Challenge: name an absolute moral (a moral that is true for every human culture)

[SkyWalker]

killing - not absolutely wrong, because killing a bastard makes you a hero

lying - not absolutely wrong, because it might save your life

cannibalism of an already dead friend - not absolutely wrong, because he's dead already and it's a waste of meat

etc

come with something better that cannot be refuted?

 

[Anthile]

You can refute and defend every possible moral.

 

[The Frood]

Destroying the sun is a bad idea...

 

[SkyWalker]

the ten absolute commandments
1 dont destroy the essential energy source for all life on earth (the sun).
2 ?


what else is absolutely evil (for any human culture)?

 

[Anthile]

How is not destroying the sun even remotely a moral? It's a comic book plot. Not to mention that it is for now and any foreseeable future technologically impossible.

 

[gruesomebrat]

Ok, so I saw this thread, thought it was funny, shared it with my sister (INFP, and the following conversation ensued.

Spoiler

roflmao... http://intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=9081
Marycca says
EL. OH. EL.
I hope you know the only reason I'm amused right now is because of the number of times megatron tried to destroy the sun.
Actually, I can only think of two times when he tried to use that particular plot device (off the top of my head) and one of them was The Fallen, not Megatron.,..

Neil Clymer says
"How is not destroying the sun even remotely a moral? It's a comic book plot." So this is in reference to Transformers? lol, it still funny...

Marycca says
The second was in Transformers G1 episode 18 "Changing Gears".
(The only reason I know it's episode 18 is because I had to go look it up to watch it for research purposes.)
(There are very few episodes I can name by number. Although I can name the episode that many events ovvur in.)
And yes, that is a comic book plot.

Neil Clymer says
ovvur? occur... say it with me now... O-C-C-U-R

Marycca says
Could you please, please, please rply to that person with "Megatron's solar needle plans disagree with you."?
FFFFYUUUU THE V IS RIGHT NEXT TO THE C YOU KNEW WHAT I MEANT ANYWAY >(
"All he needs is Gears' unique circuit board."

Neil Clymer says
Yeah, sure.

Marycca says
I'M SUCH A NERD. BUT I WANT THIS PERSON REFUTED.
Including the Gears part, y/y?

Neil Clymer says
n

Marycca says
YESSS.
THAT PART IS NECESSARY.
THE SOLAR NEEDLE DOESN'T WORK WITHOUT GEARS' UNIQUE CIRCUIT BOARD.
IT'S A PLOT DEVICE.

Poor, poor girl.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Ugh. Morality does not matter. Is the action purposeful and useful and considerate?

 

[SkyWalker]

all life on earth perishes when you kill the sun.

empathy for the living should prevent you from doing that

thats why its wrong (subjectively)

 

[Jchazard]

all life on earth perishes when you kill the sun.

empathy for the living should prevent you from doing that

thats why its wrong (subjectively)

Unless you're a radicalist. Then punishing living things for their evil by destroying the solar system makes all the sense in the world.

I think what we should consider more is, "What morals are relevant for society hence force from the knowedge we have attained at present?"

 

[GYX_Kid]

the only one i can think of that would span every culture/subculture/labeled cluster of people, would be the principle of how you should apparently not violate X moral.

 

[gcomeau]

the ten absolute commandments
1 dont destroy the essential energy source for all life on earth (the sun).
2 ?


what else is absolutely evil (for any human culture)?

Sorry, you don't have one yet. If we colonize alpha centauri in the future, then I'm hypothetically born there, and those bastard from earth are subjugating us and we want our independence and a war breaks out in which they threaten to exterminate us... I'm taking out their sun given the means. War hero!

No such thing as an absolute moral.

 

[BigApplePi]

Skywalker. Didn't see your challenge until today. You want an absolute moral for every culture? Here's one that allows the sun to shine:

Laws. Every culture greater than two participants should have a few rules and regulations.

Okay. Here's my counter-challenge in all its gruesome detail: Refute that.

 

[Claverhouse]

Don't eat your limbs.





Claverhouse

 

[Stoic Beverage]

Define "moral".

 

[Adymus]

Betrayal is wrong.

Killing is not always wrong because everyone has enemies. But killing your friends, family, tribesman, teammates, etc who placed their trust in you, that is universally wrong.

 

[EvilScientist Trainee]

How about when you betray your country in a war. Like some spies do when they disagree with the policy of a country?

 

[Claverhouse]

Re: Challenge: name an absolute moral (a moral that is true for very human culture)

Betrayal is wrong.

Killing is not always wrong because everyone has enemies. But killing your friends, family, tribesman, teammates, etc who placed their trust in you, that is universally wrong.

Treachery is the one universal constant that defines human behaviour, and however unforgivable is like other corruptions more to be expected than loyalty or honour ( both of which latter are aspects of the same ).


