dyanaprajna2011
Dharmapala
Is there such a thing as a universal morality? If you think so, how does one determine what it is? Can such a thing, if it even exists, be determined objectively?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
A universal morality?
- Thread starter dyanaprajna2011
- Start date
According to many contemporary scientists, morality seems in some measure to be derived from innate, hereditary human predispositions to behavior in certain ways or value certain behaviors -- such as reciprocity, fairness, and so forth. In that sense, there would appear to be a universal or near universal basis for it.
I think of it as analogous to human tool use. There appears to an innate hereditary human predisposition to use tools. That predisposition seems to be modified by our cultural heritage. And it is again often enough modified by the individual. So you have three forces shaping tool use -- genes, culture, and individual preference. So, too, morals seem to be shaped by the same three forces.
I think of it as analogous to human tool use. There appears to an innate hereditary human predisposition to use tools. That predisposition seems to be modified by our cultural heritage. And it is again often enough modified by the individual. So you have three forces shaping tool use -- genes, culture, and individual preference. So, too, morals seem to be shaped by the same three forces.
After meditating on this matter for some time, I've thus far distilled most moralities to three major "don't"s:
Don't kill.
Don't lie.
Don't steal.
Virtually all forms of morality have these as a basis, and expound upon what exactly they entail as well as providing exceptions.
Don't kill.
Don't lie.
Don't steal.
Virtually all forms of morality have these as a basis, and expound upon what exactly they entail as well as providing exceptions.
Yes. When push comes to shove, morality is fairly well-delimited, mainly by the Golden Rule.
There is certainly some cultural variation, but it is not nearly as strong or significant as sometimes presented. And yes, sure, it is also fairly easy to tell the moral from the immoral in objective ways.
There is certainly some cultural variation, but it is not nearly as strong or significant as sometimes presented. And yes, sure, it is also fairly easy to tell the moral from the immoral in objective ways.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I think it's the same universal mechanism that all animals employ for preservation and care.
I don't see it that simply. Several major religions ay killing is okay under certain circumstances. Yes, these circumstances vary.
I'd lie to save a life. I suspect you would too.
A little kid stealing food for survival? Is that stealing.
dawny0826
Mother Heathen
I used to think that love could be the universal morality - basic love and respect for others. But, people are far too opinionated and have their own version of morality and what's "right" and "wrong".
Ultimately, no, there is no unviersal morality. Morality is defined by the individual and we can only embrace commonalities.
In a perfect world, in my opinion, love and compassion would be the morality that humanity would most benefit from embracing as "universal".
Last edited:
The Sum of Awe
Brought to you by the moment that spacetime began.
No, the concept of morality was man made and can never be made universal - even the Golden Rule isn't agreeable on. People have variations of their morality, and we automatically cling to one (unless you have Antisocial Disorder) by the way our mind is wired.
So even so it is biased to cling to a certain morality and tell others they are wrong, bias isn't objectively bad either, nor is it easily avoided.
Skwim
Veteran Member
How about killing in a war?
How about lying to protect your family from killer intruders?
How about stealing an abandoned car to get you and your children out of the way of an approaching hurricane?
Seems these moral imperatives are really situational.
I agree. As for the Golden Rule, I've always felt that "Do unto others as they would have you do unto them" is far better.The Sum of Awe said:
Last edited:
The Sum of Awe
Brought to you by the moment that spacetime began.
While I get what you're saying, I just wanted to be picky and say that it'd be debatable whether if it's stealing if it's abandoned.
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
morality isnt only about what we should NOT do.
There is a lot we CAN DO which is very moral.
When we see someone in need, do we say: 'I wont kill you, harm you, lie to you or steal from you' and keep walking?
Shouldn't we look for ways to actually assist and help that person? This is what the 'golden rule' actually means...DO SOMETHING!
Dont do nothing. Doing nothing is not moral. So morality is more about what we DO rather then what we dont do.
