What is the basis for morality?

[Nique]

I think it is possible to pinpoint some reasonably universal morals. Very basic stuff, like, The 'in general' don't murder, care for children, don't steal, earn your living, respect elders... and ect.

However, the conversation becomes a circular one when we try to pinpoint the specifics. WHEN can we "kill"? Some circumstances 'allow' that in almost every culture. What about stealing to feed your starving family, or even just yourself?

We argue on these points, largely. Further, we argue even on where the basic set of morals come from. Higher power? Intinct? A form of Universal "Truth" or constant? Social development? By-product of evolution?

To make a point through humour; To really understand mankind, you have to look at the word itself, 'Mankind'. Really, it's made up of two different words, 'Mank' and 'Ind'. What do these words mean? It's a mystery, and so is Mankind.

*bows*

a la' Jack Handy.

[Xal]

Not the killing one, the incest one. The rule on killing ends up being "don't kill people for no reason." Dueling's entire point was "Okay, I give up, you won't listen to reason, let's see you dance, sucka." (/yougotserved)

If you were trying to come up with a breaker on the killing one, hell, there's plenty more where that comes from. Hell, let's go back to within throwing distance of square one: the Hammurabic Code. As America The Book so wonderfully put it, "I will kill you if you do any of the following 512 things." Kills people? Yes. But establishes reasons why they get killed.

[TheSpacePope]

So what you are saying is that there are set moral guidelines that apply to all people.
Thats funny considering you keep giving examples of how there are exceptions to these rules.
You can't have a universally accepted practice if there are exception based upon different reasoning in every society. That is not universal nor standard. Morality comes from the individual decision to do something that is fundamentally wrong/right.
definition of fundamentally wrong/right? However you were brought up. Simple as that, you cannot attach a value to other cultures based on your experience because you have a different set of learned values.

and as for the incest thing, YOU and I and Everyone is a product of incest. No matter what you believe, creationisim or evolution, you come from incest.
Sorry pal, look it up not going to give a link on that.
(Try page 1 of the bible and read on, *creation and check out the discovery channel for info onthe primordial eve that we all decended from *evolution) those are just two examples. sauce

[Azisien]

Y'know SpacePope, I agree with your main argument, but your incest thing is just retarded. The context in which this applies only has to do with the degeneration of an isolated gene pool due to incest. I mean, if I want to get really nit-picky: Incest applies to "persons" in almost every definition of the term. It's very vague. Persons? Evolutionarily, what's that mean? Humans only? So much for the argument. Human and related ancestors? STILL so much for the argument. Next, almost every definition of incest you can find involves marriage. Human only there, I'd say.

The argument MIGHT even be feasible if you assume that, evolutionarily, our entire species came to be with a small handful of individuals within a pathetically small amount of generations. Very, VERY unlikely.

EVEN SO, if the argument was indeed true, then incest is not a moral issue. It's necessary. Is it moral to drink water?

[TheSpacePope]

Well you get my point then, I was actually just being snotty about the incest thing, because someone wanted me to give them an article about it.
I agree with you also, incest is not a moral issue, that is why I was upset when It was brought up. Because we are talking about morality, so bringing up something that may be distasteful to you is an example of relativistic morality, Not universal as the poster was claiming. and wanting to discuss That's all I was bringing to light with my ridiculous statement. Sorry for the confusion, I forget that sarcasm does not come off as well on the text without tone and facial expression ;-)

You got it though. And I thank you.

also yea,
wanted to talk a little more on the difference between relativistic morality. (Easily definable, what you consider to be wrong, simple as that.) and universal morality (i.e. does your viewpoint match with the entire worlds?)
Also, I think it pertinant to point out that nearly all modern theologys (i.e. christians, muslims, judaisim, ect. ) have a near universal taboo against murder. They* (read : some) just ignore it, making it not a universal moral standard. When you go back in the past there were more justifications for murder so it was almost commonplace, with deuls and whatnot. So you will have to give me a mountain of evidence to make me believe in a universal standard for morality.

[Staizer]

Humanity has an innate ability to remain undefinable.

You can have trends and catagories that people will follow most of the time, but like has already been said, there are always exceptions.

There are just too many things going on at any given point in time to lay down an absolute answer to any given problem when it comes to humanity.

I get attacked, I shouldn't kill people, but what about self defense? Maybe I should just give the attacker my money? They may go on and hurt other people, we are supposed to care for other people.

I can't and don't believe that there is a universal or absolute morality because morality is inherently relative. You can get a group of people that agree on the same set of morals, but there will always be one or two people that don't agree with all of them, and there will be others that completely disagree.

Morality is a function of society, an assumed standard that "will always exist" like women in the work place. Or that men and women naturally think differently. Or that fat is bad for you, or that fat is good for you.

It can be right one day, and wrong the next. Who knows? Maybe we as Americans have found the universal morality and the world just hasn't realized it yet . . . Its anyone's guess.

[Nique]

If you were trying to come up with a breaker on the killing one, hell, there's plenty more where that comes from. Hell, let's go back to within throwing distance of square one: the Hammurabic Code. As America The Book so wonderfully put it, "I will kill you if you do any of the following 512 things." Kills people? Yes. But establishes reasons why they get killed.

And isn't that the point? The 'breakers' as you put it, cannot be universally determined, while the generalities exsist, somehow, on a nearly-worldwide scale, firmly established.

Incest is a moral issue becuase it reaps harmful consequnces for the offspring - It's almost more a princeple of preservation of the species than one of morality (at least, it would be if we didn't also have empathy for a child made from such bad baby-batter). You marry a distant cousin and procreate with them, the negative effects are small, and maybe even indistinguisable. Bring that relative gap a bit closer, and we start getting horrible results. Malformed something in the offspring, for certain.

So, space-pope, Aisizien, I'm not sure what your point is - are you really saying that incest isn't a moral issue, despite it producing harmful effects on others? Or merely that its definition should be not quite as obtuse as it may currently be, if it indeed appluies to the human family?

[Azisien]

I was only arguing SpacePope's use of incest on an evolutionary scale. In my rough conclusions during my thought process, were his statements to actually hold true, incest wouldn't be any more a moral issue than, say, breathing.

Now I'm going to start getting confused, because oxygen causes quite a number of harmful effects on top of the necessary good effect, is it moral to let our children breath and suffer? Hah, I know, sounds stupid. So really, incest is poorly defined.

In all this, I haven't actually voiced my opinion on the basis of morality, but I'm really liking what's coming out of the discussion so far and some of it is hinting at my personal views.

[Xal]

...Space Pope, I'm going to walk you through something real fast. You don't seem to be grasping something fundamental about moral principles. (Thank you, incidentally, for proving me correct on the "you just heard that somewhere" bit.)

Have you ever done anything your society as a whole considers immoral? I.E. stolen something, lied about something, cheated on something, etc?

Safe bet the answer's yes, right?

Did that stop you from doing whatever it was? No. Did you know there would be consequences if you were caught? Yes.

See the point now?

There will always be people who decide to operate outside the structure of moral guidelines. However, there's a massive lack of societies where incest and/or causeless killing are considered moral.

People? Yes. Societies? No.

[Nique]

Space Pope, I'm going to walk you through something real fast. You don't seem to be grasping something fundamental about moral principles. (Thank you, incidentally, for proving me correct on the "you just heard that somewhere" bit.)

Don't take that tone with other users, please. We like our threads unheated, and no one is being so brazenly rude or stupid as to deserve that. Your entire post was phrased in a manner very condusive to an uncivil argument, instead of a respectful debate.

I know I'm not a mod, but I didn't appriciate seeing that in here.