Is there a universal code for morality? Is morality relative to various cultures? Is it relative to particular individuals?

Morality is based on religious customs and cultural taboos, I think. Morality also has to be enforced by authority, or "the mice will play". I have got to quit clicheing but it is so useful.

Seeing how morals where not created by any one person, or any one being, they would have to be realitive based on culture.

Delta, what about the Ten Commandments for Judeo-Christians, given by the one being God.

What about them? Morality affects more than Jews and Christians. Morals are different for different cultures, further testement to the fact that morals didn't come from a single entity.

The Judeo-Christian God is one that I don't belive in, and accordingly Nevin and I once had a huge debate over Atheism and Morality.

And how many Christians do you know that follow the Ten Commandments to the letter?

I'm not exactly asking the source of morality, although that is certainly tied into the question. More precisely, is there an objective standard by which we can judge actions/thoughts/behavior to be moral/immoral? In this case, we might say, person A or culture A's practices are objectively immoral in such and such a way.

Is a standard relative merely to culture? In other words, we might say, "well it's wrong here in the West, but according to Thai culture it is moral. Therefore, we can't judge it as wrong, but Thais can judge it as wrong."

Or is the standard merely relative to what an individual believes? In other words, "he thinks such and such is right, and no one can judge it."

More or less.

Copying my latest blog entry where I post some random thoughts.

First it might be a good idea to define what we're actually talking about when it comes to morals. I disagree with the defintition you gave that morals "are the beliefs one has". This is a hugely relativistic definition.
Kant defines morals and morality in his "Critique of Practical Reason" as: duty of all human beings (i.e. what they ought to do).
Now the question is, what is the duty of all human beings? Is there a code that needs to be followed? Obviousely those who believe and follow Judeo-Christian beliefs believe that there is a universally applicable code that all mankind is to follow.

But back to talking about the relativism of morals: I would say that if begin saying that everyone can define morality on his own, then you get into a lot of trouble. Why? Simply because reletivism leads only down a path of selfishness. If morals are not absolute, then who are we to judge a mass murderer? In his mind, what he is doing is right, why should we judge him?

And plus, total moral relativism is self defeating. Think about it: "You should always avoid using always" or "you absolutely should not use moral absolutes". Both of those statements are self defeating and illogical.

Moral absolutes are necessary in order to enforce anything, or to have any kind of law. Law is based on moral absolutes (or at least it used to be). Murder is always wrong, stealing is always wrong. If you go down the road of relatvism then there is no basis for telling someone that a certian action is wrong.

I would say yes. I would say that there is a universally applicable standard of morals that apply to everyone. Granted there are certain perversions of morality that have become associated with certian groups of people, but just because that culture accepts the practice does not mean that it is right. Cannabilism was accetable in many cultures...does that make cannabilism right or moral? I would say that the answer is no.

Most of us can say that murder is taboo in all cultures, however what may be "bad' under one form of thought, may not be so under another. I would say that any killing is unjustifible, however, some would say that their divine being supports them in a war. One might say that polygamy is wrong, others say it is the way that God intends. Can one say that those "moral questions" are Black & White.

And laws are based on cultural norms, not the ideals of all of humanity. In the US, we find it "alright" to put someone to death as a punishment, while most other nations don't. In the US, we find it apporite to allow a woman to have an aborition, other nations don't. Laws are not absolute for all of humanity, thus how can you say that morals are?

.....to you. Are we to use your morals to define that of all of humanity? Prehaps for the people who do practice cannabilism it is not wrong, it is not immoral.

I want to start out with an example. Lets say there was a catastrophic event, lets say it was huge explosion at a factory in X-ville. Well, one newspaper got all the facts right, reported everything 100% accurately. Other newspapers are inaccurate in there reporting. They don't have all the facts straight, they say that it was a 40 car pile up, or that aliens invaded or some other sort of nonsense.

But now, according to your line of reasoning, the other newspapers were just as right as the one newspaper that actually got the facts straight. This does not make logical sense.

Simply having a belief does not mean that your belief is equal to anyone elses, or that it is just as good.

Yes, one can say that "moral questions" are "Black & White". Why? Because there is a universally applicable moral code. Why is this code universally applicable? Becuase it was the first (and only totally true) moral code, and it was set out by a Divine Being, also known as God. Think about it, all other moral codes came AFTER the Judeo-Christian code was set in place, and it was not set up my a group of mortal, fallible people. This code was set up by the creator of morality and law.

Because there is one code of conduct, it is accetable to say that Adultery is wrong, or Murder is wrong, no matter where you are, or what culture you are in.

