Yet.......

@AnneWimsey I hope I'm never in that situation. If I ever am I'd be prepared to do so. Reluctantly.

@TheMiddleWay I think the person being tortured/abused gets to define whether or not its torture/abuse... not the person DOING the torture/abuse. If I'm kicking you in the ribs over and over I don't get to say that I'm only tickling you.

And I think most people would agree that war is immoral. Anyone who is pro-war probably has something to gain by it. I'm NOT saying that was is sometimes inevitable in the face of unrestrained aggression but its takes a complete moral failure to reach that point.

@TheMiddleWay
I probably should add that I don't stop where I did with my comment above. My reasoning goes that we need to have a moral code that grants individuals the greatest freedoms possible to make their own lives enjoyable and worthwhile. We need the freedom to choose without infringing as much as possible on the choices of other. A daunting task, imo.

To start with, in order to choose, one must be alive, so protecting life needs to be paramount. We could discuss when life begins but I think this is a distraction an gets into another area we can start another thread on if someone is interested. For the most part, I'm thinking in terms of adults here who are capable of taking responsibility for their lives.

In addition to protecting life, we need to consider protecting people from harm. This task becomes difficult in that some enjoy the thrill of working themselves through potentially harmful situations. Perhaps a better description is to protect individuals from harm inflected by others. Also a difficult task to discern in general terms.

From protecting those of us who are here, we need to recognize that certain individuals have special needs starting with children. Children just don't have the same capacity to care for themselves or to make decisions we can expect them to be completely responible for. This would include sexual relationships - with adults in particular. Children and ceratin others need special consideration and rules different from adults. We can discuss at what age a minor becomes an adult and whether the transition should be gradual or abrupt, but the needs and requirement are simply different and children need to be considered differently from adults.

Also amoung the group with special needs are individuals with various degrees of mental and physical disabilities. I'm not going to go on at length other than to say, that each case is likely more individual than not. Trying to group them all together will only lead to required exceptions and complaints that certain restrictions shouldn't apply to certain individuals or groups of individuals. We go back to allowing individuals to make choices about their own lives.

This would be the basis of where to start if I were to begin a moral code. It leaves plenty on the table. I also wouldn't say my thoughts on these points are necessarily absolute and are not open for discussion. I don't consider myself any kind of prophet or sage that can't be approached or reasoned with. (But I can be AWFULLY stubborn sometimes).

@TheMiddleWay
I agree.
I think codes of conduct had to be taken more seriously in times gone by. Communities had greater needs for interdependence and someone or situations that were destablizing posed a greater threat to the safety of all the members of the community. Today, we don't have the same vulnerabilty from a single individual who is disruptive. They may be annoying (or worse) but not nearly the danger he would pose in past millenia.

Leisure time which at one time was a premium if available at all is now more a luxury we need to manage not to become an impediment. It allows us a lot more freedom to reevaluate the systems we live under and to make the mistakes in relative safety when we choose to restructure our beliefs and behaviors.

@TheMiddleWay It seems to me objectivism/absolutism is the “natural” (=default) position and that the burden of proof is on subjectivism/relativism, and I am not convinced that any such proposed “proofs” are cogent. Specifically, from the fact that moral opinions vary it does not follow that moral truths are mind-dependent or relative. What I suspect is that actual moral predicaments are so very, very complex that it is ordinarily too difficult to factor in every morally relevant consideration; but if they could be, then what would be morally right or wrong for one person/place/time would be so for every person/place/time. [That is, absolutism (as I take it) simply holds person/place/time are never relevant in the determination of morality. Of course, under a different definition I would be labelled a relativist because surely many features of genetics and environment are morally relevant.]

@TheMiddleWay Nah, I don’t accept a general reductionist charge, although I do hold that not every decision is a moral one (e.g., which shoe to put on first, etc.) and—as you suggest/imply—my view would put the trolly problem in that category. I hadn’t thought of it before but it does seem right. Thanks for the insight. However, I don’t see any reason to believe that every decision-problem would turn out that way. Rather, I contend if all the “extenuating circumstances” could be factored in that the “correct moral answer” would always be exposed when there is one. But since such consideration is rarely possible, cultures advance their own “rules of thumb” to which exceptions inevitable.
I find your suggestion that quantum mechanics might provide a useful insight very interesting, but don’t feel adequate to explore it further myself. Peace.

@TheMiddleWay
The higher power is just the laws of physics. As far as I know physics applies equally to all planets. It doesn’t matter what humans call it - physics, God’s will, reality, fate… it’s “out there”.

