Hmmm just a thoughht!

That just shows that people like to fuck. Yea, most people hold life pretty dear. But how many don't kill out of fear of going to prison? How many don't kill out of lack of strength?

More people fuck than kill. I can't really see our population as proof of a universal (earth anyways) morality.

Those just prove that most want to take care of themselves and perhaps each other. If we didn't have a monetary system, would those things exist?

Just look at the American medical system, doesn't seem to favour what is right does it?

 

I've done plenty of things, as I am sure you have as well that could land me in prison, I'm fairly strong so I may not be the best judge of that but I don't see people who are stronger necessarily killing more than those who are not. In fact many of the notorious killers i've seen have been pretty scrawny bitches.

There have been medicine 'men' far longer than the monetary system has existed.

 

Right, perfect example. Do you feel that your drug use and sleeping around with women you're not married to makes you a bad person? You'd likely reply no (for this example, let's say you say no).

If I then asked someone else, say of the Christian faith, if those things make you a bad person and they replied yes, this would prove that there is no universal morality. Morality is completely subjective.

Yes, because some people care about others. That doesn't mean everyone does.

Look at people who killed black people during the civil rights movement. They didn't think what they did was wrong. Look at people in the military who are killing muslims, they (most) feel that they're doing their duty for their country. They don't feel that it's wrong to kill those "bad" people.

I do, therefore our ideas of right and wrong are different. We have different morals.

 

i must say this argument was fascinating although i think lunaverses theory is absolute and cannot be questioned. morality simply is not universal. then we come to the point that "expected morality" also plays a part within the conversation ie; someone in the christian faith who believes in himself it is ok to have sex with women before marrige however, preaches and pretends otherwise due to his "expected morality" as a member of christian faith.. this point could go to bedlams argument although i still think lunaverse is correct. there just can't be universal morality otherwise the world would be much nicer to live in socially.

 

The fact that he goes about having sex with women despite it being against his Christian morality would prove that there is no universal morality. He does it anyways, because he believes that it's fine.

He's doing what he wants, which would be against what is considered right.

Just as a murderer kills even though they know others think it is wrong, to them it isn't. That's why it doesn't stop them from doing so.

 

A christian morality based on an old ass book has no bearing on universal morality, that's why it's called CHRISTIAN morality.

Now the second example is certainly getting to the heart of what I'd consider universal morality. You have a point there, I think there is various reasons why people kill and not everyone who does think it's right I'm sure, but I certainly think there are some who do feel right by killing.

I still maintain that absolute assertion is a bold one to make.

 

what you are saying though is that for something to be acted on it must be justified as "right" in the mind of the doer?

what if he does it out of lust but also is disgusted by his own actions? his morality is not on the side of his actions in this circumstance or are you saying this circumstance does not exist?

or what about a mentally ill man who during a bout of psychosis murders his son, then comes to and breaks down crying about what he has done and kills himself for his morality cannot justify his own continued living?

 

Both examples of people acting against what they know is right or wrong. But that is not every case of murder. There are those who kill, firmly believing that it is right to do so.

Take the case of those in the military, from around the world. They kill in large numbers, believing it's right the whole time. Surely their enemy thinks it's wrong...

 

yes i agree thats exactly right. i really just wanted to see what words you would use to clarify it.:sunny:

though i disagree partly on the second point. i believe that some members of the military must also disagree with their actions being "moral" at all times (such as the killing of large numbers) and simply sacrifice their morals for the "good" of their country.
this however still supports "no universal morality"

a sad fact in my opinion but a fact of humanity none the less.