Morality n'stuff

[SkiesAhoy]

The question is quite simple: Do you believe that there is an absolute standard of morality, intrinsic to the very existence of the Universe? If no, what else then? A multitude of moralities, neither of them right or wrong? In a way, an amoral Universe?

[Coreybush11]

Society determines the morality, and the morality changes over time as the world progresses.

Sometimes, morale values make absolutely no sense and are subject to be torn down and rebuilt with logical ones.

Until logic is actually determined by the society as well, as what makes sense.

Then everything is actually just interpretations of how humans see the world, and I lose what track I was on and divulge into a series of things that make sense while I masturbate.

[Boxman]

To answer your question, morals are nothing more than distinction of humans from what's right and what's wrong. That being said, just like time, morals are a human concept. Although, humans more or less share a basic knowledge of morals as adults, obviously crime still happens and things most people wouldn't want to see happen, happen. Morals are nothing more than a simple concept...

That ALSO being said, the morals MOST people follow are universal for us as people. Not important to the existence of the Universe in any way, but they're universally used.

As for what Corey said, he is right. Morals do change over the course of time but the basic morals always stay the same. I don't really think there was a time where morally, you felt justified killing another man because he looked at you funny.

[Coreybush11]

To bump this, and to use things as examples, this is my opinion on incest and polygamy.


The exact same argument for gay marriage being legalized.

If it's two individuals, or in this case more than two, consenting to it, why not allow it?
There isn't anything inherently wrong with either polygamy or incest, and the only thing that hinders them are morals.

A case can be made against incest that it allows for the recurrence of recessive traits even more than just from two unrelated people possibly, but recessive traits aren't always bad. Right now I'm talking off the top of my head so if someone who knows what they are talking about with biology can argue for or against that go for it.


What is wrong with two or more consenting individuals doing what they want, as long as they harm no one else in it?

[Kwaurtz]

Morality is a matter of perspective. Depending on where you lived, grew up, and who influenced your life, your set of morality and values will be drastically different from another person.

[Cadaver]

The universe is.  It is not a sentient being.  It is a thing.  Not a living organism.  It has no soul.  It has no brain.  It is. Therefore, it has no morality.

People have morality.  May be even some animals.  Sentient beings may. 

[crypto]

depends on how you define morality.

i think there is a considerable amount of awfully objective laws we could develop if we establish maximization of human well-being and minimization of human suffering as the governing principles of our morality.

but if morality is defined as applying specifically to humans and perhaps similarly intelligent simians, dolphins, etc., then morality is necessarily a construct that did not exist prior to the evolution of these species. it results from the cognitive processes of certain sentient organisms, which possess a subjective view of the universe, and not of the universe itself, which is obviously not sentient.

so: there is no absolute standard of morality built into the universe, but there are some ground rules that could conceivably be established on a global scale (if those theocracies, totalitarian regimes, and other sources either of gross misapprehensions w/r/t human well-being or of sheer disregard for human well-being were wiped off the map).