Welcome to Gaia! ::

I'll answer this in order of my thought process, or it'd be me jumping all over the place and getting muddled.

@Divine: There are different forms of morality. There is personal morality...what is right and wrong to every individual, because everyone has a different view on morality. No one is disputing that.

And then, if it exists, no matter WHAT authority it is...God, Zeus, the scum between my bathroom tiles, if there is a moral absolute, while people may be acting morally within their own personal moral guidelines, they are acting against the universal moral law.

There may be an absolute, there may not. There is no proof either way. Some would say that proof is that most cultures embrace certain things as right and wrong, but I say that's cultural diffusion. I could be wrong, I don't know, but on the other side, to say, "It's not there because I don't see it," is dangerous. All throughout history, we've seen how people go, "Shoot, I was wrong there, wasn't I?" It's very egocentric.

If there is a universal morality, there's no way to know at all what that morality is, so societies need to establish a morality anyway. Morality is saying, "This is right. This is wrong." It doesn't mean some big dude in the clouds goes, "Do this or you'll go to bed hungry!" It means, "This is bad because..." and then comes the reason for the moral. Usually, that reason is, "Someone will get hurt."

If an action is illegal, it is "wrong" to do it. Morals are the rules of correct conduct. That is what making something illegal does. It is immoral by society's standard. There is a societal morality (a kind I didn't go over up top) and societal ethics. They aren't the same thing, but they both exist. Morality is not a spiritual or even a personal matter, though everyone has personal morals (just as everyone has personal ethics).

@ Waters: I hadn't even thought of abortion. If you insult someone to a point, it can drive that person to commit suicide. If you constantly berate someone, same thing...these things can also lead people to have such low self esteem, they get into abusive relationships. Second-hand smoke from one apartment to the next apartment. Taking medication and then driving. Owning large "dangerous" dogs (though admittedly, people are working ridiculously hard to outlaw this one, so I might need to take it out soon). Abstinence Only education (that was way too tempting). I don't think any of these should be outlawed (except maybe the medication thing) but why is the line drawn where it is? Outlawing other things would still keep order. In fact, it might even keep more order and make the world safer, even if it takes away more freedoms, to start banning people from these things which have the potential to kill innocents around them. So why this order that we have?

@ Peer: Using the logic, "This person sees things differently so it doesn't exist," would mean the color red doesn't exist since some people can't see that color. They see things differently. Just because someone has a personal view that does not match with what is actually there (and I'm not saying there is a universal morality, just that it's possible) does not mean that thing isn't there. It means not everyone recognizes it. Saying, "Bill does not see red," does not disprove the existence of the color red. On the flipside, there may be no color red. Bill might be right. Either we're all seeing something that's not there, or we're messing with his head. (Now I want to do an April Fool's Day joke involving a color...it would involve a group effort, and good acting, so it won't happen, but it would be so fun to do. Sometimes I wonder when I turned into a b***h, and now I think I might have just been born that way)

Like I said earlier, personal morality IS validated on a person by person level. But it is possible that there exists an even bigger morality. Saying it is a fact that it does not exist is like saying it's a fact that God does not exist. To you, it may be. But you're not just speaking to yourself, unless your first post was to see your words in type and pat yourself on the back, it was speaking to other people with different beliefs than your own in many other things.

I have yet to see any proof that there is no universal morality. If I claimed it was a fact that there is, I would gladly back that statement up with proof, but since there is none, I wouldn't make such a statement.

I'd also like to point out...I'm not the one who brought up God, I brought up religion in general. There are many, not just the Abramic religions, that believe in a universal morality. There are religions without any deities at all that believe in a universal morality. It interested me that God was brought into this. I never even said I believe in a universal morality, and I'd be lying if I said I was sure one existed, so please stop putting words in my mouth. I'm saying, by stating it's a fact that there is no universal morality, you're placing your own beliefs on a pedestal and asking everyone to accept them as facts.

Color is objective, not all people can distinguish certain colors from other colors. for example, show one person a color and they'll say "green", show another, fruitier person a color and they'll say "turqouis with undertones of seafoam".

I thought driving under the influence of anything was illegal?

Are there really apartments where smoke travels from one to the other? That is horrible! Of course, this will probably just lead to smoking being banned in apartment buildings, eventually.

I see your point though. I think that laws try to balance between keeping people safe from other people, and allow people as much personal freedom as possible.

*thinks*

I tend to see legal matters in terms of "rights" rather than "morals" but I wonder if I see more distinction between these than most people do?

No, but I'm well versed enough in it.

Kant's a slackjawed crack monkey as far as I am concerned. His suppositions aren't supported within reality for Christ's sakes. People want others to lie to them quite regularly ("Do I look fat in this dress?"), and he disproves the "no one wants stuff stolen from them" idea.

Not sure about that. The right to assembly came before most Americans really thought it moral to protest. In fact, that right came from the British not allowing Colonists to protest taxes. I would say that most of the original Bill of Rights were not very common moral beliefs outside of the Founding Fathers (I might be wrong, but I "would say" it anyway *wink*).

Privacy though, that was a common moral belief before it was a right (at least in some groups). Bodily integrity is sort of a moral belief, though I don't think that a lot of people really think of it as such.

Meh. Machiavelli seems like he developed a more useful and accurate model in my opinion.

Not really. I don't want to fight people who don't fight back.

But it still doesn't work. Kant would have to prove that those "universally moral or immoral actions" would automatically apply, and that there is an authority behind them. Hegel is an idiot. And I say that with the utmost contempt. Why he ever existed just pisses me off.

Exactly; it's self defeating, circular logic, philosophical masturbation and it fails. FAILS. F.A.I.L.S. THUNDERCATS HO.

It is entirely subjective. Massocists enjoy being hurt, other people do not, certain people enjoy raping or being raped, others do not, I enjoy eating orphans, others do not.

True, but after thinking, the only logical premise one can come to, is that it is incorrect.

Bah, he has sex with goats.

My point exactly. For something to be justified objectively, you need to have objective reasoning. Since morality is a human construct with no basis in objectivity, you cannot have objective reasoning other than the supposition of a higher moral authority. Since such authority would in turn need an objective justification for its authority, you create infinite negative regression, which is impossible.

Again, that's a silly comparison because it compares apples to oranges. Morality is a human construct that applies exclusively to humans and has no superhuman rule of law. Light waves and lengths, however, exist. They are a fact. They exist, they work under certain laws, behave certain ways, etc. etc. They require no justification for themselves in and of themselves.



Is there any other way of defining morality? Because that's how I've been defining it along with every philosopher I've ever read for the past 6 or 7 years.



Morals aren't enscribed in our DNA though. Humanity lacks a genetic memory like that which you describe.



But for a law to apply, those under rule have to agree with the Rule of Law and the government, or it invalidates the authority of said government. Tyrannical rulers, having no support from the people, do not have the Rule of Law or objective authority.



I haven't been trying to prove anything. I'm waiting for you to prove your supposition first.