Welcome to Gaia! ::

I understand perfectly, that's the way I used to think, however, the way to reality distortion where a person becomes criminally insane to actually think what they do is correct, such as a suicide bomber, takes a lot of environmental factors to accomplish.

Reality is based on past experiences, and usually due to how one is affected by things they may think and feel, however, I've come to see that most people are the same when it comes to speaking. Unless someone has been up to the point where they just want to reject everyone in their life, trying to communicate with them is easy no matter what cultural background they are.

This is mostly due to the human emotional response, and logic, since ethics is developed culturally. I find that most humans have a logical capability, and most also have emotions, it's by trying to find a meeting ground between logic and emotion that brings about an aspect of morality people could probably agree upon completely.

Let me give an example... most people have someone close to them. The emotional response to losing that person would be great. Logically, we would try to protect those we love, and are close to. The idea that we should not kill each other is based upon both the logic and emotional response... and the ethics is what comes from that idea.

In terms of issues such as abortion, we cannot say human life is sacred and then disregard it. Emotionally, many people who are pro-choice feel that nobody should be able to interfere with their lives, and I understand that.

The morality we have to come across here is... first off, why do people who are pro-choice or pro-life value a developing human being. There has to first be a common understanding of what makes human life important among the general population, that expands all cultures, are our emotions towards someone what make them real, or is it the simple fact they exist and have emotions like ourselves?

I'm not saying I know an absolute morality, I'm only saying that human environment is vastly different depending on where you grew up or come from, but overall, humans themselves, the human mind, though each is unique, the emotions we feel are usually close to being the same, and the way we deduce our logic (when we're not deducing it with defense mechanisms) are very similiar.

This is why I feel there is an absolute universal morality, despite how diverse the way we may think would seem.

I don't believe we can confirm which is absolute or relative.

People rationalize killing in self-defense, and if something is considered "usually" wrong, then it can't be absolute either.

I disagree, an absolute moral would be something that if broken, is considered wrong in all cases.

I feel the taking of another person's life would fit this discreption, because I don't believe anyone has the right to take the life of another, no matter the situation.

In self defense, a person may kill another, but that doesn't mean they are correct in doing so, it just means they defended themselves.

I just wanted to jump in here because I also believe that their are some absolute objective moralities. Have you read the book Whatever Happened to Good and Evil? It's a great book about moral objectivism.
Anyway, I wanted to ask you about those morals you believe are absolute. Is that really what you believe?
Is killing another human being always wrong? What if you kill someone in defense of your own life? A serial killer breaks into your house and to protect yourself and your family you kill him. Was that act immoral?

How about stealing. What if you had a child and that child was starving and there was absolutely NO WAY to feed that child without stealing. Would it be immoral to steal only enough so that your child could survive another day? (I realize this is unlikely to happen in our current society, but it has been a reality in other times and other places).

Lying is certainly a hard one. If it is an objective absolute moral then lying is always wrong. However, most people agree that it is acceptable to lie to spare someones feelings. Little white lies like "I think your new haircut is great" are acceptable to most people. Perhaps it would be better to say "Lying for personal gain or pleasure is immoral".

I believe that when it comes the morals of murder it is reasonable to say that killing another human being for personal gain or pleasure is absolutely immoral.
Before anyone asks I should go ahead and explain that this fits in with my stance on abortion because I personally believe that a fetus is not a person. I realize that all of you here disagree, and I don't want to hijack this thread with a debate so if anyone really wants to tell me all about how I'm wrong just PM me.

I disagree.

To me, to say that morals are never absolute is to say that nothing is ever really wrong, just wrong in the opinion of one person. This is why I say that killing someone is wrong as an absolute moral, even though there are exceptions. It is absolutely wrong unless you are defending yourself or someone else. It's the same with stealing. With lying, as you say, it's a bt more loose. Lying is probably more one of the relative morals.

It's a continuum to me, I guess. Nothing is absolutely, no exceptions, wrong (Unless you get really specific, like, killing someone for gain is wrong). But I don't believe that it is all relative, because to say that no morals are absolute negates the use of laws, to me, because you would be imposing your own relative morals on everyone through laws.

Oh I'm not saying that nothing is absolute. I totally believe in absolute objective morality. Like I said before, I believe that it is absolutely wrong to kill for personal pleasure. That is an example of an absolute objective moral.
I'm just saying that when you are talking about absolute objective morality you need to use very specific terms. Absolute means without exceptions, so you should not use it to describe morals that have exceptions. To say "Lying is absolutely immoral" would be incorrect because there are exceptions and times where lying is morally acceptable. To say "Lying for personal gain or pleasure is absolutely immoral" would probably be a lot closer to the truth.
I really suggest you read the book Whatever Happened to Good and Evil? It's a great book that defends moral objectives and shows why moral relativism is flawed.
Another thing the book points out is that because we are humans and objective morality exists outside of us it is impossible for us to really know with certainty what those objective morals are. The best we can do is make an educated guess.

We believe much the same, only I see common human values as a sign of common chosen values (almost all human societies believe that rape is wrong, say), and you see this as a sign of a universal morality.

Cool though, that we do believe much the same things. Other than our differing views on this final conclusion, and on the issue of abortion, we do seem to agree on quite a bit.