Is there a universal moral law?

[Schouwenaars]

If i raise a human in complete enclosure, so that has never contact with other humans, he will only live by the rules in himself that he has by nature.

so when he sees a human, he will think it's just an other animal and he will try to kill it to eat it.

he will certainly not think: hey, i may not kill that one.

 

i'll give another little exemple:

if you could go back in time and kill sadam hoesein, would you do that? (not including the time paradox)

you would still kill a person then, and that violates directly one of the 10 commandements.

 

or if you see a person on the ground, who is suffering terribly, and can not be helped anymore, and will die in some hours.

his suffering is enormous, gigantic, he is about to lose his mind.

would you kill him to end the horrific suffering?

because if you don't, you only let him die more slowly but with an incredible pain.

 

 

because of this, i don't think there is an universal moral law.

[Guest shiloh357]

I don't like the term "universal moral law."   The real question is, is there an objective standard for judging what is moral and immoral?

[LuftWaffle]

If i raise a human in complete enclosure, so that has never contact with other humans, he will only live by the rules in himself that he has by nature.

so when he sees a human, he will think it's just an other animal and he will try to kill it to eat it.

he will certainly not think: hey, i may not kill that one.

How do you know this?

 

 

i'll give another little exemple:

if you could go back in time and kill sadam hoesein, would you do that? (not including the time paradox)

you would still kill a person then, and that violates directly one of the 10 commandements.

The ten commandments but refer to murder, not lawful killing.

 

 

or if you see a person on the ground, who is suffering terribly, and can not be helped anymore, and will die in some hours.

his suffering is enormous, gigantic, he is about to lose his mind.

would you kill him to end the horrific suffering?

because if you don't, you only let him die more slowly but with an incredible pain.

Giving such a situation killing the person would be an act of mercy.

 

 

because of this, i don't think there is an universal moral law.

Would you say that there are objective moral values and duties, though?

 

By the way, what's a Schouwenaar? Is it like a person in a show. An actor or a performer maybe? Or am I totally off the mark?

[LuftWaffle]

I don't like the term "universal moral law."   The real question is, is there an objective standard for judging what is moral and immoral?

I agree. Universal would refer to a moral law that applies in all cases, at all times and all places. While it may be argued that killing children only for fun would be a universal moral law, it kind of complicates things.

An objective moral standard is the better term because it refers to a mind-independent law, which is still subject to circumstance.

[Schouwenaars]

i think that any moral law wetry to make, how objective we think it might be, it will always stay subjective.

because what we think is good is typical for humans, for the continuing of our species.

it has been in our mind for tousands of years in order to survive.

our good and wrong is totally based on survival instinct.

check it yourself: everything you think is good, will help to let our species grow.

everything you think is wrong, will let our species disappear or will hurt our own species.

 

@luftwaffle: lawfull killing is just a nice and better word for lawfull murder. killing stays killing. taking away a soul and gift that god gave.

 

@ luftwaffle: Schouwenaars is just a random familyname here in flanders. nothing special

Edited June 10, 2014 by Schouwenaars

[Guest shiloh357]

i think that any law we make, how objective we think it might be, it will always stay subjective.

because what we think is good is typical for humans, for the continuing of our species.

it has been in our mind for tousands of years in order to survive.

our good and wrong is totally based on survival instinct.

check it yourself: everything you think is good, will help to let our species grow.

everything you think is wrong, will let our species disappear or will hurt our own species.

 

@ luftwaffle: Schouwenaars is just a random familyname here in flanders. nothing special

That makes no sense. 

 

Good and wrong based on survival instinct?  Where do you get that from?  Survival has nothing to do with what is good or evil.

[jerryR34]

 

i think that any law we make, how objective we think it might be, it will always stay subjective.

because what we think is good is typical for humans, for the continuing of our species.

it has been in our mind for tousands of years in order to survive.

our good and wrong is totally based on survival instinct.

check it yourself: everything you think is good, will help to let our species grow.

everything you think is wrong, will let our species disappear or will hurt our own species.

