GameBanshee Forums

Infinite Nature in short, Yes. Because your "worse crime" could be acceptable behavior to others. Morality is man made. Even those rules in religions were written by a man who "heard" something from whatever god you choose.

For instance stoning to death is considered right in some cultures and in some its horrible. Who are you to pass judgement? Is it wrong because its WRONG or because your beliefes based upon your religion or religious background tell you so. If there religion tells them its ok, is it your right to tell them thier religions wrong?

Change is the only constant in the universe. That which rises, falls. That which lives, dies. It can be seen in microcosm on our own planet, from plate tectonics (Pangea of earlier epochs to the disparate continents of today, which are said to be drifting towards one another yet again) to the life cycle of organisms both complex and simple. It can seen throughout outer space on a larger scale as astronomers witness the birth of planets, and the death of stars. We ourselves change throughout our lifetimes, both physically and emotionally, a testimony to the immutability of change, and the ultimate power it wields throughout the universe which we perceive.

Perhaps one could call change Chaos; or perhaps, change the meta-law of the universe arising from the heart of Chaos. From Chaos arises thought, thought lends form to Chaos, form decays and returns to Chaos. I would think of it as the sub-strata of existence. But what lies beyond Chaos? What is Chaos contained in, if it can be contained at all? I believe it is darkness. In the absence of light, there is darkness. The only thing which cannot change, and remains constant despite the change in and around it, is darkness. It will swallow the light created by Chaos, and will remain after it is gone.

I don't feel a universal morality is possible. I don't believe it's possible due to the very nature of life, and the swirling Chaos it arises from. Change, diversity, and truths stranger than fiction buffet life from the moment it has existence within the darkness, and is the rule, rather than the exception. We all might agree on some things most of the time, but not on all things all of the time. Sounds chaotic to me.

Chaos by its very nature creates order, and order by its very nature creates chaos.

Ah but what is this nothingness, this darkness it is only really defined by the effect it has on light.

This darkness over time wouldn't be truly eternal either, chaos holds sway over truly infinite spans of time, because eventually somewhen somehow a resurgence of existence would happen.

As to change being a facet of all life, true, but if something changes to much it is destroyed.

Which is why there is a kind of universal morality, morality are those actions that help people survive. Think about it if somebody just impulsively murdered someone, and everybody did it, then there wouldn't be much of species left. Its why there is even such a thing as morality because in many instances it has helped us survive. Morality sometimes gets in the way of good sense some times, this is when it changes to little, is not adaptive, but sometimes it can too adaptive.

There is I think a universal metamorality at least as far as humans are concerned, without which we would still be clubbing each other over the head with stones and sticks.

As to the universe, nope it couldn't give a whit about morality, only we debate morality.

I will give a serious, but short answer since I'm at work - I can elaborate later if somebody is interested.

I think the notion of "rise and fall", "chaos and order" are a very typically human way of conceptualising naturally occuring processes. Also, I think we humans sometimes attach very strange values to the concepts of chaos and order.

Originally posted by Scayde
The only way there can be a universal morality, is if there is a universal God. Since we as a species are far from defining who or what that God might be, or even if there is one, I don't see how we can define a universal morality.

I don't know how you define neither morality nor universal - is "universal" denoting other species than humans or not? Is "morality" referring to a structured system with well defined rules formulated in detail?

Some regulation of behaviour exist in the form of natural selection and adaptation. For example, several studies have been made of what is called "altruistic behaviour", and in humans you can clearly see that rewards and punishments at group level will be consequential to certain behaviours. I would define that as a kind of moral behaviour. In other primates, you can see similar behaviour patterns.

However, if you by "universal morality" mean a detailed set of rules describing that a certain act or way of thinking is always, under all circumstances wrong (ie an absolute universal moral system) then I don't believe it exists and will ever exist for our species.

Contrary to you though, I don't think gods have anything to do with the possibility or impossibility for a universal moral. A universal moral as I see it, must be connected to something innate in the individuals included in this moral system, it cannot be something that is dependent on changing and variable outer factors. That type of innate moral could be genetically determined for instance, just as many other behaviour patters are genetically determined. It's not necessary that it comes from a god, or some other transcendental being with "higher" power than man (or whatever species we are talking about). The question of the existance of a god is not related to the question of the existance of a universal moral IMO, other than if there is a god who is much more powerful than human beings and we all must obey that god because the god is always right, then it's a simple way to get a set of rules to follow, I suppose. However, I personally very much question the moral of "the weak shall obey to the stronger" - it is not exactly my idea of a good moral! For instance, the christian god as described in the bible is not a being I'd like to obey and adore, since that god IMO is a highly unfair and and narcissistic being.

I think that if there is such a thing as morality it must be universal - meaning that it must apply to everybody.

It wouldn't be very moral if it held for some and not for others.

Some posters argued that the fact that some cultures disagree about what is morally right or wrong shows that there can be no such thing as morality.

I don’t think we can conclude that because some people don’t agree about something then it follows that there is no truth about the matter.

After all, people once disagreed about whether the earth was a sphere or flat – we still want to say that the earth is indeed a sphere and the people that thought it flat were wrong.