@TheMiddleWay
Living systems are built on the moral-less foundations of physics, chemistry, etc. but have emergent properties not predictable by those foundations. Natural selection determines which emergent properties prevail. In living creatures, everything can be traced back to the various forces of evolution, either directly, as in nictitating membranes, or less directly, as in fairness reciprocity, or very indirectly, as in passing waves of moral fashion like “wokeness”.

@Matias Subjective comes from the mind, objective exist outside of the mine. The moon is objective.

@Matias Philosophy comes from the mind. Name one thing philosophy has that is objective.

@TheMiddleWay I have always held that there are no absolutes, but at the same time I can not (As you know, we have been here before. ) embrace relativism. Because if you accept that all ideas are equal and that none ever get any nearer to any objective truth than any others, then you become by definition anti progress. Since if there can be no improvement, then there is no point in experiment, research or learning. As with many things I think that your avatar name The Middle Way, is also the, best way. If only because it is the hardest and nothing was ever bettered without effort , work and courage.

@TheMiddleWay Yes I can go with that form of relativism, at least.
PS. Have you ever read, Being Good, A Short Introduction To Ethics. by Simon Blackburn, it is perhaps a little basic for you, but I strongly recommend it to anyone who is interested in moral philosophy, and it is quite a short read so not a big time waster.

@TheMiddleWay Will look that one up. Thanks.

Rape is not taking life or property.

Not at all. Many cultures have justified murder, including and especially human sacrifice. Which was especially regarded as highly moral, by the people who lived in those cultures.

@Fernapple You didn't understand what I wrote. Irrespective of what anybody or any culture may or may not have thought, until YOU can present a moral case for murder or rape you must accept it as an absolute.

Anybody or any society can have an incorrect opinion or acceptability standard. Prove when murder or rape can be moral.

@Fernapple, @skado No but irrelevant to the point. Can you prove any case where rape can be moral?

@Fernapple, @skado, @TheMiddleWay I didn't try to create a list, nor do I intend to do so.

Why don't you stop obfuscating the point which is until you can prove murder, or rape can be moral, you must accept it is always immoral. Citing what anyoe else thinks or thought is irrelevant. Until YOU can prove murder or rape can be moral, you must accept the absolute.

@Alienbeing
I can’t think of anything that I would regard as absolute in the strictest sense. Some things are more persistent in time than others.

The buck has to stop somewhere. I say it stops at gene/culture coevolution. If you think morality is absolute beyond that, what made it so?

@TheMiddleWay Look up two postings from your reply. NOTE, I said I didn't try to create a list, nor do I intend to. You do read don't you? I didn't exclude rape did I?

Since you can't (by your own words) prove rape is moral then obviously it is immoral. OR if you propose an intermediate point, make it. Your arguments are so shallow.

@TheMiddleWay, @skado When you can provide an arguement that rape or murder can be moral let me know. Until then it is an absolute.

@Alienbeing
The murder attempted by Claus von Stauffenberg would have seemed to me a moral act, on balance, had it succeeded.

@Alienbeing You are missing my point which is. That I don't have to prove that murder is moral, the Aztecs who believed in it as a holy ritual already did that.

@Fernapple You have no point. All you are saying is someone else thought it OK, so it must be OK. That is hardly an argument.

@skado We already discussed this.

@Alienbeing No I am not saying that murder is OK, just that there is no absolutist argument for saying that it is not OK. Since I am playing devils advocate for the relativist possition, that there is no reason for regarding, our post Christian view of murder as a morally certain sin, as in any way having privileged status, over that of someone like an ancient Aztec who regarded it as a moral obligation.

@Fernapple I don't see you are saying anything. Unless you can give good reasons why murder is moral, then you must agree it is immoral. There is no middle ground.

You also sound like the religious people we all criticize. Your basic argument is "who is to say?" The answer is WE are to say. Anyone who ever lost a loved one knows the pain death can bring. A murder brings that pain to ones left behind. In addition it obviously ends the murdered person's ability to achieve anything not already acheived.

If you can't easily see that is immoral, I pity you.

@TheMiddleWay Yep that is another good example. Though I think that the human sacrifice one is a little stronger, since war has always had a slightly wquestionable reputation, while religious rituals have often been seen as the hight of morality.

@Fernapple, @TheMiddleWay Hey MiddleWay, while you have referenced what other cultures have done you forgot to say I replied to each. The basic reply is that merely because anyone or any culture did somethinfg does not make it correct. If someone murdered your parents and thought he/she was correct in doing so, did that thought make it correct? Of course it did not. You have never even tried to construct an argument for a moral murder. The real reason you did not is because you can't.

Get an intellectual argument or get lost, your bickering is boring.

@Fernapple Only a good example of the fact that people can do immoral things.

