However, how does the timeline of morality look like? To me, the various moral systems seem to be converging i.e. we're beginning to find a common position on moral issues. Now, murder is bad everywhere not because its a fashion that has appealed to the tastes of the world's people but because it's objectively wrong to deprive someone of a fulfilling and productive life. — TheMadFool
Or it could just be that as societies have become more sophisticated they started to value cooperation more, and so murder made less sense to them. Values also can converge with the world becoming so connected with more globalization of culture and especially the internet. — SonJnana
I have very little faith in collective intelligence of the masses but I think they're right on morality. — TheMadFool
This is a mistake because morality only relates to life or, in a narrow sense, human existence. — TheMadFool
1. they discovered/have knowledge about an objective morality where it is objectively wrong to kill — SonJnana
Obviously this alternative is rubbish. How would you even make that 'discovery'? — charleton
Just because life did not have the ability to needlessly kill doesn't not mean that it was due to some objective moral principle. It may have been due to the fact that the laws of physics were only able to create life that was too unsophisticated at it's inception to have the ability to needlessly kill. — SonJnana
If you from the other side believe that killing is just as natural as non-killing, all kinds of facts become difficult to explain, like for example why there is relatively little bloodshed in nature compared with peaceful life today, — Dalibor
And as life was evolving to have the ability to needlessly kill, it was also evolving the predisposition to not needlessly kill because it that predisposition was useful — SonJnana
why there was no predation in early stages of life (the argument you try to make does not stand, since viruses for example are extremely simple organisms yet they are destroying cells more complex than them) — Dalibor
Besides the reasoning for that claim, no — BlueBanana
The way I see it is that if something evolved over time on the level of all that is living, that automatically means that it had to be so as the consequence of an objective universal principle. If the act of killing is an exception (a deviation) in all that is living, doesn't that mean that there is an objective principle behind it? If think it has to be the case, and if we don't agree here than this discussion must go towards more general subject than the one we are now discussing. — Dalibor
I don't know. That is up to the one claiming that there is an objective morality to demonstrate.
Just because many/majority people have agreed that it is morally wrong to kill, the only objective statement about that is that it is objectively true that many/majority of people believe that it is objectively wrong to kill. That isn't a demonstration that it actually is objectively morally wrong to kill. — SonJnana
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.