[Delete] @Baden

You’re saying that it is wrong to think of morality as objective. — Mr Phil O'Sophy

No he's not.

[Delete] @Baden

The only man whom i can recall, who i would label a total and utter relatavist is ted bundy. The problem is unless we are pyschopathic serial killers we act as if there exists a 'good' or morality which transcends man.

[Delete] @Baden

Where does that morality come from? — René Descartes

There is no unitary or precise answer to that question. You'd have to ask a mother crocodile who cares for her young. Or any other number of animals throughout evolution from which such emotions derive.

[Delete] @Baden

Man can't survive alone in nature. Nature compels man to become a social creature, a citizen. Nature's negative compulsion resulted in man conquering nature thereby freeing man from nature, and enabling him to create new ends which foster socialization...morality.

[Delete] @Baden

According to the devil, where is morality from? — René Descartes

I do not understand the nature of the question. Why are you asking it?

Which is why morality is social construct. — René Descartes

`The details are constructed in the social. But the fact that humans are moral beings is natural enough.

@René Descartes

I feel like you missed the point i was making.
Im not positing an answer to your question merely pointing out that no one acts as if morality is relative. At least only psychopaths, which indicates that there must be more than just social construction.

[Delete] @Baden

[Delete] @Baden

I feel like you missed the point i was making.
Im not positing an answer to your question merely pointing out that no one acts as if morality is relative. At least only psychopaths, which indicates that there must be more than just social construction. — The Devils Disciple

That's just rubbish. We all assess the goodness or badness of what we do, and that not only is measured against what is taken to be the norm, but the very act of assessing our own actions is perfectly subjective. Subjectivity is the relationship we have the the moral laws we learn. The very learning process results in a subjective interpretation. So we have to relate subjectively with something subjectively modified by our opinion.

But even if you were completely correct none of that would indicate anything other then pure social construction.

@René Descartes

What do you mean by that? You can act as though there is morality whether it is relative or not. This statement means nothing at all. Actually, it's the opposite. Everyone acts as though morality is relative. I think that one should not allow for capital punishment while someone else may think otherwise if they live in the US or in the Middle East. They act as though their morality is that it is right to execute someone, i act in an opposite manner. We are told all these morals and we live by them through our lives and they change, everyone acts as though morality is relative. Morality may or may not be relative, that is another question, but everyone acts differently in their moral standards. So the acting part I am not very convinced about.

Psychopaths are an example, but another example is an average human being, and another example would be you.

You have just proven my point. Everyone acts as if morality exists (Except psychopaths). I sense we are not actually arguing different points.

@charleton
@René Descartes

I feel like if all morality is relative then it ceases being morality because anything goes. one may claim that an action is moral for that individual. Such and individual however has not followed his reasoning to the end wherein he can apply no moral authority to his actions.

I feel like if all morality is relative then it ceases being morality because anything goes. one may claim that an action is moral for that individual. Such and individual however has not followed his reasoning to the end wherein he can apply no moral authority to his actions. — The Devils Disciple

The closest you can get to objective morality is the law. Most people generally comply with the law. However, as you will agree, there is such a thing as a bad law.
You might want to consider this. If morality is objective, ask yourself why has morality changed over the centuries? Changing morals and laws surely implies that they are not set on stone; not written by the universe; not given us by god. Morality is written by humans, mostly men. And as society changes so does the law and morality - usually it changes well behind human practice.
Human opinion; their very subjectivity is constantly forcing society to reassess and change morality.

I am really puzzled by your problem here.

You have just proven my point. Everyone acts as if morality exists (Except psychopaths). I sense we are not actually arguing different points. — The Devils Disciple

How does it exist? It does not exist without the humans that generate it. It is not objective, but the constantly changing results of how we act with the world and each other. Relative to each other relative to the changing social milieu.

[Delete] @Baden

@René Descartes

You have just proven my point. Everyone acts as if morality exists (Except psychopaths).
— The Devils Disciple

no one acts as if morality is relative.
— The Devils Disciple

Had you made any effort to understand what i was saying you would understand these are not contradictory claims. Why? Because morality that is relative is not morality

if all morality is relative then it ceases being morality because anything goes

Of course morality exists -Rene Descartes

not if its relative.

Of course morality exists I never doubted that or said anything against it, but morality is relative and a social construct. - Rene Descartes

Well now the first half of that sentence truly contradicts the seccond half. Ive allready said that relative morality is not morality at all. Im afraid that we might have so fundamental a disagreement on this matter that we can progress no futher.

Answer me this

one may claim that an action is moral for that individual. Such and individual however has not followed his reasoning to the end wherein he can apply no moral authority to his actions.

Basically im not willing to cede you the belief that relative morality is still morality. If it is true that morality is relative then right and wrong dont exist thefore morality cannot exist.

@charleton

How does it exist?

good question i have no idea.

