4 ms·

How do human groups glorifying immorality imply that there is no universal moral code? If the universal moral code exists outside of those groups, then it can b

by debok 3y ago

How do human groups glorifying immorality imply that there is no universal moral code? If the universal moral code exists outside of those groups, then it can be applied to their actions, and we can call them wrong for the thing they glorify. Your very sentence implies a universal moral code. You are calling murder, slavery, and genocide wrong. By which standard do you know them to be wrong? Such a standard must necessarily exist outside of the groups that glorifies the things you correctly call abominations. Edit: typos

hotdogscout 3y ago
If there are states/governments where Murder, Slavery and Genocide are fine, can you say it is universal if it cannot be applied in that place? What are the conditions for a universal morality?
- debok 3y ago
  What do you mean by "cannot be applied"? Of course it can be applied. We know that those states and governments are wrong by the universal moral code condemning murder, slavery and genocide. We would have no grounds to condemn these things, if it wasn't for a universal moral code.
  - hotdogscout 3y ago
    With that definition any moral code can he universal. I can support legalized murder and condemn everyone who doesn't, therefore creating the grounds to condemn anything else. Some religions practice human sacrifice, including of children.[1] My opinion is we're better off arguing there's a better moral code based on a number of arbitrary parameters (freedom, resource creation, comfort, longevity, equality, merit, envy management, violence management, respect for tradition, respect of minorities, etc). I can't see how you can declare a universal code of conduct, I can see how you can declare a technocratic liberal one. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice_in_Aztec_culture https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice_in_Aztec_cul...
    - debok 3y ago
      I'm not denying that civilizations use different moral codes. I am trying to say that we must have appeal to a universal moral code in order to judge whether a culture's moral code are in fact moral or not. This would apply to our own moral code as well as for those of other civilizations. I am saying that if we are too say the Ancient Mesopotamians was wrong for sacrificing their children, we have to appeal to some kind of universal standard outside of them to do that. This logic also applies to the Aztec human sacrifice, and to the way the Nazi's treated the Jews. We need a universal standard to say they were wrong. To make this more actual: You are advocating for a technocratic liberal moral code. Many people are advocating for a historic Christian moral code. How would you even start debating the Christians without appealing to a universal morality? You'll have to assert that your moral code is universal. If you don't, you have no basis to require other people to behave according to your morality.
  - robotresearcher 3y ago
    So what fraction of dissenters are allowed before the universal code ceases to be universal?
    - debok 3y ago
      If a universal moral code exists, it wouldn't cease existing even if 100% of people dissents from it. The whole point of a universal moral code is that it exists outside of us.
epups 3y ago
> How do human groups glorifying immorality imply that there is no universal moral code? If the universal moral code exists outside of those groups, then it can be applied to their actions, and we can call them wrong for the thing they glorify. Those groups would also call us wrong. If groups of humans tend to display very different and incompatible moral codes, that's a strong argument against a universal morality. Another argument against it is that most people in groups that glorified what terrifies us lived and died without showing an ounce of remorse for their actions. > Your very sentence implies a universal moral code. You are calling murder, slavery, and genocide wrong. Not at all. I used those examples because I know that most contemporary readers would agree. The fact that there is no universal moral code does not mean we can't have a moral code.
- debok 3y ago
  > Those groups would also call us wrong. Wouldn't they then also be appealing to a universal moral code in order to call us wrong? If there is no universal moral code, nobody gets to call anybody else wrong (in the moral sense) at all. We are rightfully condemning chattel slavery. However we can't do that if we are not appealing to a universal moral standard. We have no right to claim that the Southern states were wrong, if slavery in the way existed back then wasn't universally wrong. This also applies to all the other examples people are giving in reply to my comment. People doing things that we consider to be morally wrong does not imply that there is no code. It merely implies that one of us is wrong. > If groups of humans tend to display very different and incompatible moral codes, that's a strong argument against a universal morality. I don't think is is a strong argument at all. People are wrong about things all the time. If a whole civilization of people consider earth to be flat, and a whole other civilization considers it to be round, it doesn't follow that earth has no shape at all. It follows that one of them are wrong. > Not at all. I used those examples because I know that most contemporary readers would agree. Fair enough. I misunderstood you. I didn't mean to strawman your argument.
  - epups 3y ago
    > We are rightfully condemning chattel slavery. However we can't do that if we are not appealing to a universal moral standard. We have no right to claim that the Southern states were wrong, if slavery in the way existed back then wasn't universally wrong. I really don't understand why you think there is a need for a universal moral truth in order to have a self-consistent moral code. We didn't believe that every human being has certain rights, which is why our ancestors did not perceive chattel slavery as immoral. We now do, and the actions of our ancestors are appalling to our modern perspective, but we cannot at all believe that this means we are "right" and they are "wrong" by appealing to a universal moral code. We can point out that certain moral codes lead to better outcomes (golden rule and all that), we can reason that society is better off enforcing stricter moral standards and we can build societies that enshrine some of these moral rules as laws, all without a universal morality existing at all. The comparison to physics does not help here. Morality is entirely dependent on a set of subjective beliefs, such as the one I mentioned above about human rights. Physics is not. The world is either flat or it isn't, but two different groups of humans can have diametrically opposed beliefs about, say, veganism and neither of them is necessarily wrong.
JPws_Prntr_Fngr 3y ago
You use your time machine to travel back to the year 1350 and make contact with a Mesoamerican society that just loves to capture, torture, and execute their neighbors en masse, because doing this is a Good Thing. It pleases the gods or whatever. You think it's a Bad Thing though. You are now outnumbered 100,000 to 1. How do you prove to them that your moral code is the Universally True one, and not theirs?
- pauldenton 3y ago
  By collapsing their civilization with a few thousand Conquistadors as you rally their neighbors who were the regular victims of that capture torture and execution because they've lived there for centuries if not Millenia unlike the men in boats who just showed up and have no such historical grievance

by debok 3y ago

hotdogscout 3y ago

If there are states/governments where Murder, Slavery and Genocide are fine, can you say it is universal if it cannot be applied in that place? What are the conditions for a universal morality?

