Logic won't allow it... Moral law must exist, if we appeal to a standard of "better" for humanity.

[Just_me_Mike]

I think the general standard people use to compare cultures is how happy overall the people are.

If this were the case, we might imagine a nation on Opium all the time. It sounds silly, but seriously, it would make everyone happy all the time, literally. If you ask a person high on opium if they feel good or are happy, you will get an affirmative most of the time.

So let's say I ran into a culture that on the surface EVERYONE appeared happy, and I wanted to duplicate that, so I ask the king, how do you do it? Then I find that there is a ventilation system to send opium to everyone all day.

I go back and do that to my culture. By your standards that would be morals at work. Which we know that simply isn't true at all, right?

 

[Midnight Pete]

I insulted the idea not you.

Machines can not understand humans behavior because they are machines. It would better to say, why animals can't understand human behavior, and then it would be for the same reason humans can't fully understand a lady bug.

All we can do is observe and predict, as we are not privy to the inner workings or their thought process.

Things you think are complex and contradictory about human morals, may say more about you then human morals. Do you want to elaborate on what is so complex and contradictory, so we can see?

All we can do is observe and predict, as we are not privy to the inner workings or their thought process.

Have you ever heard of psychotherapy?

 

[Magic Man]

Well it seems it is more than just "some" basics. If indeed such a things exists, that guides, governs, and corrects our behavior, it is no light thing I would think
Which is why most object to it in the first place, no one wants to be accountable to anything like that. Ya know?

I think people object to it because it's not some thing that exists. It's something we create. It's not that we don't want to be accountable.

 

[Magic Man]

If this were the case, we might imagine a nation on Opium all the time. It sounds silly, but seriously, it would make everyone happy all the time, literally. If you ask a person high on opium if they feel good or are happy, you will get an affirmative most of the time.

So let's say I ran into a culture that on the surface EVERYONE appeared happy, and I wanted to duplicate that, so I ask the king, how do you do it? Then I find that there is a ventilation system to send opium to everyone all day.

I go back and do that to my culture. By your standards that would be morals at work. Which we know that simply isn't true at all, right?

That society wouldn't last very long, and the people would not survive very long. This is why I used some different criteria the first time, but this time all you're doing is forgetting the common sense part. The common sense part is for everyone to be as happy as can be within the context of a functioning society. The part in italics should be a given.

 

[LuisDantas]

If this were the case, we might imagine a nation on Opium all the time. It sounds silly, but seriously, it would make everyone happy all the time, literally. If you ask a person high on opium if they feel good or are happy, you will get an affirmative most of the time.

I agree. Such a criterium would indeed be way too incomplete. One must also consider how sustentable the desired situation is, and at which price. And then, of course, drugs are something to be disposed of.

Morality demands a certain kind of ambition from the populace.

 

[CarlinKnew]

Because we observe and say they get better. We can only do that if there is something between good and bad morals. Otherwise their is no standard, which would be fine if that is what we observe, but it doesn't fit what we see.

So just because some people say that morals have improved, it is necessarily a fact? Sounds to me as if they're stating their opinions.

Your not thinking your replies through to their conclusions. If someone still believed slavery is moral, it has NOTHING to do with morals, or moral law, it has to do with education. Are you not able to follow that rabbit trail?

So if someone disagrees with you about morality, it's not just a disagreement; they are in fact incorrect and need to be educated (indoctrinated) in your beliefs?

 

[Penumbra]

There is no absolute morality.

But, when a goal is agreed upon, there exist objectively better ways to reach that goal than lesser ways. In reference to this goal, it can be said that moral law exists. These moral laws are relative to the agreed-upon goals.