You might want to consider this. If morality is objective, ask yourself why has morality changed over the centuries? Changing morals and laws surely implies that they are not set on stone; not written by the universe; not given us by god.

Really? Id say that; do not murder, do not rape, do not steal, have not changed. Nor has do unto others as you would do unto yourself. Am i going to say that these come from God, Certainly not. Now i will admit i dont have a good answer as to where these moral truths come from, but at the least you must ask yourself; are these 'truths' unchangeable and are they true. You may answer no but forgive me for not sharing your opinion.

The best answer i can posit as to where Morality comes from is that somewhere deep within the human Pysche there exists that which transcends the individual, and from this schematism he learns moral truth.

It [morality] does not exist without the humans that generate it.

True, but as far as im concered the universe doesnt exist without consious beings existing to observe it.

How does it exist?

Good question, I dont know.

You might want to consider this. If morality is objective, ask yourself why has morality changed over the centuries? Changing morals and laws surely implies that they are not set on stone; not written by the universe; not given us by god

Morality hasnt changed. Its is still wrong to murder, it is still wrong to rape and it is still wrong to steal.
Additionaly i think it is still Moral to do unto others as you would do unto yourself. This has not changed. I am not going to claim that it comes form God. But at the very least, you must ask yourself, is it universaly true that murder, rape, and theft are wrong; is there ever a time when you should not do unto others as you would do unto yourself. If your answer is "No these are not universaly true", Forgive me for disagreeing with you.

It [Morality] does not exist without the humans that generate it.

Good point, i agree. Just as i do not think that the universe exists without conscious beings to percieve it. My best guess at where morality comes from is that somewhere deep in the human pysche there exists an inate schematism that transcends the indivdual and via the means of this schematism an individual can comprehend Moral truth. Kinda like the lingustic schematism Chomsky talks about. And no i dont have an evidence for this. And No this is not a spiritual thing.

Is there an ultimate standard of morality, something outside physical reality? — Issac Scoggins

Do you mean to imply that in order for something to count as "an ultimate standard", a standard must be "something outside physical reality"?

What does it mean to say a thing is "outside physical reality"? What kind of things are there outside physical reality? How do we know what's there?

I'll say the agent's own sense of right action is the ultimate standard of right action. For an "external" standard obligates him only while he affirms it.

@Cabbage Farmer

Is truth physical. What about complex maths. They may exhibit themselves in nature, but are they really just part of human imagination?

People seem to be arguing across each other because of a failure to distinguish between morality (maxims, or duties), ethics (how we work out what maxims we should follow or what duty we have in any given situation), and meta-ethics (how we know what 'right' and 'wrong' actually are).

It is vacuously true that morals are subjective and require a brain to work out. Also, to say that morals vary across cultures tells us nothing useful because we have already established that morals are an attempt to proscribe what is 'right' in a given circumstance So obviously they will change over time and space as circumstances change.

What serious discussions on ethical Realism are about is whether ethics are universal (ie do we all use the same method for deriving morals), or whether meta-ethics positions are innate (ie do we all have the same concept of 'right' and 'wrong'). The notion that some cultures practice cannibalism, or that some cultures consider homosexuality a sin, or whatever, is entirely irrelevant to a discussion about ethical Realism, which is trying to get at the forces which motivate people to come up with any kind of moral at all.

In such a discussion, it is the fact that all cultures across all times have had some concept of right an wrong that is used as an argument in favour of ethical Realism.

Morality hasnt changed. Its is still wrong to murder, it is still wrong to rape and it is still wrong to steal. — The Devils Disciple

And it's still acceptable to own slaves and murder is still right as long as you do it while invading another country in the name of your religion and being a part of any sexual minority is still morally wrong. Yes, no changes at all.

And now that I think about it, even rape isn't universally wrong even today, not to even mention historically.

Well now the first half of that sentence truly contradicts the seccond half. — The Devils Disciple

It doesn't.

When have i ever said war is moral? It is one of the most Immoral things i can think of.

-War is Immoral
-Slavery is Immoral
-persecuting sexual minoritys is Immoral
-Rape is still Immoral

Do I really need to spell this out.

I dont think i understand your point here. Why would you claim that just because it is happening somewhere in the world means its moral? And before you say it im not religious so i will not defend the Immoral acts that religon has preformed throughout history.

Well now the first half of that sentence truly contradicts the seccond half.

— The Devils Disciple

It doesn't.

-Blue Banana

If you are going to make claims like that please back them up with an explanation.

[Delete] @Baden

Do i have to condescend so low...

Why would you claim that just because it is happening somewhere in the world means its moral?
— The Devils Disciple

Because you claimed that. You said that everyone acts as if morality exists. — René Descartes

This is absurd reasoning. I will maintain that people act as if Morality exists, that is not claiming that everyone is moral all the time.
I would never claim that everyone is Moral all the time. Merely they believe or subconscious believe that morality exists.

Why do i believe something is wrong yet still do it anyway? There is a difference between what you believe and how you act.