Is there a universal set of moral codes?

Imo, there is not. I believe that a universal set of moral codes can only exist if there is someone with the authority to dictate that they are the universal set, i.e. a god or gods. Since I do not believe there is a god or gods, I do not believe there is a universal set of moral codes. chessmaster1989

yes, didn't you get the memo at birth?tocklestein2005

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]Imo, there is not. I believe that a universal set of moral codes can only exist if there is someone with the authority to dictate that they are the universal set, i.e. a god or gods. Since I do not believe there is a god or gods, I do not believe there is a universal set of moral codes. Funky_Llama

1+1 = 2 (where 1, 2 are real numbers) is an accepted principle in the construction of mathematics-there is a difference. It WAS dictated that 1+1 = 2 when mathematics was created, else we would not have it.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]Imo, there is not. I believe that a universal set of moral codes can only exist if there is someone with the authority to dictate that they are the universal set, i.e. a god or gods. Since I do not believe there is a god or gods, I do not believe there is a universal set of moral codes. chessmaster1989

1+1 = 2 (where 1, 2 are real numbers) is an accepted principle in the construction of mathematics-there is a difference. It WAS dictated that 1+1 = 2 when mathematics was created, else we would not have it.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]Yes, I think there is. As for your point here: why would absolute truth need to be dictated? No one 'dictated' that 1+1=2; it just is. Couldn't morality be the same?Funky_Llama

1+1 = 2 (where 1, 2 are real numbers) is an accepted principle in the construction of mathematics-there is a difference. It WAS dictated that 1+1 = 2 when mathematics was created, else we would not have it.

Yes, it was. The word "two" exists because it means an object and another object (i.e. 1 + 1). Someone must, then, have created the word "two," hence 1+1 = 2 was dictated.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

1+1 = 2 (where 1, 2 are real numbers) is an accepted principle in the construction of mathematics-there is a difference. It WAS dictated that 1+1 = 2 when mathematics was created, else we would not have it.

chessmaster1989

Yes, it was. The word "two" exists because it means an object and another object (i.e. 1 + 1). Someone must, then, have created the word "two," hence 1+1 = 2 was dictated.

Morals are relative. What people take for a universal set of morals are the set of morals held by the majority. During the Crusades for example, it was thought morally right to kill Muslims, nowadays we don't. The_One_White

[QUOTE="The_One_White"]Morals are relative. What people take for a universal set of morals are the set of morals held by the majority. During the Crusades for example, it was thought morally right to kill Muslims, nowadays we don't. Funky_Llama

Imo, there is not. I believe that a universal set of moral codes can only exist if there is someone with the authority to dictate that they are the universal set, i.e. a god or gods. Since I do not believe there is a god or gods, I do not believe there is a universal set of moral codes. chessmaster1989

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="The_One_White"]Morals are relative. What people take for a universal set of morals are the set of morals held by the majority. During the Crusades for example, it was thought morally right to kill Muslims, nowadays we don't. The_One_White

I believe "no killing" would be a part of those universal set of moral codes. majadamus

[QUOTE="The_One_White"]By our standards no it wasn't but thats what I'm saying, morals are relative to what the majority of people concieve is right and wrong.Funky_Llama

the 7 laws of Noah- Laws for all mankind

Prohibition of Idolatry: You shall not have any idols before God.
Prohibition of Murder: You shall not murder.
Prohibition of Theft: You shall not steal.
Prohibition of Sexual Promiscuity: You shall not commit adultery.
Prohibition of Blasphemy: You shall not blaspheme God's name.
Dietary Law: Do not eat flesh taken from an animal while it is still alive.
Requirement to have just Laws: You shall set up an effective judiciary to enforce the preceding six laws fairly.

[QUOTE="The_One_White"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]Sure, it was thought morally right, but that doesn't mean that it was.Funky_Llama

Nope there's no universal set of moral codes, only what people think and feel about things. Is there a universal concept of beauty? Nope, same problem.domatron23

If you go by the philosophy of Plato, there are, indeed, universal Forms to morals and to beauty (and many, many other things besides). It is simply that virtually everyone is incapable of seeing these Forms in their complete...forms. One needs to pursue knowledge of these Forms to their utmost in order to get a mere glimpse of their wholeness, with the exception of the Form of beauty, for which glimpses are brought about by seeing people that actually fit it.

The Phaedrus is an extremely interesting work :)

[QUOTE="domatron23"]Nope there's no universal set of moral codes, only what people think and feel about things. Is there a universal concept of beauty? Nope, same problem.thepwninator

If you go by the philosophy of Plato, there are, indeed, universal Forms to morals and to beauty (and many, many other things besides). It is simply that virtually everyone is incapable of seeing these Forms in their complete...forms. One needs to pursue knowledge of these Forms to their utmost in order to get a mere glimpse of their wholeness, with the exception of the Form of beauty, for which glimpses are brought about by seeing people that actually fit it.

The Phaedrus is an extremely interesting work :)

[QUOTE="domatron23"]Nope there's no universal set of moral codes, only what people think and feel about things. Is there a universal concept of beauty? Nope, same problem.thepwninator

If you go by the philosophy of Plato, there are, indeed, universal Forms to morals and to beauty (and many, many other things besides). It is simply that virtually everyone is incapable of seeing these Forms in their complete...forms. One needs to pursue knowledge of these Forms to their utmost in order to get a mere glimpse of their wholeness, with the exception of the Form of beauty, for which glimpses are brought about by seeing people that actually fit it.

The Phaedrus is an extremely interesting work :)

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]No it wasn't. No one dictated that it is true. If I have one object and put with that another object, I have two objects in total. Are you suggesting that it is an arbitrary that be deem the sum of those two objects to be, er, two?Funky_Llama

Yes, it was. The word "two" exists because it means an object and another object (i.e. 1 + 1). Someone must, then, have created the word "two," hence 1+1 = 2 was dictated.

Yes, and I am arguing that the concept exists because it was created. That is to say, 1 + 1 = 2 because we say it's true.

[QUOTE="thepwninator"]

[QUOTE="domatron23"]Nope there's no universal set of moral codes, only what people think and feel about things. Is there a universal concept of beauty? Nope, same problem.sSubZerOo

If you go by the philosophy of Plato, there are, indeed, universal Forms to morals and to beauty (and many, many other things besides). It is simply that virtually everyone is incapable of seeing these Forms in their complete...forms. One needs to pursue knowledge of these Forms to their utmost in order to get a mere glimpse of their wholeness, with the exception of the Form of beauty, for which glimpses are brought about by seeing people that actually fit it.

The Phaedrus is an extremely interesting work :)

I must say, I'm not a big fan of the theory of forms. Come to mention it, I was asked in an essay whether the theory of forms actually told us anything about the physical world -- I made a vague connection between the theory and genetic mutation -- which I was quite pleased with actually. :P

Imo, there is not. I believe that a universal set of moral codes can only exist if there is someone with the authority to dictate that they are the universal set, i.e. a god or gods. Since I do not believe there is a god or gods, I do not believe there is a universal set of moral codes. chessmaster1989

It doesn't necessarily have to be God or Gods. It can also be humans who decide on a universal set of moral codes.

Yes, and I am arguing that the concept exists because it was created. That is to say, 1 + 1 = 2 because we say it's true.

chessmaster1989

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]Imo, there is not. I believe that a universal set of moral codes can only exist if there is someone with the authority to dictate that they are the universal set, i.e. a god or gods. Since I do not believe there is a god or gods, I do not believe there is a universal set of moral codes. X4D

It doesn't necessarily have to be God or Gods. It can also be humans who decide on a universal set of moral codes.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]Imo, there is not. I believe that a universal set of moral codes can only exist if there is someone with the authority to dictate that they are the universal set, i.e. a god or gods. Since I do not believe there is a god or gods, I do not believe there is a universal set of moral codes. X4D

It doesn't necessarily have to be God or Gods. It can also be humans who decide on a universal set of moral codes.

I disagree. No one person's opinions on morals are any more valid than another's, nor is one group's opinions any more valid than another's. If but one person disagrees with a certain 'universal' moral value, then it is no longer universal. Nor would the fact that everyone agrees on a moral value indicate that it is a universal moral value, for there is still the potential for belief in it (and if someone wants to contest this, I respond that, by that logic, nobody can believe that Jesus was the son of God, since, before Jesus' birth, nobody believed that he was).

Humans get confused on this issue because of the following reasons... humans can only think two ways. Objectively, or subjectively. The problem is both are very limited forms of thinking and grant no flexibility when it comes to absolute truth. Both exist. WE acknowledge both, but we deny one, and praise the other. It's really a silly way to approach life.

There is a reason both exist.

There is a universal set of moral codes.. the only thing is it changes from universe to universe. But then again I don't know how many of you accept the idea of the multiverse. Everything has a variation of an infinite possibility of out comes existing some place else. Now many of you will have a hard time believing this. But it in the future it will be the accepted reality of everyone.

There is a universal set of moral codes.. the only thing is it changes from universe to universe. But then again I don't know how many of you accept the idea of the multiverse. Everything has a variation of an infinite possibility of out comes existing some place else. Now many of you will have a hard time believing this. But it in the future it will be the accepted reality of everyone.

EMOEVOLUTION

[QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"]

There is a universal set of moral codes.. the only thing is it changes from universe to universe. But then again I don't know how many of you accept the idea of the multiverse. Everything has a variation of an infinite possibility of out comes existing some place else. Now many of you will have a hard time believing this. But it in the future it will be the accepted reality of everyone.

Jandurin

Of course he didnt... you can tell hes from the future:roll:

If their wasn't, how would civilizations across the world come up with similar laws and rules?FalcoLX

No offense, but that is a bogus argument. The fact that many people abide by a similar set of codes does not prove those codes are universal. That's like arguing that something is true because a majority of people believe it to be true.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]Imo, there is not. I believe that a universal set of moral codes can only exist if there is someone with the authority to dictate that they are the universal set, i.e. a god or gods. Since I do not believe there is a god or gods, I do not believe there is a universal set of moral codes. Funky_Llama

If their wasn't, how would civilizations across the world come up with similar laws and rules?FalcoLX

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="The_One_White"]By our standards no it wasn't but thats what I'm saying, morals are relative to what the majority of people concieve is right and wrong.SpaceMoose

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]Yes, I think there is. As for your point here: why would absolute truth need to be dictated? No one 'dictated' that 1+1=2; it just is. Couldn't morality be the same?GabuEx

If their wasn't, how would civilizations across the world come up with similar laws and rules?FalcoLX

[QUOTE="FalcoLX"]If their wasn't, how would civilizations across the world come up with similar laws and rules?chessmaster1989

No offense, but that is a bogus argument. The fact that many people abide by a similar set of codes does not prove those codes are universal. That's like arguing that something is true because a majority of people believe it to be true.

i like how people keep referring to math. the whole 1+1 = 2 statement, there are some maths that teach that indeed 1+1 doesn't equal 2 (numerical base systems) so this idea is flawed. as for a set of universal moral codes, simply put. no, there isn't. morality is something taught and learned. i don't personally believe much in morality. there is an exception to every rule (as proven by the math statement above)

next up, math is an entirely theoretical system of description. 1,2,3 these things don't exist, they're imagined.

i like how people keep referring to math. the whole 1+1 = 2 statement, there are some maths that teach that indeed 1+1 doesn't equal 2 (numerical base systems) so this idea is flawed. as for a set of universal moral codes, simply put. no, there isn't. morality is something taught and learned. i don't personally believe much in morality. there is an exception to every rule (as proven by the math statement above)

next up, math is an entirely theoretical system of description. 1,2,3 these things don't exist, they're imagined.

z4twenny