Originally posted by Tom2
Some posters argued that the fact that some cultures disagree about what is morally right or wrong shows that there can be no such thing as morality.

I don’t think we can conclude that because some people don’t agree about something then it follows that there is no truth about the matter.

After all, people once disagreed about whether the earth was a sphere or flat – we still want to say that the earth is indeed a sphere and the people that thought it flat were wrong.

Well - regarding the earth, then we are talking a physical measureable thing. When talking about morality, it isn't nesecary measuarable, and even less a physical element.

Wether or not canibalisme for instance, is moral or not is very dependend on the culture in which you observe it.
Now - I just took an rather extreeme item to illustrate the point, there are countless others, with much more subtle differences and disagreements in regards culture.

So differences in morality/ethics and wether or not there is (could exists) a universal morality can not be compared with physical truths or scientific theories.

I agree that there is a difference between physical claims and moral claims Xandax.

My point was just that disagreement should not be taken as a proof that there is no truth about a claim – be it about the physical world or a moral claim.

I say cannibalism is morally ok and you say it is wrong. The fact that we disagree cannot be used to draw any conclusions about the existence of morality.

Originally posted by Tom2
I agree that there is a difference between physical claims and moral claims Xandax.

My point was just that disagreement should not be taken as a proof that there is no truth about a claim – be it about the physical world or a moral claim.

I say cannibalism is morally ok and you say it is wrong. The fact that we disagree cannot be used to draw any conclusions about the existence of morality.

Well - I disagree to a point.
Two people in disagreement is not enough no. But if a culture practices one form of behavoir and another culture views the behaviour as abysmal (for instance canibalisme). Then the differences in culture alone is enough to conclude that there currently is a difference in morality. (One culture views something as moral and another view it as unmoral)

On longer term, it is very plausible that the cultures might merge, or the stronger culture will influence the weaker, and their cultural differences will dissapere (or converge the stronger) we'd likely see a shift in the morality perspective of the culture also.

So on long term basis - I would actually agree with you somewhat, but that is because differences will be blured out, as the world "gets smaller" (so to speak).
But if we take snapshot of a timeperiode and look at the morality in that instance of time - then dissagreements about behaviour in cultures, would in my oppinion also speak as a dissagrement in morality and thus, no universal morality.

(hmm - almost managed to confuse myself ... not good )

I think you need to consider what a culture is. I suppose a culture is something like a group of people that to some point share the same ideas. But how many people does it take to make a culture? and what makes cultures so special that they - and not other people - can determine what is morally right and wrong?

If we say that Nazism is a culture (don’t know if you agree but I am sure we could come up with another example) and one of its ideas is that it is ok to exterminate the Jews. If we also hold that the moral belief of a culture determine what is right and wrong in that culture - we are forced to conclude that for Nazis it is ok to kill jews.

But this argument is not necessary as there is a stronger reason why there is a problem with the theory of cultures determining what morality is.

A whole culture can believe that the earth is flat and another culture can believe it is a sphere. That does not mean that somebody from the first culture will fall over the edge if he sails too far west.

Moral claims are different from claims about the physical world but the fact that cultures can disagree about moral claims does not mean that there is no truth about who is right since cultures can also disagree about physical things.

Long post coming up

Originally posted by Tom2
<snip>
A whole culture can believe that the earth is flat and another culture can believe it is a sphere. That does not mean that somebody from the first culture will fall over the edge if he sails too far west.

Moral claims are different from claims about the physical world but the fact that cultures can disagree about moral claims does not mean that there is no truth about who is right since cultures can also disagree about physical things.

Again – I have to disagree, but I also feel you are using an argument I can’t follow.

You say that because disagreement about the earths shape doesn’t have actual influence on the earths shape, then the same is true for morality discussion.
Well – I can’t really see or agree with this line of thought.
Dissagreement in morals between groups, means that the morals aren't shared, and thus - not universal.

If we say that Nazism is a culture (don’t know if you agree but I am sure we could come up with another example) and one of its ideas is that it is ok to exterminate the Jews. If we also hold that the moral belief of a culture determine what is right and wrong in that culture - we are forced to conclude that for Nazis it is ok to kill jews.

Unpopular answer coming up, but in my opinion…. yes. If we conceive the nazi population of Germany under and around WW2, as a culture, and the imagines that this culture thought it was moral to execute the Holocaust. Then for the Nazis it would be “ok” to kill jews.
Now this is then where the differences in moral for different cultures comes into play, because our culture (the “Western world” basically) doesn’t see this as moral. (Now personally – I don’t view the Nazis as a culture, but more a subculture within the German culture).
To take a more contemporary example, then we can view the Israeli and Palestine conflict.
The Israeli society/culture (and to a large extend our own) views attack on civilians via suicide bombing as unmoral and unjustifiable. However – a large portion of the Palestine society and other parts view this as a moral way to combat what they conceive is an oppression/invading force.

Now I don’t agree with what the Nazis did under the Holocaust in any way – neither do I support suicide bombing (or in fact any targeting of civilians in any conflict), and I’d just like to stress this out.

