. human sacrifice). This alone suffices to show that societal norms cannot form the ultimate basis of a system of variable morality. Morality is absolute. All people, unless they are mentally ill or deficient, can intuitively discern the broad differences between good and evil. Returning to my example, even if people are taught that human sacrifice is acceptable, necessary, or even laudable, they will know, deep down, that it is wrong.

Do not mistake this statement to imply that I now hold morality to be defined by an individual's feelings. As I stated, the basic sense of right and wrong is essentially universal within humanity. For millenia, people have taken those intuitive beliefs as a starting point and tried then to form a complete system of morals with that basis. There are numerous versions of the final result, which differ in many minor details. Neither I nor the people who have developed these systems can say for certain which version is correct, only that there is one system which is so, for all people and all times.

I don't see what, "Judge not, lest ye be judged," has to do with your argument. In fact, that quote is primarily a plea for mercy and forgiveness, a more harsh and abstract version of, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Indeed, if you chosing not to judge something in itself is a judgement.

This just seems like flirting with sophistry. Are you actually trying to make a point?

[Takarious]

By that I simply mean do not form a judgement on a cultures belief simply because it disagrees with your perception of common morality, because chances are the other end of the spectrum contradicts the belief of the individual. I simply meant do not brand one's value(s) without expecting an equal reaction on yours. There are many external situations that can lead ones values astray from instinct driven morality such as religion and one's environment conditions. This is not unique to humans, animals have made adjustments based on living condition so the same is to be expected on our behalf. You have no basis at which to prove that one would feel guilt from "human sacrifice" other than your own personal view on it. If "human sacrifice" was fundamentally evil in the minds of the populous you would have to formulate the basis that the majority of the practitioner societies members along with every governing party involved should be labeled as mentally disturbed for appropriating the idea to begin with.

With the proper psychological imprinting and conditioning it is possible to change a complete social structure, and when broken down, civilizations history can be to some degree labeled as a long term conditioning.

I will agree on one idea however, and that is that we are all born with some capacity of "right/wrong", but I still stand firm in my opinion that most morality factors are a result of conditioning not of instinct and logical train of thought. For instance, the individual mind logicly comes to the assumption that murder is not a wise course of action due to the prospect of them recieving an equally gratuitous fate. Governing societies are built upon logic, a collective of cooperating members prospers more than the individual because the recources available to the group recieves symbiotic benifits. Limited concepts of "right/wrong" sprout from these beliefs, and conditioning fills the rest of the void.

[Strayed Wanderer]

I actually had this conversation during an off period (in school) the past two days. I'd really have to agree with Takarious except that I really don't believe that we are born with a sense of right/wrong.

Morality is absolute. All people, unless they are mentally ill or deficient, can intuitively discern the broad differences between good and evil. Returning to my example, even if people are taught that human sacrifice is acceptable, necessary, or even laudable, they will know, deep down, that it is wrong.

How can you believe that when people are born, even if they are magically raised without aid of another being, could possibly discern the differences between good and evil at all? I fail to understand how this could be possible scientifically or for that matter, just possible. It is difficult to believe we could have such concepts put together in our minds by our genes, morality isn't a feeling like pain, it serves no real purpose. Our morals only help use function as an organized society, not as individuals.

And really, "Morality is Absolute". Are you trying to make a powerful statement or just being close-minded?

[Greatchickenman]

Have you ever seen a feral child? I believe that would discern just about all beliefs of morality.

[fwacho]

Have you ever seen a feral child? I believe that would discern just about all beliefs of morality.

Feral child nothing, Have you ever observed three two-year-olds in room together.

[Strayed Wanderer]

I have... it kinda makes you wanna die a slow painful death followed by an eternity of pain.

[DSOK]

How can you believe that when people are born, even if they are magically raised without aid of another being, could possibly discern the differences between good and evil at all? I fail to understand how this could be possible scientifically or for that matter, just possible. It is difficult to believe we could have such concepts put together in our minds by our genes, morality isn't a feeling like pain, it serves no real purpose. Our morals only help use function as an organized society, not as individuals.

There is a very popular school of thought that believes that philosophical ideas don't need to make sense when they are subjected to completely unrealistic counterfactuals. I agree (in general) with this viewpoint. As it is impossible for a human to be "magically raised without aid of another being," it is a meaningless question. Logically, an impossible situation can such as this can have no predicates. A person could be raised in a totally unnatural environment, but the few cases of this that have been properly studied have all revealed that these unfortunate individuals generally do possess a moral compass, although they also display cognitive and behavioural deficits. There are thumbnail biographies of many such children at: http://www.feralchildren.com/en/index.php.

Genetically, human beings are designed (loosely speaking, in a Darwinian sense) to function in social environments. Morality is an essential element of our makeup, because it makes it possible for us to rely on other individuals, knowing that they have much the same inner standards of behavior as we ourselves.

And really, "Morality is Absolute". Are you trying to make a powerful statement or just being close-minded?

I'm not being closed-minded. I've thought about these questions for a long time and heard all these spurious arguments before, making them easily refuted. There are some much more sophisticated arguments against absolute morality, which, while I do not agree with them, are much less easy to dismiss as trivial.

[Takarious]

I will agree with DSOK that morality naturally comes with any social structure, seeing as a collective would never work if all of its members fought each other. Limited morality is simply innate, not "absolute" or "concrete" however, as we have seen through various techniques of psychological conditioning. We are not born with a sense of "right/wrong" in its entirety, that is something that has been built up throughout history of civilization, however most of that stems from just logical train of thought. With my last example, for instance, one will not kill another because of the fact that that would put them at risk as well from the peers of the previous victim. We are all born with the reflext ability to grasp, suck, and hold our breaths, most everything else is acquired through social structure and common logical deduction.

[Strayed Wanderer]

I would never deny that morality comes with any social structure, it is a vital part of making a society. I continue to agree with Takarious in the argument over an absolute morality.

[Amgard]

I'd have to agree with Apophis on this one.

Humans have been proven to have a societal commitment to each other. Hurting or killing someone is an act of diminishing the societal structure, and therefore is harmful to the offender and the surrounding members of the society. Humans have a natural instinct to not murder. War, yes, and that's slightly different.

Also, many people in Vietnam were observed to have a low BIOLOGICAL tolerance for killing an enemy soldier. This was followed by extreme vomitting. It was dubbed "First Kill Syndrome"