There is a lot we CAN DO which is very moral.
When we see someone in need, do we say: 'I wont kill you, harm you, lie to you or steal from you' and keep walking?
Shouldn't we look for ways to actually assist and help that person? This is what the 'golden rule' actually means...DO SOMETHING!
Dont do nothing. Doing nothing is not moral. So morality is more about what we DO rather then what we dont do.
Still immoral. I don't see the dilemma here.
Non-conciliable directives when expressed in that particular instance. One must override the other. The choice of which is really easy to make.
Ditto.
Morality is all about applying moral imperatives in specific situations. It may take some skill and awareness in certain circunstances, yes.
Then again, cultivating the desire to have that skill and awareness is in and of itself a moral duty.
darkendless
Guardian of Asgaard
No. Remember, atheists don't have morals 
Skwim
Veteran Member
Okay, but I don't think many people would agree.
Hmmm. Not to argue the point, but I've never heard of cultivating a desire.
It's why I pointed out that different cultures will provide explanations as to what these actually entail, and to any exceptions based on specific circumstances.
I have seen Les Miserables.
Last edited:
True enough. Not really significant, though.
Maybe I used inadequate wording? It is basically a matter of deciding that it goes against one's best interests to try and avoid awareness of the true consequences of our acts and choices.
morality isn't necessarily the rules we live by, it's the ability and propensity to make those decisions.
i would say, in that sense, that morality is universal. but with varying degrees of acuity.
i would say, in that sense, that morality is universal. but with varying degrees of acuity.
Morality is a human construct, and therefore it can only be "universal" with respect to humans and human cultures, if at all. I would say that "morality" is a construct that is universally held by all humans with sufficient agency, but that the specific nature of this construct is hardly agreed upon by such humans and therefore is not even remotely "universal."
johnhanks
Well-Known Member
There's good evidence, I think, that the drive to seek out and uphold a code governing behaviour is an innate one. The precise behaviours enshrined in that code, however, have been almost infinitely variable, and adaptable to socioeconomic circumstances.
"Do not kill", for example, is far from being a cultural universal. There have been whole societies (the Thuggee, the Aztec) in which killing other humans was part of the fabric of the culture. The nearest you could get to universalising it would be "do not kill members of your in-group, except under certain approved circumstances" - plenty of lee-way there.
Breathe
Hostis humani generis
I think that altruism is coded into many forms of life, because altruism is beneficial for societal harmony and for the continued propagation of the species.
To me:
Do what does the least harm possible.
Do not do to others what you would not want done to you, and they have not asked you to do.
Look after your family {clothe them, feed them, speak well to them, help them, protect them by all means necessary}.
Look after your tribe {see above; your definition of tribe may vary, but I'm using it as 'friends', and 'neighbours' here}
Be kind to the stranger (from whom you feel no threat)
Be charitable: when you have something you do not need, give it to someone who lacks
Do not steal, unless it's absolutely necessary to avoid dying, and when it is possible, return the item
Do not kill, unless it's absolutely necessary to avoid dying
Do not lie, unless not doing it would cause conflict, or it's absolutely necessary to avoid dying
Do not wish for conflict, cause it, nor relish it
Seems okay...?
To me:
Do what does the least harm possible.
Do not do to others what you would not want done to you, and they have not asked you to do.
Look after your family {clothe them, feed them, speak well to them, help them, protect them by all means necessary}.
Look after your tribe {see above; your definition of tribe may vary, but I'm using it as 'friends', and 'neighbours' here}
Be kind to the stranger (from whom you feel no threat)
Be charitable: when you have something you do not need, give it to someone who lacks
Do not steal, unless it's absolutely necessary to avoid dying, and when it is possible, return the item
Do not kill, unless it's absolutely necessary to avoid dying
Do not lie, unless not doing it would cause conflict, or it's absolutely necessary to avoid dying
Do not wish for conflict, cause it, nor relish it
Seems okay...?