One can rightly say that no matter how low one is, honour to one's fellow criminals makes one better than one who betrays them --- at least one sticks to a cause --- but usually having first sworn to that falsity, "Meine Ehre heißt Treue", has entailed breaking loyalty to the (all-) highest, therefore the second loyalty ensures true disloyalty to that which should take precedance.

And loyalty to one's lord means one must renounce lesser loyalties to 'friends, family, tribesman, teammates' since no-man can serve two masters... Should one betray one's king for mere family then one should go down forever. Like John, Duke of Marlborough.

Added to which, widesprung loyalty to a group is too diffuse since there is not one entity to channel that loyalty to --- which is one, of many many reasons, why republics are inferior, since everyone defines the group ( country, flag, people ) and interests of that group, as he wishes.


So betrayal is so much part of life that, whilst loyalty is the ultimate moral, it is untypical and therefore not universal.





Not even in Afghanistan.






Claverhouse

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Acting in a way contrary to the strongly held moral beliefs of the society you live in.

 

[echoplex]

I'm not sure I would call it absolute, but it seems a common theme of human cultures is to despise weakness, whether or not such is explicitly stated. Strength is usually admired, even secretly when it's associated with something considered evil by that culture. People will often abandon their supposed morals to associate with strength.

And it often seems that many ideas about what a 'good person' is can be seen as a measure of strength, that strength often being in the form of some kind of mental aptitude such as intelligence, capacity for empathy, self-control, recognition of social dynamics, etc.. But then, you might say that a 'naturally strong' person doesn't have to try as hard to be 'good' (however it's defined) and thus their good deeds don't carry as much moral weight as someone who, say for instance, struggles to feel empathy or control their impulses. But even then, isn't some kind of strength necessary to overcome their shortcomings? Isn't some kind of weakness ultimately what we despise when we recognize someone as 'evil'?

 

[Adymus]

Re: Challenge: name an absolute moral (a moral that is true for very human culture)

So betrayal is so much part of life that, whilst loyalty is the ultimate moral, it is untypical and therefore not universal.

Just because betrayal is commonly a reoccurring motif in human behavior does not mean it is still not morally condemned. By that logic, a society smiles upon thievery because some of the people that live among them are in fact thieves. The fact that conflicts of loyalty exist in the first place just further demonstrates the condemnation of betrayal being a universal moral. The obligation of having to break certain bonds in order to maintain hierarchical ties, does not make loyalty meaningless, it just means there are situational and hierarchical elements to it, certain loyalties that out rank other loyalties, but it is still always existent. The concept of Loyalty is still holding true, however not all loyalties are created equal. But to suggest that this element negates the entire concept is just ridiculous.

Now if you are talking about Morals that have no situational elements to them what so ever and are always constant in every literal way, then I would say you are wasting your time.

 

[Claverhouse]

Amswered but the reply returned:

The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 1 characters.

and lost the 500 character message even on the back-button.


I never feel like re-doing, so shall return later.





Claverhouse

 

[BigApplePi]

Define "moral".

Moral = constructive behavior
Immoral = destructive behavior

Try those as a start.

 

[BigApplePi]

Don't eat your limbs.

I would throw all my support behind that. One's limbs are a part of natural functioning. One can't stop their operation without destruction. By their destruction one has committed an unnatural act.

Caveat (cav-eat): one of the Kennedy's children had bone cancer in his leg and they had to amputate.

 

[BigApplePi]

Betrayal is wrong.

... killing your friends, family, tribesman, teammates, etc who placed their trust in you, that is universally wrong.

Strongly disagree, but the reason is by no means obvious. Loyalty is a virtue within the system as it promotes the strength of the system. However sometimes the system has a cancer within. Is one going to cut it out? The system itself may not want to address this cancer, being in denial.

Think of Hitler where he at first promoted Germany's strength. Then what happened? He went too far. Some were loyal to the end but some were not. Was the latter's betrayal bad?

Think of modern day corporate whistle blowers. The corporation is doing something rotten on the inside. The whistle blower is now in a dilemma. Should they blow and lose their job? Are they bad?

What is going on here? What universal law applies?

 

[Zensunni]

killing - not absolutely wrong, because killing a bastard makes you a hero

lying - not absolutely wrong, because it might save your life

cannibalism of an already dead friend - not absolutely wrong, because he's dead already and it's a waste of meat

etc

come with something better that cannot be refuted?

Not eating your neighbor does qualify as an answer to your question. You asked what is morally wrong in every human culture. There is no culture where it is allowable to eat your fellow community members.

You refuted it by claiming it is not absolutely wrong, that answer is not congruent with your question.

 

[Adymus]

Strongly disagree, but the reason is by no means obvious. Loyalty is a virtue within the system as it promotes the strength of the system. However sometimes the system has a cancer within. Is one going to cut it out? The system itself may not want to address this cancer, being in denial.

