• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Is there a form of Universal Morality?

davidtaylorjr said:
How can you scientifically prove a soul? Science is not the end all be all you know?
Click to expand...

Well, that's your problem to figure out. We have no proof for a soul, so as far as we know a human is just another (smarter) animal.
 
Very few people live in a bubble. People learn right and wrong and are influenced by their society. You may not be religious but you cant deny that society and the identification of right and wrong has been at least largely influenced by religion (all religions). Right and wrong has to have an origin for every individual, whether it was taught by an elder or learned by the bad example of others. Universal morality is a frequently redefined 'ideal'.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
How can you scientifically prove a soul? Science is not the end all be all you know?
Click to expand...

Lack of scientific evidence does not disprove the existence of something. For millennium radiation of various forms have existed, yet we lacked the capacity to detect and measure it such as to prove its existence.

With that said, lacking scientific evidence, we are then forced to rely on faith for many things, including those religious. As such, it needs to be acknowledge that a) we could be wrong in our thinking (the early Catholic church called it sinful to claim the earth was round or the earth moved around the sun) and b) that others will not accept what we know because the evidence of our senses cannot be conveyed to them. Therefore anything based upon faith is as equally likely, lacking contrary scientific evidence. It doesn't matter if the source is Christian in nature or Wiccan. Thus it follows that in a society that is not a theocracy and, in theory, values religious freedom, a moral from a singular religious source cannot be considered "universal" not should it ever be a basis of law.

As to your one assertion about humans not being animals, indeed we are. We may well indeed be elevated because we do have souls, but that does not invalidate the argument that we are not animals, at least in the scientific sense.
 
VanceMack said:
Very few people live in a bubble. People learn right and wrong and are influenced by their society. You may not be religious but you cant deny that society and the identification of right and wrong has been at least largely influenced by religion (all religions). Right and wrong has to have an origin for every individual, whether it was taught by an elder or learned by the bad example of others. Universal morality is a frequently redefined 'ideal'.
Click to expand...

Are they or are religions largely influenced by society? Or maybe it's more of a cycle? Look at how religious morals and moires have shifted over the centuries.

I guess the other thing we might need to know (if I haven't missed it being addressed earlier on) is what does the OP mean by "universal"?
 
maquiscat said:
Are they or are religions largely influenced by society? Or maybe it's more of a cycle? Look at how religious morals and moires have shifted over the centuries.

I guess the other thing we might need to know (if I haven't missed it being addressed earlier on) is what does the OP mean by "universal"?
Click to expand...
Chicken and egg time. Its not 'religious morals' that have shifted so much as individuals, and typically after decades of prosperity (pride kicks in, humility fades away). People sacrifice values and standards to fit in. Look at the abortion debate as an example (without taking sides...please for the love of all things let this not turn into an abortion thread). There are a LARGE number...I would suggest majority in fact that say pretty much the exact same thing with regard to abortion. "I personally dont agree...but...its not my place to say." I doubt you could say biblical standards have changed...but the way people choose to read, interpret and follow them...absolutely.
 
VanceMack said:
Chicken and egg time. Its not 'religious morals' that have shifted so much as individuals, and typically after decades of prosperity (pride kicks in, humility fades away). People sacrifice values and standards to fit in. Look at the abortion debate as an example (without taking sides...please for the love of all things let this not turn into an abortion thread). There are a LARGE number...I would suggest majority in fact that say pretty much the exact same thing with regard to abortion. "I personally dont agree...but...its not my place to say." I doubt you could say biblical standards have changed...but the way people choose to read, interpret and follow them...absolutely.
Click to expand...

That's kind of my point. Biblical teachings were vague enough that the details can shift from period to period. After all it was once immoral for a man to have sex with a woman on her period. Now while some may think it nasty and sickening, how many consider it immoral, including the church? I doubt that you will find many within the clergy who would claim such. And I'm not trying to claim which started the moral thing. That is so far in the past that it makes no difference. But as what happens to the chicken prior to laying can affect the egg, so can what happens to the egg prior to hatching affect the chicken and thus the cycle goes of one influencing the other over time. Thus my cycle theory.
 
maquiscat said:
That's kind of my point. Biblical teachings were vague enough that the details can shift from period to period. After all it was once immoral for a man to have sex with a woman on her period. Now while some may think it nasty and sickening, how many consider it immoral, including the church? I doubt that you will find many within the clergy who would claim such. And I'm not trying to claim which started the moral thing. That is so far in the past that it makes no difference. But as what happens to the chicken prior to laying can affect the egg, so can what happens to the egg prior to hatching affect the chicken and thus the cycle goes of one influencing the other over time. Thus my cycle theory.
Click to expand...
I think that is the benefit of religious doctrine and law with applied thought. The rule says X and it doesnt say 'why'...just X and follow the rule. Whether we interpret it differently or not, what is undenable is 'the rule'.

There are many aboriginal tribes that conduct practices which we would deem barbaric and immoral. It is neither...it is what they know vs what we know. Barbaric to us, normal to them.
 
It's best defined in probabilities. Since a moral is what someone believes is right or wrong based on their <whatever>, a universal set would be any elements in that set of individual morals that is common to all individuals. I suppose in theory if you abstracted all the humans ideas of moral behavior, of those who have such thoughts, there is some theoretical possibility that there would be a rule or more that is shared by everyone i.e. universal. Unlikely, I think the safe money is on the answer being "no".

Saying that morals are social wouldn't change the argument, you'd have to then look at each society (instead of individual), and each societies set of rules could be compared and any common moral rules could be decreed "universal".

If you mean universal as in, applies to everyone at any time even in the future, etc., that's just an extension of the above, with the caveat that unless we can read the future, we cannot by definition know if such a universal exists, or what it is, and any question about it would be absurd.
 
family75401343 said:
To clarify, is there a set of morals that apply to everyone? Are morals simply created by society? Or is Moral Nihilism correct and morality is just a man-made concept? I know I started a thread a while back to discuss Good and Evil, but I wanted to clarify my question.

Furtherly, I wish to apologize to people who replied to my threads back in December, and I didn't reply back to them. Lightning destroyed my computer, and I couldn't afford to replace it until now. So I would like to apologize to people like Lizzie, Goshin, or Mycroft who always replied to my threads and gave me their opinions.
Click to expand...

If all humans are human, that is to say that fundamentally we are all the same at heart, then I see no avoiding the existence of universal morality.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
Never said that, I'm saying certian body parts have certain functions for pleasure and reproduction and the GLBT agenda doesn't fit the mold.
Click to expand...
Sorry, that argument doesn't even hold up in the animal kingdom - and I assume you would call that "natural", wouldn't you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom