Morality is a higher authority than the law

I am... but of course morality is subjective.

In my Universe, the Golden Rule reigns supreme.

"I and I will not be justified by the Laws of Men."

 

I both agree or disagree.

 

Absolutely. Morality, which is objective, has been evolving with us since our first social ancestor hit the scene. We have been living to help each other, in groups, ever since. This has been going on for millions of years. This is why we care about each other, especially those close to us. Our 'laws' are merely a blip in the context of how old our morality is.

 

uh...no

 

I'd love to hear a good argument for objective morality.

 

It depends on what you mean by "morality".

A lot of people think morality = god. If that's what you mean by your question, then no.

If by morality, you just mean the basic moral compass and feelings of empathy that all humans possess, then yes, it is greater then the law.

Laws are created by men, and morals are inherent within us.

 

I agree with this except for calling morality an authority is like an oxymoron. To me, morality allows us to function without authoriy. Communism could function properly if morality replaced authority and law and government and money... and shit.

 

Before I get misunderstood, when I say objective morality I'm speaking about my position of Moral universalism(Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

 

Maynard said it best "Someone told me once that there's no right or wrong. Punishment was served to those who stand to cross a line." Argo, objective or subjective? I believe all morality comes from the definition of what is social and anti-social behavior, by whatever standards a society or group of people dictates. Is it higher than law? yes, but laws were meant to reflect the moral code of the majority of the people.

 

I don't see what there is to be misunderstood. How are morals not relative?

 

I think he's saying is that there are somethings in our moral code that are universal and don't at all depend on society. Thats the gyst of what I read.

 

For example?

 

Shooting a kid in the face with a 12 gauge shotgun just to see the brains splatter on a wall could pretty much be considered a no no in all cultures. Use your imagination.

 

The person that shot the kid just to see the brains splatter may not think that is wrong. Who is to say that he's wrong? ...society?


Murdering people could be an accepted form of population control in this imaginary society. Whose to say that it can't be?



What I'm saying is, if you were in his shoes... You might be utterly convinced you did nothing wrong. What makes one moral conviction less true than another conviction? It's just our experiences, and what society has told us.

I mean, we're all human. We created the concept of morality. If we created the concept of morality, how can there be universal truths?


gotta go grocery shopping now, but I'd love to hear your reply. I'm not even that impressed with the idea of moral relativism anyway, just keen for a discussion haha.

 

I'm not argoSG. I don't believe in that universal morality either. was just trying to help you understand what I think he believes . I'm actually somewhere midway in between your beliefs and his.

 

agree.

i think there is universal morality. everyone knows killing is wrong, even people that do it. seems like there is a set of morals that govern humans. maybe, maybe not but thats my opinion

 

A psychologist/sociologist would have the most to say about that topic. The moment someone ends someone elses life for their pleasure is the moment you can make a few claims about the person committing the act. The person committing the act considers their happiness superior to the happiness of others. Children, in this case. You don't think there's anything wrong with that?

Well, anyone who isn't a sociopath and has some understanding of formal logic can demonstrate this is not ethical. How do you choose who lives and who dies? Will you kill children before parents? Parents before children? Will you send someone a letter explaining to them they have been selected to control population? How will you prevent the fear one experiences of being certain of their death for the purpose of population control? Will it be at random? Will we lose the people who have achieved PhD's in our society? Will we kill people who are deemed less useful? What will be our criteria for determining this?

You're totally right that I may be utterly convinced I did nothing wrong. Would you be surprised if it was later explained to you that I suffer from a range of pathologies such as schizophrenia and have a total lack of empathy? Why not? I don't know what you mean when you ask what makes his conviction less true, I don't see how a conviction can be true or false. I can see how it can be right or wrong though.

This is probably why you think morality is subjective. We did not create morality. Our distaste for the brains of children splattering slowly evolved for millions of years, so to speak. Morality is not absolute either. Much like we slowly learned that using people as farm equipment is wrong(The moment you personally are subjected to this is the moment you would start to reconsider your position), we may in the future learn that other socially acceptable things are wrong, or socially unacceptable things are not wrong.

There is nothing immoral about homosexuality, for example. You can argue this factually, because when you use the word morality, you're actually talking about something. You're saying something is ethically acceptable or not. There is a right and wrong to this logically, we can't really help that, once we start making claims using the word 'moral', we are not expressing our opinions.

 

Well, like I said in my last post, Morality is not absolute- it does indeed change, and as far as we can see so far it has changed for the better. We discriminate much less as a society than we did a few decades ago. And a look at the history of a few centuries ago can really demonstrate how we've become more ethical. But these advancements are objective, based on facts, not on opinions, ie, not subjective. No one can have an opinion that slavery is moral. This is an objective claim, and while we cannot currently prove this scientifically, we have good reasons to believe it could be proven and we are trying hard in multiple scientific disciplines.