@TheMiddleWay, @Alienbeing Oh I can easily see that is immoral, What I am saying is that, I can not PROOVE that it is immoral.

@Fernapple @TheMiddleWay Your trolly is not an example of a moral judgment. It is an example of possibly limiting casualties. Did I ever say hard judgements are moral issues? NO, I did not. This is yet another example of the fact that you don't know what a moral isssue is.

@Fernapple What do you think it takes to prove something immoral?

@TheMiddleWay, @Fernapple First of all soldiers killing one another can easily be classified as self defense, hence not a moral issue. Second what society thinks is totally irrelevant. You merely point out what was then socially acceptable.

I previously showed you that many societies condoned rape and murder but that did not make it right, it made them wrong. I even specifically point out to you that even today "honor killings" take place and asked you if you thought that was moral. You replied no it was not, provong that even you can see that even when a person or society condones something as moral that does not make it moral.

@Alienbeing No, but what we are saying is, that we can not prove that our view of what is moral and what is not, is any more valid than anyone elses. So the burden of proof is on you who claim that you can. As you say the argument that something is moral just because a culture does it, does not hold water, and so neither does your argument that just because you and your culture hold that murder is immoral prove that it is so, nor even does my or your feeling that I think that it would be far better to live in a culture that does.

To an ancient Aztec the argument that you would let the earth dry up and the crops and all the people starve, because you are not willing to kill a single stranger , would seem immoral. The question is, what argument would you use to persuade an Aztec that he was mistaken and killing was immoral, without first disproving his persupposition that it was demanded by the gods, and replacing it with your own presupposition that it is better to minimize murder because minimizing pain is always a good thing.

@TheMiddleWay Give it a couple more attemps then I quit.

@Garban Soldiers do not murder, they may use self defense.

@Fernapple When you learn that merely because one or an entire society have an opinion that opinion can be wrong, then you will understand. I read this morning that a group in Pakistan stoned a man to death for rippping pages from a Koran. They maintained it was their moral duty. That does not make it moral does it?

You confuse opinion (which can be right or wrong) with actual morals.

@Fernapple Your Aztec example shows your confusion. The example cites a religious cause for their behavior. Since you don't believe in a sky fairy how can you use their religious beliefs as a factor in moral judgement? They were wrong, pure and simple.

@Alienbeing No they were both moral, they may have been mistaken about their ideas, but they were moral. And that is the point, morallity can be mistaken and misguided, because there is no objective basis for it save what our culture tells us, since our cultural addiction is more than strong enough to override our natural instincts for things like empathy, and pity.

@Fernapple You say they may have been mistaken, but they were moral. That is a self conflicting statement. What you have maintained all along is that if someone believes an action is moral, then it is.

If that "logic" was correct there could be no laws, no judgement at all.

You say there is no objective basis, but clearly there is. I find it sad that an adult cannot figure out what is moral, or maybe hesitates for fear of criticism.

@Alienbeing There is no objective basis for morality, believing something is moral, "IS" the only proof of morality, and it is a purely subjective one. Adulthood is about acceptance, and accepting that your most dearly held beliefs are purely subjective, and without grounding, is perhaps the most important piece of that acceptance.

We have been having this conversation now for a long time, and if you had any objective proof of morality, you only needed to bring it out, and I would gratefully accept that the conversation is over and I was wrong and have learned something.

For myself I accept at least two basic arguments for morality, which I live by. The first being that there is no doubt that we all have moral instincts, such as empathy, pity and revulsion. And that those moral instincts must have an evolutionary origin, and are therefore are rooted in natural law, which should inform our choices, and that it is moral therefore to listen to our moral instincts.

The second is. That if I grant a prerequisite, such as it would be better to live in a happy world, and that being kind and generous to everyone without special favour, is likely to help bring that about. Then it is moral to be kind and generous.

But I have to admit that neither is in any way, an objective proof. The first because it is nebulous, and does not directly lead to any defined laws. And the second because it requires a prerequisite, "it would be better to live in a happy world", and as I said to themiddleway at the beginning, I can only derive morality given a prerequisite, and that means it is not truly objective.

@TheMiddleWay If that is what you are saying you have missed th point of everything I ever said.

Your part about 'honor killings" shows you have no grasp of moral. Something cannot be moral to one, and immoral to another at the same time. Honor killings are immoral period, merely becausesome people accept is is irrelevant. That is called socia acceptability, NOT moral judgement.

@Fernapple Merely because you say ther is no objective basis for moral judgement does not make it so. Anyone who cannot say child rape is always immoral has lost judfemental ability.