 

@ luftwaffle: Schouwenaars is just a random familyname here in flanders. nothing special

That makes no sense. 

 

Good and wrong based on survival instinct?  Where do you get that from?  Survival has nothing to do with what is good or evil.

 

Our morals evolved due to the fact we are a social species.  Traits that helped us pass on our genes were passed on.  You can see the same types of "moral" behaviors in our closest ape ancestors even though they can't read.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

i think that any law we make, how objective we think it might be, it will always stay subjective.

because what we think is good is typical for humans, for the continuing of our species.

it has been in our mind for tousands of years in order to survive.

our good and wrong is totally based on survival instinct.

check it yourself: everything you think is good, will help to let our species grow.

everything you think is wrong, will let our species disappear or will hurt our own species.

 

@ luftwaffle: Schouwenaars is just a random familyname here in flanders. nothing special

That makes no sense. 

 

Good and wrong based on survival instinct?  Where do you get that from?  Survival has nothing to do with what is good or evil.

 

Our morals evolved due to the fact we are a social species.  Traits that helped us pass on our genes were passed on.  You can see the same types of "moral" behaviors in our closest ape ancestors even though they can't read.

 

Morals have nothing to do with evolution.

[LuftWaffle]

i think that any moral law wetry to make, how objective we think it might be, it will always stay subjective.

because what we think is good is typical for humans, for the continuing of our species.

it has been in our mind for tousands of years in order to survive.

our good and wrong is totally based on survival instinct.

check it yourself: everything you think is good, will help to let our species grow.

everything you think is wrong, will let our species disappear or will hurt our own species.

 

I would have to disagree with you that everything I think is good will help our species grow and everything I think is bad will hurt our species.

For instance, I think that sexual promisquity is morally wrong, but if survival of our species is the measure of wrongness, then there seems to be no problem.

I also think rape is wrong, but I don't see how rape hampers the survival of our species. It certainly doesn't hinder the survival of many other species in the animal kingdom for which rape is part of natural behaviour.

I think it's good that men stay faithful to their wives, but surely spreading ones genes around seems logical if that's what we are to measure.

 

It seems then that your thesis that morality is merely a function of survival of the human race is incorrect.

 

If what you're saying is true, then when we're faced with an action we can call it right or wrong by looking at human survival. So if it's possible to rape a woman in such a way that it's pro-human survival we can call it good. Do you agree?

 

@luftwaffle: lawfull killing is just a nice and better word for lawfull murder. killing stays killing. taking away a soul and gift that god gave.

There is no such thing as lawful murder. Murder, by definition is unlawful.

 

 

@ luftwaffle: Schouwenaars is just a random familyname here in flanders. nothing special

Ahh ok. Didn't know that. I hope I didn't offend you by my question?

[LuftWaffle]

 

 

i think that any law we make, how objective we think it might be, it will always stay subjective.

because what we think is good is typical for humans, for the continuing of our species.

it has been in our mind for tousands of years in order to survive.

our good and wrong is totally based on survival instinct.

check it yourself: everything you think is good, will help to let our species grow.

everything you think is wrong, will let our species disappear or will hurt our own species.

 

@ luftwaffle: Schouwenaars is just a random familyname here in flanders. nothing special

That makes no sense. 

 

Good and wrong based on survival instinct?  Where do you get that from?  Survival has nothing to do with what is good or evil.

 

Our morals evolved due to the fact we are a social species.  Traits that helped us pass on our genes were passed on.  You can see the same types of "moral" behaviors in our closest ape ancestors even though they can't read.

 

 

Suppose a person has a genetic condition which makes him anti-social. Since he is then an anti-social being, it would be morally normal for him to behave in anti-social ways, correct?

 

Are you saying that right and wrong are just illusions based on our evolution? That there isn't really right and wrong, but that our evolution tricked us into thinking there are such things as right and wrong so that we can better pass on our genes. Do you think holding illusions as truth is something that needs to be avoided?