Think of Hitler where he at first promoted Germany's strength. Then what happened? He went too far. Some were loyal to the end but some were not. Was the latter's betrayal bad?

Think of modern day corporate whistle blowers. The corporation is doing something rotten on the inside. The whistle blower is now in a dilemma. Should they blow and lose their job? Are they bad?

What is going on here? What universal law applies?

Oh okay I had the idea that this thread was about universal morality, meaning morals that are prevalent in all cultures.

But it appears that this thread is actually about Constant morality, meaning something that is good or bad in all situations.

Spoiler alert:

Nothing is always favorable in all situations! There will always be a circumstance where what we consider good for one situation will be bad in another situation.
It is not a matter of morality either, it is every kind of decision, you can look at this with Logical and illogical as well. What is logical for one situation will always be illogical in another situation.

 

[BigApplePi]

Oh okay I had the idea that this thread was about universal morality, meaning morals that are prevalent in all cultures.

But it appears that this thread is actually about Constant morality, meaning something that is good or bad in all situations.

Spoiler alert:

Nothing is always favorable in all situations! There will always be a circumstance where what we consider good for one situation will be bad in another situation.
It is not a matter of morality either, it is every kind of decision, you can look at this with Logical and illogical as well. What is logical for one situation will always be illogical in another situation.

Good point. Let's go back to loyalty. The whistleblower is disloyal. It's the system! The whistleblower is disloyal to the existing system. It's only when one goes outside the system that disloyalty is called into question. Hitler supported Germany. One had better support that support. No one should be disloyal to Germany. But Hitler's behavior actually called into question his own loyalty. Not Hitler, but Germany should come first. Someone made the mistake thinking Hitler was Germany.

 

[Cognisant]

Don't touch me.

Unless I want you to, then it's immoral in a good way.

 

[Puffy]

Treat others as you would like to be treated?

 

[SkyWalker]

!!!!!
WHAT ABOUT THIS ONE:
------
A consious being that opposes/hates all other conscious beings and helps/loves no other consious beings = absolutely & universally wrong

Simply because it is good for nothing and bad for everything.

I actually just defined evil?

Did I solve it?

 

[Cogwulf]

!!!!!
WHAT ABOUT THIS ONE:
------
A consious being that opposes/hates all other conscious beings and helps/loves no other consious beings = absolutely & universally wrong

Simply because it is good for nothing and bad for everything.

I actually just defined evil?

Did I solve it?

Simply hating someone isn't evil. Hating someone doesn't harm them, why is it universally wrong.

 

[SkyWalker]

Simply hating someone isn't evil. Hating someone doesn't harm them, why is it universally wrong.

not just someone, but EVERYONE, and unconditionally so (that's the big difference)

and i didnt say just hating, i also said opposing, as in actively doing something about it

if you actively oppose the tasks of ALL others, then you are good for nobody

===
evil does just that, it only lets you do the task if the same task is on the task list of the evil being itself, otherwise it opposes your task (e.g. either you are with me (as an extension of me) or against)

 

[dala]

Every society that I know of is morally opposed to bestiality and incest.

 

[BigApplePi]

Wasn't there a practice among the ancient Egyptian elite to have sex with a sibling?

Are not lonely farmers known to have sex with their farm animals?

I'm not sure there is a necessitated morality for the former. It's just that family is too familiar and established. People want to go outside to have such intimate activity but I'm guessing.

 

[SkyWalker]

BigApplePi > haha, you pretend as if everything that ever happend was moral!
if only the impossible is immoral, then immoral things would never happen.

arent the "elite" supposed to be evil/immoral because they practice incest (among more reasons)?

(and lonely farmer can do what he wants as long as he doesnt traumatize the goat or a traumatize a spectator)

 

[BigApplePi]

BigApplePi > haha, you pretend as if everything that ever happend was moral!
if only the impossible is immoral, then immoral things would never happen.

Then how do you explain what I say below?

arent the "elite" supposed to be evil/immoral because they practice incest (among more reasons)?

It's not that incest is immoral. It's that procreation within the family doesn't spread the genes. One winds up with the same ol' same ol'.

(and lonely farmer can do what he wants as long as he doesnt traumatize the goat or a traumatize a spectator)

That's why it is immoral. He will traumatize his sheep, his chickens and peeping Toms.
Edit: I have never tried a goat. I would have to be awfully horny considering their horns.

 

[Black Rose]

Challenge: name an absolute moral (a moral that is true for every human culture)

And the moral of the story is?

YouTube - South Park - greatest moral ever

 

[A22]

You can refute and defend every possible moral.