HUMAN law is based on cultural norms. Human law is a degradation of Natural or Divine Law. And you are right when you say that HUMAN Laws are not absolute over all humanity. Why? Because a single nation does not have dominion over all humanity. However, God does. God has dominion over all humanity. Therefore His set of morals ARE absolute.




Ok, a question here: Are you guys holding to the position that things are wrong only some of the time? That everything depends on the situation, and that you really shouldn't judge anyone for their actions?

Don't quite see how my reasoning leads to that, but alright.

That only works if you belive in the Judeo-Christian God. I don't. I don't belive that any divine being put fourth morals, rather I belive that humans created the morals that they live by. Accordingly, I doubt that you and I will see eye to eye on much of anything in this topic, because of the primary difference of opinion.

Heh, as I stated above, I don't belive in your God, so I can't quite agree with this, nor refute it totally.

I hold to the idea that most things are not Black and White. Seeing how most things are realitive, depending on point of veiw, I cannot say that I can judge a person correct or incorrect in the greater sense, merely in my own opinion, my own "point of view".

The definitions of any word can be said to be relative simply because words are a way to quickly and easily state an idea.

How isn't that a hugely relativistic definition?

I find my definition to be better simply because no matter what side of a topic you question you will often find people say that the other side is immoral or have inferior ones. So how do we explain what morals are? We need to take into account just what people call morals. What do people say is moral? Something they believe in. Since there is bound to be at least one person on this planet representing countless different thoughts is it reasonable to say that morals are the beliefs one has? I would think so.

Why do we need to be someone special or hold some special view in order to judge another?

I fail to see how those two phrases help your point.

Yes, morals are a form of justification. However, morals being relative, why can't what is most beneficial for all involved be the basis for telling whether an action should be accepted or should not?

However, saying that moral absolutes are necessary does not mean that they exist.

Everything is morally neutral.

I'm going to side with Demosthenes, sort of.

The statement that "moral truths are relative" is in a way self-defeating. If individuals can have equally true codes of morality, then when Demosthenes says "Morality is absolute," he's right. But when someone else says "Morality is subjective," they are also right.

Deltasix has pinpointed a point of contention that most likely won't be overcome in this thread. It is clear that Demosthenes grounds belief in absolute morality in belief in the Judeo-Christian God. That's fine. But as Deltasix has pointed out, those who disagree with the Judeo-Christian notion of God will ultimately disagree with corresponding views of morality.

Feel free to discuss God in another thread. In this thread, let's continue with morality.

In addition to Demosthenes' belief in God, there is also the following argument

This is a consequentialist argument. It is not a bad argument, but it doesn't NECESSITATE that there be moral absolutes. In other words it is said, "if you go down the road of relativism then there is no basis for telling someone that a certain action is wrong." Well, this very well could be the case.

I just want to summarize briefly. Demosthenes has approached this argument in two ways: 1. Morality is absolute because God gave it. 2. Morality is absolute because if it isn't, then there's no basis for right and wrong.

The problems with these approaches are 1. There are people here who don't believe in God. 2. Just because we don't like there not being a basis for right and wrong doesn't mean that such a basis exists.

So I'd like to back up absolute morality, but using the approach given by the other side.

Many cultural relativists back up relative morality by saying, "When looking at all cultures throughout history, we see that what is wrong for one culture is right for another. Therefore, morality is relative."

Let me adopt the same approach. Fine. Let's look at all cultures. When I personally look at all cultures, I see that there is not a strict detailed code that is true across all peoples, but I still see a code that is true for all humans. I see that indiscriminate killing is frowned upon, and I see that indiscriminate sex is frowned upon. I see that compassion is seen as good. So even if I use the same approach, I come to a different conclusion. Morality may not be the SAME everywhere, but it is not completely different.

I think this is where religion can come in and say that everyone has a conscience given by God, which is why there are these similarities in every culture. However, everyone has a fallible will and a fallible mind, which is why there are such differences. Again, those who don't believe in God won't buy into this last part.

How can one man argue opinion with another? How can someone force there opinions on others? Religion is the main issue in "Right or Wrong". Read this story and tell me how someone can argue "Right or Wrong".