Morality is a subjective set of rules, subjective for the culture/society where it is in effect. And for our society and culture (the western world) this is in large part a result of our Christian heritage. If we view the society with Islamic background, they carry out another moral-set then we do.

Now personally – I view “our” morality as more right, because I agree with its value system (human rights, personal freedom etc), but that doesn’t mean I doesn’t acknowledge that other people will have other ways of seeing how the world is connected.

To return to the start of your post, to define culture, well that is also a difficult, because it covers a broad meaning. But this snip is in my opinion very much to the point.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/culture
Another common way of understanding culture is to see it as consisting of three elements: Values (ideas), Norms (behaviors), and Artifacts (things, or material culture). Values are ideas about what in life is important. They guide the rest of the culture. Norms are expectations of how people will behave in different situations. Each culture has different methods, called sanctions, of enforcing its norms. Sanctions vary with the importance of the norm; norms that a society enforces formally are called laws. Artifacts, the third component of culture, derive from the culture's values and norms.

Advanced Learners Dictonary
1)
The customs and beliefs, art, way of life and social organization of a particular country or group.
2)
A country, group, etc. with its own beliefs, etc

These definitions all say that each culture can have its own belief system and behaviour. Belief and behaviour in my opinion at the core of morality. If something is moral, it is because we believe it is so.
Now as to size, well I think it would be reasonable to suppose that a culture have to be the predominant belief in the society, otherwise it would merely be a sub-culture of the main culture.

Well – in conclusion of this long post. I see absolutely no problem for why different cultures can have different belief systems, constituted in the moral set of that culture. And then it is logical for me, that if two cultures doesn’t share the same belief system – and moral set – then there is a disagreement in morals, and thus – not a universal moral.
An ending example would for instance be the crusades where it was moral and justified to go on a conquest in the middle-east to win back the “holy cities” from the heathens. Now I don’t know to much about that time period – but I’m sure the so called heathens didn’t see that as moral.

In the later years however, we see a convergence of morals as our world gets smaller (so to speak). Countries and cultures have influence on each other, and thus the various belief systems and morals of different cultures will get closer to each other.

You say that because disagreement about the earths shape doesn’t have actual influence on the earths shape, then the same is true for morality discussion.
Well – I can’t really see or agree with this line of thought.
Dissagreement in morals between groups, means that the morals aren't shared, and thus - not universal.

That is not quite what I am saying.

What I am saying is that we can’t draw any conclusions about the nature of morality simply based on the fact that people disagree.

If it was possible to draw such conclusion we would be able to draw the same conclusions in all other arrears where people disagree.

If you now say to me – “but morality is different in many ways from something like the physical world”. I say fine, maybe you are right about morality being the way you say it is.

But you cannot base your conclusion on the fact that different cultures disagree since different cultures can disagree about the physical world as well.

Dissagreement in morals between groups, means that the morals aren't shared, and thus - not universal.

One important thing I picked up on. When I say “universal” in this context I mean that it applies to every one not that every one has to agree.

Originally posted by Tom2
That is not quite what I am saying.

What I am saying is that we can’t draw any conclusions about the nature of morality simply based on the fact that people disagree.

Well - what we certainly can conclude is that the belief system/moral values aren't shared when cultures disagree and hold their own beliefs. And when thoughts and ideas aren't shared - they can't be universal. Which is pretty much my point.
Even our discussion/disagreement shows this. My belief system isn't share by you and vice versa - so how could either be universal?

Originally posted by Tom2

If it was possible to draw such conclusion we would be able to draw the same conclusions in all other arrears where people disagree.

If you now say to me – “but morality is different in many ways from something like the physical world”. I say fine, maybe you are right about morality being the way you say it is.

But you cannot base your conclusion on the fact that different cultures disagree since different cultures can disagree about the physical world as well.
<snip>

That analogi isn't valid because we are talking about something way different. It is like comparing appels to oranges and because something applys to appels doesn't mean it has to apply to oranges aswell.
For instance, it is like politics.
One country runs with one set of politics (economical for instance) and another country runs with another set of politics.
Then based on the disagreement between the countries alone, we can deduct that the politics they (both) practice aren't universal, and what is right for one country isn't neasecarily right for the other country.

I'm not stateing that we can deduct which moral system is right, wrong, better or worse or anything of that matter. I'm simply stating that because moral values aren't neasecarily shared - they can't be universal.

Originally posted by Tom2

One important thing I picked up on. When I say “universal” in this context I mean that it applies to every one not that every one has to agree.

But even in our day and time, this isn't possible, and this fact is visible in the countless of military, diplomatic, economical and so on conflicts around the world.
It may be possible in the future when/if all the major cultures of the world assimilate into each other, leaving only one dominant culture. Otherwise - who is to jugde wich moral values are "right" and applies to all, and what should be the foundation for such a jugdement ? Our Christian moral values, the Islamic? or any other of the major religions?

I've seen nothing to be able to conclude that there is one moral value system which is universal and applies to all. On the contrary - there are plenty of exampels both present and historic of the oppersite.