Morals

[Imperator Romani]

Please, let's not get in a religion bash in this thread. Lets talk about morals, not religion. I think morals is in the title(forum title) anyway, and all I see basically is threads becoming religious bashing and trolls hijacking threads. So, with that said.

Do you think people, generally speaking, have the same sense of morals. Do you think we have the same sense of good and wrong. Again this is generally speaking.

[Playfishpaste]

No.

Everyone has a different moral compass. While there are some morals you could call absolute morals, as they are extremely common, everyone has their own unique morals to them. No one's moral code is the same letter for letter, even in the case of religious people.

For instance, I consider it morally reprehensible to spit in around 11,247 different areas of the earth, whereas someone else may consider it reprehensible only in 282 places on the earth, a vast difference.

[Emanresu]

Nah.

Don't get ^'s example though...

[Playfishpaste]

I'll try a simpler one.

I could find it morally wrong to kill 11 babies if they contain the vaccine to all of the viruses in the world, whereas someone else may consider 12 babies the morally reprehensible limit.

The reasoning behind the numbers we picked must be vastly different, and was influenced by all that happened in our lives. Even if morals sound similar they can be completely different because of the reasoning behind them.

[Emanresu]

Ah, I see.

[Phier]

I'll try a simpler one.

I could find it morally wrong to kill 11 babies if they contain the vaccine to all of the viruses in the world, whereas someone else may consider 12 babies the morally reprehensible limit.

The reasoning behind the numbers we picked must be vastly different, and was influenced by all that happened in our lives. Even if morals sound similar they can be completely different because of the reasoning behind them.

You have created a false argument.

The question would be is it right to kill children if doing so would save more lives in the long run. The number 11 or 12 is irrelevant and no moral system is based on anything like that.

I had some examples of what were considered 'universal' moral truths by my father in law borrowed the book.

So I can't cite examples, but such questions were tested an interestingly most people seemed to be on the same moral compass, even in more complex questions.

[black-dragon]

I had some examples of what were considered 'universal' moral truths by my father in law borrowed the book.

Was the book The Science of Good and Evil by Michael Shermer?

[Playfishpaste]

You have created a false argument.

The question would be is it right to kill children if doing so would save more lives in the long run. The number 11 or 12 is irrelevant and no moral system is based on anything like that.

What? That's not even possible. If a man winds up in the forest and needs to acquire food for his family from a local tribe, he will need to decide on an exact number of men from an enemy tribe he is comfortable with killing. Our moral compass is defined by our actions. It doesn't matter what we say we're okay with doing. People have specific things they will end up deciding on the morality of, by necessity.

I had some examples of what were considered 'universal' moral truths by my father in law borrowed the book.

So I can't cite examples, but such questions were tested an interestingly most people seemed to be on the same moral compass, even in more complex questions.

That's because the questions remained extremely vague. Again, I'm quite sure the only thing everyone agrees on is the golden rule.

[The Alchemist]

I believe that people do have a general sense of morality. Propaganda and life experiences may twist them, but I'm positive an ordinary man in Cairo would find murder just as appalling as an ordinary man in Philadelphia or Shanghai would.

[Fiyenyaa]

I believe that people do have a general sense of morality. Propaganda and life experiences may twist them, but I'm positive an ordinary man in Cairo would find murder just as appalling as an ordinary man in Philadelphia or Shanghai would.

I think this is pretty much right.
It depends on cultural norms, and the way people were raised, but I think that deep down most (although not all) people know certain things are wrong.

[Imperator Romani]

@ Playfishpase-Generally speaking.

[CtrlAltDe1337]

In general, most definitely.

[Playfishpaste]

Generally speaking is what I meant. Literally no one has the same morals. No one on the face of the earth.

Hell, you could try maybe narrowing it down to just three that everyone shares.

The golden rule
Don't be greedy
Don't destroy natural things.

And this is REALLY arguable. Three is pushing it I think, I'd have to say the only real shared one is the golden rule.

[Imperator Romani]

What about don't kill innocent people. Or respect your parents(average(general) parents, not abusive or whatnot)...

[Playfishpaste]

What about don't kill innocent people. Or respect your parents(average(general) parents, not abusive or whatnot)...

Don't kill innocents fits under the golden rule, as does respect your parents. At the same time, everyone has a different way to identify innocents, and everyone has a different way to respect parents and different acceptable levels of respect. (I find that people of Latin American cultures are rather lenient with their language around parents, whereas Eastern European cultures are strict on that issue).

[Theseus1234]

Mostly. It's situational. I would kill the lonely little girl to save the crowd

[Hippolord]

People don't have a sense of morality...

They have a sense of what is considered to be socially acceptable, and knowing the many advantages, and the great increase in the chance ot reproduce, that one gets from society, they usually attempt to follow what is "Socially acceptable". What is socially acceptable (Usually) evolves from what is advantageous and what is not.

Murder is seen as wrong, because it removes a member of the society, and rely gives no benefit back. ON the other hand if one murders a man whom has done great ills to society, as a whole, and we have reason to belive that he shall do so again, then that is generally not seen as "Wrong", and is often carried out by the society it's self.

Failure to follow the so called "Morals", and laws of a society, will usually be met with the removal from said society.

Edit: maybe this should go into the new philosophy sub-section.

[♔Jean-Luc Picard♔]

I think the average moral base is whether or not an action inflicts harm. In this most people have the same basis for their morals, if not similar specifics.

[Tigrul]

Yes, generally speaking/somewhat.

Our morality is nothing more than rationalization of a set of instincts.
If one looks throughout the animal kingdom, one is able to see forms of what we call morality in a lot of other social animals. It is simply a matter of "the survival of the individual depends a great lot on the survival of the group, therefore not being a team player is against one's own survival".

Anyway, given that our morality is based on instincts, I'd say that all humans have the potential to have similar morality, with the exception of the sick ones.

[Helm]

Yes but only on the basics.