You can't refute that. I guess

 

[ApostateAbe]

I think there is a common and inaccurate conflation between absolute morality and universal morality. Since nobody quite knows what it means for morals to be "absolute" as opposed to relative, they would assume that the morals that almost every society agrees with are the ones that are not relative. But, that would be a fallacy. Values can be universal or almost universal and still be perfectly relative. Unanimity does not mean it is any less subjective. Suppose everyone in the world agreed that obese women are ugly (not true, BTW). Does it follow that obese women are objectively ugly? Ugly by the inherent nature of their being? No. Qualities like that are still entirely dependent on external human judgments. The only way to make sense of "ugly" or "beautiful" is to think of it as subjective. Similarly, the only way to make sense of "good" or "evil" is to think of it as subjective.

 

[GYX_Kid]

a lot of things are too bizarre for some to identify and file under a moral category.

 

[SkyWalker]

I think there is a common and inaccurate conflation between absolute morality and universal morality. Since nobody quite knows what it means for morals to be "absolute" as opposed to relative, they would assume that the morals that almost every society agrees with are the ones that are not relative. But, that would be a fallacy. Values can be universal or almost universal and still be perfectly relative. Unanimity does not mean it is any less subjective. Suppose everyone in the world agreed that obese women are ugly (not true, BTW). Does it follow that obese women are objectively ugly? Ugly by the inherent nature of their being? No. Qualities like that are still entirely dependent on external human judgments. The only way to make sense of "ugly" or "beautiful" is to think of it as subjective. Similarly, the only way to make sense of "good" or "evil" is to think of it as subjective.

ok so the absolute is always universal, but the universal is not always absolute.....


my opinion: absolutes as voted by others+self actually dont exist, but absolutes as voted by others-self do exist:

the only evil declared evil by all others would be a consciousness that hates/opposes every other consiousness (whether over or covert). although that evil will not think of itself as evil, thus absolute minus one opinion of self

 

[Zionoxis]

Do not pee in the main water source.

Edit: Not sure why, but the comment about destroying the sun had me laughing for a good five minutes. My imagination got visual and imagined the entire ordeal...including the consequences. I am either deprived of sleep or hungry. Most likely both.

 

[Jordan~]

"It is right to be good."

How tautological are they allowed to be...?

 

[Jah]

Enjoy life, and, as long as it does not have undesirable effect, help other Terran critters enjoy life.


Also; Don't destroy the planet, unless you really really want to.




oh, And Here's the Constitution of the universe:

CONSTITUTION OF THE UNIVERSE
Article 1
No person, group of persons or government may initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against
any individual's self or property.
Article 2
Force may be morally and legally used only in self-defense against those who violate Article 1.
Article 3
No exceptions shall exist for Articles 1 and 2.

(Copylefted material. So you're pretty much obliged to pass it on and copy it, unless you don't want to, we're not really picky about that. )

 

[SkyWalker]

Enjoy life, and, as long as it does not have undesirable effect, help other Terran critters enjoy life.


Also; Don't destroy the planet, unless you really really want to.




oh, And Here's the Constitution of the universe:

CONSTITUTION OF THE UNIVERSE
Article 1
No person, group of persons or government may initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against
any individual's self or property.
Article 2
Force may be morally and legally used only in self-defense against those who violate Article 1.
Article 3
No exceptions shall exist for Articles 1 and 2.

(Copylefted material. So you're pretty much obliged to pass it on and copy it, unless you don't want to, we're not really picky about that. )

Article 2 addition:
- the second force used against first force must be exactly equal to the first force (eye for eye, tooth for tooth) and not even any small percent extra (to avoid escalation into eye for 2 eyes for 3 eyes for 4 eyes etc making everybody blind).
- the second force may only be used against exactly the first transgressor of force and may not be used on a third transgressor of force


this has been tried before, but the problem is that the people are idiots who dont understand this

 

[ummidk]

Acting in a way contrary to the strongly held moral beliefs of the society you live in.

Only answer that even came close imo.

 

[Jah]

"...The problem is that people are idiots..."

Which is why you'd need laws in the first place.

 

[ummidk]

BigApplePi > haha, you pretend as if everything that ever happend was moral!
if only the impossible is immoral, then immoral things would never happen.

arent the "elite" supposed to be evil/immoral because they practice incest (among more reasons)?

(and lonely farmer can do what he wants as long as he doesnt traumatize the goat or a traumatize a spectator)

Morals are the constructs of society, so if it is permitted to happen by the society, it was moral.

 

[jamesreed292]

Morals are the constructs of society, so if it is permitted to happen by the society, it was moral.

Morals are opinions agreed upon by rational thinkers.

It it was permitted by society, it could still be immoral.

A society could eat their children because they are low on food, is that moral?

 

[SkyWalker]

Morals are opinions agreed upon by rational thinkers.

It it was permitted by society, it could still be immoral.

A society could eat their children because they are low on food, is that moral?

if you are low on food (e.g. if its the only way to survive) then it is moral. the children will not survive anyway