An old Arab man is riding his horse in the desert and is nearly dehydrated and so is his horse, when he comes upon a small oasis he want to get off of his horse and drink while letting his horse drink as well but there are no trees near the water for him to do so becasue he is afraid if he does not tie up his horse it may run away. He searches the oasis for something he can tie his horse up with. Finlay he finds an old metal poll and put it into the ground very deep so that it stays also it is very hard to see as there is only about 1 foot of it left sticking out of the ground. he ties his horse near the water. The old man and his horse both drink and rest for the night. The next morning as he departs from the oasis he decides to leave the poll in the ground for the next rider who happens to come along.

Latter that day another old man comes by the oasis and sees the poll in the ground he is walking and has no horse to tie up so he sees the poll as a danger as it is very low to the ground and very hard to see so he pulls the poll up so that no one will trip over it. He stays for the night and leaves the next morning.

Now in this story both men saw that they were doing something good something to help someone else.. So who was right and who was wrong?

They both can be right. I do not believe that there are strict comprehendible applicable universal moral absolutes. But I also do not think that all morality is completely relative.

Take this example:
A man sneaks into a house, steals an infant, kills it, and eats it.

Please find a philosophy/religion/culture that could justify this as being right.

The Zulu Tribe. They were recently discovered only about 10 years ago and that is very similar to one of there rituals that is the transition from boy to man.

Could you show me a reference to this?

I think this is somewhat the right direction. There must be some sort of synthesis between the two. This is how I personally answer this question.

1. Humans are the only moral beings in existence (space and time).

2. The ability to be Moral is a result of our evolutionary history.

3. The evolutionary purpose of morality is that it creates social cohesion, and makes societies possible. Groups are more functional for survival in the state of nature (evolutionary history).

4. The essence of morality is the ability to make the interests of others as being equal of more important than/to one's own interests(for example: the social contract, or the submission of subjects to a ruler via power or knowledge or faith, etc.)

5. Over time social histories, the circle of interests, the "moral circle" has been expanding, from kin group to (eventually) the entire species. With several increments along the way. This process my occur in discontinuous spurts, and may experience retrogression.

6. Moral Rules/imperatives, are themselves, the result of highly complex socio-cultural histories (including the relations of power, knowledge, production, etc.) Thus they are culturally specific, and thus relative between cultures.


7. Many Cultural Relativists agree that Ethics can be defined in three basic models, but they're not perfectly applicable everywhere.

-The ethic of divinity: pertains to a sense of exalted purity and holiness, which is opposed to a sense of contamination and defilement

-The ethic of community: pertains to mores of the social group; it includes values like duty, respect, adherence to convention, and deference to hierarchy.

-The ethic of autonomy: pertains to individual's interests and rights. It emphasizes fairness as the cardinal virtue.

All three may exist within a culture to varying degrees and be carried in varying ways.

My hypothesis is that, Morality is a special motivation of human beings. Most of us are endowed with a moral sense. (very few of us see ourselves as amoral) But this moral sense is channeled into cultural rules and values, which maybe defined in terms of divinity, community or autonomy, etc...

Morality in itself is universal, particular moral rules are relative.

Relative/Universal Moralisms cont'd

Arguments made on behalf of Universal moralism falls into the problem of cultural imperialism. The west has a common problem of believing its rationalist based ideals are universal to all cultures, which is incorrect. Even Kant had this problem, believing that the categories of perception were innate, rather than culturally conceived. The problem in any argument on behalf of relative morals, is that we know instinctively/intuitively know that morals exist, we have experienced them. Each of us conceive that particular intentions, actions or consequences as being "just wrong." And we can see that some kind of morality is necessary for order, freedom, equality, or justice to exist.

One major problem throughout the discussion, has been to get to a good definition of a "moral." I personally prefer the terms "ethics" or even "Axiology," because they're more particular. There is no representation of a "moral" that can be universal, because when we consider a "moral," our definition would be bound to a historical (evolutionary/social) intra/inter cultural context.

We can study particular ethical systems or values, and consider the contexts in which they are brought about, and the functional/exploitative purpose they serve within each of the their respective cultural value systems/ "regimes of truth

One point of view that we have left out is the view of morality is that of "the nihilist." Nietzsche pointed out some very interesting issues in his texts "Beyond Good and Evil" and "On the Genealogy of Morals".

Ah Nietzsche, there's something to a lot of what he says, however, I feel he doesn't descend far enough into the depths. He takes a squinting look at the darkness people are capable of and then turns away and thinks that look is enough to write about...

I concur with you that most Western writers that write about the universality of morality tend to argue that Western morality is universal. However, I think that what is universal is this concept that the Romans possessed of things that were either fas (done) or nefas (not done.) What is fas or nefas I definitely think varies from culture to culture; however, I believe there is this universal idea that somethings just aren't done.