debok 3y ago
What do you mean by "cannot be applied"? Of course it can be applied. We know that those states and governments are wrong by the universal moral code condemning murder, slavery and genocide. We would have no grounds to condemn these things, if it wasn't for a universal moral code.
- hotdogscout 3y ago
  With that definition any moral code can he universal. I can support legalized murder and condemn everyone who doesn't, therefore creating the grounds to condemn anything else. Some religions practice human sacrifice, including of children.[1] My opinion is we're better off arguing there's a better moral code based on a number of arbitrary parameters (freedom, resource creation, comfort, longevity, equality, merit, envy management, violence management, respect for tradition, respect of minorities, etc). I can't see how you can declare a universal code of conduct, I can see how you can declare a technocratic liberal one. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice_in_Aztec_culture https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice_in_Aztec_cul...
  - debok 3y ago
    I'm not denying that civilizations use different moral codes. I am trying to say that we must have appeal to a universal moral code in order to judge whether a culture's moral code are in fact moral or not. This would apply to our own moral code as well as for those of other civilizations. I am saying that if we are too say the Ancient Mesopotamians was wrong for sacrificing their children, we have to appeal to some kind of universal standard outside of them to do that. This logic also applies to the Aztec human sacrifice, and to the way the Nazi's treated the Jews. We need a universal standard to say they were wrong. To make this more actual: You are advocating for a technocratic liberal moral code. Many people are advocating for a historic Christian moral code. How would you even start debating the Christians without appealing to a universal morality? You'll have to assert that your moral code is universal. If you don't, you have no basis to require other people to behave according to your morality.
- robotresearcher 3y ago
  So what fraction of dissenters are allowed before the universal code ceases to be universal?
  - debok 3y ago
    If a universal moral code exists, it wouldn't cease existing even if 100% of people dissents from it. The whole point of a universal moral code is that it exists outside of us.

epups 3y ago

> How do human groups glorifying immorality imply that there is no universal moral code? If the universal moral code exists outside of those groups, then it can be applied to their actions, and we can call them wrong for the thing they glorify. Those groups would also call us wrong. If groups of humans tend to display very different and incompatible moral codes, that's a strong argument against a universal morality. Another argument against it is that most people in groups that glorified what terrifies us lived and died without showing an ounce of remorse for their actions. > Your very sentence implies a universal moral code. You are calling murder, slavery, and genocide wrong. Not at all. I used those examples because I know that most contemporary readers would agree. The fact that there is no universal moral code does not mean we can't have a moral code.

debok 3y ago
> Those groups would also call us wrong. Wouldn't they then also be appealing to a universal moral code in order to call us wrong? If there is no universal moral code, nobody gets to call anybody else wrong (in the moral sense) at all. We are rightfully condemning chattel slavery. However we can't do that if we are not appealing to a universal moral standard. We have no right to claim that the Southern states were wrong, if slavery in the way existed back then wasn't universally wrong. This also applies to all the other examples people are giving in reply to my comment. People doing things that we consider to be morally wrong does not imply that there is no code. It merely implies that one of us is wrong. > If groups of humans tend to display very different and incompatible moral codes, that's a strong argument against a universal morality. I don't think is is a strong argument at all. People are wrong about things all the time. If a whole civilization of people consider earth to be flat, and a whole other civilization considers it to be round, it doesn't follow that earth has no shape at all. It follows that one of them are wrong. > Not at all. I used those examples because I know that most contemporary readers would agree. Fair enough. I misunderstood you. I didn't mean to strawman your argument.
- epups 3y ago
  > We are rightfully condemning chattel slavery. However we can't do that if we are not appealing to a universal moral standard. We have no right to claim that the Southern states were wrong, if slavery in the way existed back then wasn't universally wrong. I really don't understand why you think there is a need for a universal moral truth in order to have a self-consistent moral code. We didn't believe that every human being has certain rights, which is why our ancestors did not perceive chattel slavery as immoral. We now do, and the actions of our ancestors are appalling to our modern perspective, but we cannot at all believe that this means we are "right" and they are "wrong" by appealing to a universal moral code. We can point out that certain moral codes lead to better outcomes (golden rule and all that), we can reason that society is better off enforcing stricter moral standards and we can build societies that enshrine some of these moral rules as laws, all without a universal morality existing at all. The comparison to physics does not help here. Morality is entirely dependent on a set of subjective beliefs, such as the one I mentioned above about human rights. Physics is not. The world is either flat or it isn't, but two different groups of humans can have diametrically opposed beliefs about, say, veganism and neither of them is necessarily wrong.

JPws_Prntr_Fngr 3y ago

You use your time machine to travel back to the year 1350 and make contact with a Mesoamerican society that just loves to capture, torture, and execute their neighbors en masse, because doing this is a Good Thing. It pleases the gods or whatever. You think it's a Bad Thing though. You are now outnumbered 100,000 to 1. How do you prove to them that your moral code is the Universally True one, and not theirs?

pauldenton 3y ago
By collapsing their civilization with a few thousand Conquistadors as you rally their neighbors who were the regular victims of that capture torture and execution because they've lived there for centuries if not Millenia unlike the men in boats who just showed up and have no such historical grievance