I've been giving this some thought lately. Thanks for posting.

So then is there no constant moral law above what current culture says is moral? If I would like to torture children because I like the feeling of power it gave me, is that only wrong because too many other people in society disagree with me? What if a bunch of psychopaths all moved onto the same island together. Then would it be ok to torture children on that island because the prevailing culture felt it was justified?

It does seem like some of what we think of morality are really just deeply ingrained culture beliefs, but if there is really no overriding morality then how can anything be actually evil? And if nothing is truly evil, only frowned on currently by a fickle culture, then how can we, knowing that, stand up against anything. Even something as wicked as torturing a child for a rush of power?

^ But then this means that we will always have to lower ourselves to the morality 'common denominator', and that majority dictates whats right. That doesn't really sound healthy to me.

What about the difference between moral and ethics? Is it possible morality is subjective but that there is such a thing as universal ethics? Maybe it depends on stage of inner development? Like just for the sake of argument, let's say maybe the lower down you are on the development scale, the more subjective your moral can be, and as you climb up, you start realizing 'Common Truths'? Wouldnt the words of the different 'masters' like buddha jesus etc be some kind of evidence pointing out that these people all had found some similar truths?

The 10 commandments are totally outdated.... What would you/us say are the basic rules people should go by or respect?

Why would life have to not be "treasured or considered precious/important" for this to be the case? There are a number of societies in which life is considered precious/important and yet, there are socially acceptable times to kill people (morally justifiable within those societal frameworks).

Imo, universal morality is a crock, as is a conflict-free existence. You can't make people change their values because you think there's something better...you can't seek to end conflicts by homogenizing morality/culture. There is no right, there is no wrong and while that may make people uncomfortable, existence is not necessarily a comforting experience.

Then existence is generally immoral...

Morality is a cultural construct...talking in absolutes with regards to it strikes me as nonsensical.

What does this mean?

Dubbed "immoral" to whom? By whom? In what context?

To dub something immoral, you have to have a framework in which you can apply morality (i.e. a sense of what is right and what is wrong). As this is a cultural construct, there is no meaning in abstract statements about X or Y being moral or immoral, as morality is a dynamic concept that does not have a singular definition.

IF I accept your presentation of a universal morality (which I don't), then the vast majority of actions are immoral...it's nearly impossible to exist in an incarnate form without causing suffering.

As is suffering...is it not?

As is everything, right? So now we've effectively silenced ourselves, eh?

Suffering is presented by Merriam-Webster as

1: the state or experience of one that suffers
2: pain

Where suffers (in the intransitive) is defined as

1: to endure death, pain, or distress
2: to sustain loss or damage
3: to be subject to disability or handicap

Compared to the definition of morality
1
a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical <moral judgments>
b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior <a moral poem>
c : conforming to a standard of right behavior
d : sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment <a moral obligation>
e : capable of right and wrong action

In reading these definitions, it appears that morality is relatively more subjective than suffering.

You can talk about suffering without a cultural context...you cannot similarly talk about morality devoid of context as it is purely a conceptual abstraction that is culturally dependent.

I disagree. I dont believe there is an objective wrong, right or in-between. I maintain that there is no need for anyone to arbitrate morality. Morality is a concept that has vastly different constructs depending on who you talk to and where they are (in time, space, culture, etc.). To seek to arbitrate between vastly different systems of morality is to attempt to "iron out" cultural differences. Taken to its logical conclusion, this "arbitration" could have terrifying implications.


So to me, there is an anthropocentrism being presented here that I would like to call into question. Human existence creates suffering on this planet, not only for other humans, but for animals, plants and ecosystems. I agree that aiming to mitigate the creation/perpetuation of suffering in all of these systems is a noble tenet to attempt to live by...but is also somewhat at odds with arbitrating morality, imo.

My brain is suffering trying to keep up with this debate...is it morally wrong to run off and read something else?

(humor interjection...back to the seriousness)

AhA! Sorry if I was being dense...thanks for sticking it out.

Well then...I agree and disagree

I agree that the third party is unnecessary, but I disagree that the existence of a third party removes (or can remove) the subjectivity from morality. Imo, the third party merely imposes their own subjectivity onto the question of morality. Take a poetry contest, where being the winner is equivalent to being morally "correct" (in the eyes of a third party).

Clearly the judge of the poetry contest may declare one of two finalists the "winner." However, there is no objective truth that the winner's poetry was "better" than the loser's, the judge merely applied his own subjective criteria to the poems presented. The creation of a seemingly tangible winner is the result of third-party subjectivity and is therefore, still a subjective/abstract conceptualization of what is right vis-a-vis the poetry contest.

i don't know if its a coming together of different cultures so much as the piece of the source of all cultures remaining partially intact.

but either way i am glad you enjoy it as much as i.