Adulthood is not about acceptance. Where did you get that? Are you saying that as an adult you must accept everythig and everybody?

Sad adults can't make obvious judgement.

@Alienbeing If there is an objective basis for morality then show one, many wise people have been searching for one for centuries, if you have got one then I am sure the world would love to hear it. Many have tried, from Plato, and Epicurus to Nietzsche, and all failed to some degree. I am sure that if you have one, then the Noble peace prize, at least, is a given, and that is a lot of money . The nearest that anyone ever did come to finding one, that I know of, was Kant, with his universalization principle, and that is certainly not very strongly objective.

Yes adulthood is all about acceptance, it is the about the acceptance of the gradual losing of our delusions. Beginning with the central, and most childish one, which our parents care instills in us, that we are the centre of the universe, and that universe exists for us. Which is an inevitable delusion, since the only universe we know as children, is our parents, and we are, unless we are very unlucky, the centre of that. We then find that, the children at school will not want to be with us, and we will not receive attention, unless we have something to offer. And when we have accepted that, and that serving the community is our only way to succeed in gaining something worthwhile. Then we have to learn to accept that the community, family and friends, we devote ourselves to, is itself is of no importance in the great scheme of things, and may be swept away by by as little as one politicians signature on a piece of paper.

And so it goes on, until we learn to accept that all of human life is trivial to the greater universe, and we have to accept that even the greatest humans, and our heros, can not hope to leave a legacy that will outlast a few trivial millenia. And finally we have to learn, to accept, that any cynical view which understanding of the triviallity of our lives that may lead us to, and with it, the idea that evil is of equal worth, to good. Does not buy us any freedom or joy either, and that therefore, giving to our community and fellow creature on this planet, does not make us moral heros or any great thing like that, but that we must do it, just because the freedom that evil suppossedly gives is just a delusion too, and that we are good and should try our very best to be good, simply because there is nothing else to do.

@TheMiddleWay, Fernapple You continue to ignore the point. It is totally irrelevant what one, or any group thinks. Even your question regarding acceptance of "one morality" shows you don't get it. You can't stop conflating Social Acceptance with what is truly (and obviously) immoral. I already said sex was not a moral issue so why would you even bring it up again if you are not confused?There are very few actions that can be classified as moral or immoral. However since you are apparently incapable of declaring even scarificial murder as immoral it is hopeless to discuee it with you.

Now Fernapple. If you can't see that sacrificail murder, child rape and a few other things are not only objectively correct as well as obvious, there is no resaon to conrinue to discuss the subject with you either.

NO adulthood is NOT about acceptance. One should only accept that which is correct.

Both of you illustrate you are easily influenced by others. Too bad.

Ther is nothing more to say.

@Fernapple Here is an objective example:

Morality requires us to avoid doing bad things, again, by definition. Hence we all have a moral duty not to harm other living things. This moral duty exists objectively because harm exists objectively. Just as 1 + 1 = 2 is objectively true, so “we should not harm other living things” is objectively true

@Alienbeing Sorry I forgot about this post, my deepest apologies.

No, that idea contains the presupposition that doing harm is a bad thing, and my original comment if you remember, was that, you could only have objective morallity if you accept at least one presupposition.

Someone could for example make the alternate presupposition. That we are products of evolution and therefore here to serve evolution. Doing harm to others therefore increases deaths, thereby quickening natural selection, and prolongs the life of the species by lessening over population. Therefore doing harm to other humans is the good and moral thing, and failing to do harm a bad thing.

Or the traditional Christian presupposition, "God fearing". That we are here to obey God and that therefore we have to do what God says, even if that means harming others.

I think that anyone who accepted either, would be a complete as###le, but I could not fault their logic, and one presupposition is no better than any other. My preference for agreeing with you that it is better not to harm living things, is purely subjective, given that I have made a subjective choice in my presuppositions.

@Fernapple If you don't accept that doing harm is a bad thing you need professional help.

Good bye.

@TheMiddleWay
Not specific behaviors themselves like sex or eating, but strong tendencies to certain feelings, like fairness. If we find it in non-human species, we can be pretty confident it’s genetic.

.

@TheMiddleWay
We may be running up against the language/semantics barrier here. I don’t see any way to exclude altruism from the morality question, and altruism has been firmly established in many species. When we perform a behavior that is costly to us, for the benefit of another, or refuse to perform a selfish act for ourselves, out of consideration for others… that’s altruism, and the basis of all moral impulses.

@TheMiddleWay Yes I am. It is a problem with the English language, a thing with which I have never had a great relationship. But I think that you have well understood my meaning, well done.

Tell me when rape of a child can be ever be anything other than absolutly immoral.