Universal Moral Law

[KT Samurai]

Morality, the basis upon which we judge what is right and what is wrong, has seemingly always been apart of human society. For some reason every culture around the world can agree upon many things, such as murder and how it is "wrong" or donating to charities and how it is "right". Yet some of us find ourselves wondering where these rules and regulations come from. How exactly do we know right from wrong? Why do we feel satisfaction when we do right? Why do we feel guilt or remorse if we do something wrong? Upon which standard to we measure our own morality? These are questions that lead to the widely believed notion of the universal moral law.

The basic idea behind the universal moral law is that God (or some other higher consciousness perhaps) has instilled in the universe a law upon which all matters can be judged. This law is something human beings are innately "conscious" of but unable to explain, because God gave us the ability to tap into this law but, outside of giving us the commandments, has never fully explained. Some are able to tap into this law easier than others, and some not at all. Because of the diversity we have a wide array of people upon which to judge. Those who are law-abiding and peaceful, those who bend the law, those who break, and those who do not even acknowledge it's existence. One's understanding of morals depends on their "closeness" to it, and this permits them to follow the natural laws of life.

Those who subscribe to Darwinism and other such things (and who denounce the universal law theory completely) have been known to contend that morality was achieved throw a slow but steady process, not unlike evolution. In his early years, man understood that being around others was benefitial to him. He felt safer, was more well-fed, and sought to secure this feeling of security. Over time, man found that helping his fellow man brought great rewards down the line. Showing kindness to another often resulted in receiving kindness back, and in many instances this allowed him a higher chance of survival. In his own selfish way, man reached out to his fellow man to aid them so that they made aid him in return. Morality is ultimately the result of one's selfishness, seeking to better themselves both physically and mentally by helping others (whom he expects will help him back).

Of course, there are a multitude of other explanations. But the idea of a universal law is a fascinating one. For one thing, why would man go out of his way to help another when it costs him more than he gains? Why to people routinely risk their lives for others? What sort of gain is there if the possibility of death is a terribly reality? If man were truly selfish and only engaged in things like morality for his own personal gain, how does one explain the presence of people in our history so selfless and giving that they receive almost nothing in return? Where does this compulsion come from?

Discuss, and try to be coherent about it. I've accepted that none of you can friggin' spell or write a proper sentence (or at least try like I do), so just make sure I can read what you write.

[Delta]

Persoanlly, I doubt that there is a Universal Moral Law. In my opinion everything is subjective, including what people think of as moral. Morals change as the needs of society change, consider some of the old laws of the Bible, you couldn't eat some animals because they were "unclean". We now know that these animals are no more unclean then anything else you eat, but in those days there may have been valid health reasons for not eating those animals. Oh and one more thing:
I've accepted that none of you can friggin' spell or write a proper sentence (or at least try like I do), so just make sure I can read what you write.
That's not very nice :p:

[Shinomori]

Morality, the basis upon which we judge what is right and what is wrong, has seemingly always been apart of human society. For some reason every culture around the world can agree upon many things, such as murder and how it is "wrong" or donating to charities and how it is "right". Yet some of us find ourselves wondering where these rules and regulations come from. How exactly do we know right from wrong? Why do we feel satisfaction when we do right? Why do we feel guilt or remorse if we do something wrong? Upon which standard to we measure our own morality? These are questions that lead to the widely believed notion of the universal moral law.
The basic idea behind the universal moral law is that God (or some other higher consciousness perhaps) has instilled in the universe a law upon which all matters can be judged. This law is something human beings are innately "conscious" of but unable to explain, because God gave us the ability to tap into this law but, outside of giving us the commandments, has never fully explained. Some are able to tap into this law easier than others, and some not at all. Because of the diversity we have a wide array of people upon which to judge. Those who are law-abiding and peaceful, those who bend the law, those who break, and those who do not even acknowledge it's existence. One's understanding of morals depends on their "closeness" to it, and this permits them to follow the natural laws of life.
Those who subscribe to Darwinism and other such things (and who denounce the universal law theory completely) have been known to contend that morality was achieved throw a slow but steady process, not unlike evolution. In his early years, man understood that being around others was benefitial to him. He felt safer, was more well-fed, and sought to secure this feeling of security. Over time, man found that helping his fellow man brought great rewards down the line. Showing kindness to another often resulted in receiving kindness back, and in many instances this allowed him a higher chance of survival. In his own selfish way, man reached out to his fellow man to aid them so that they made aid him in return. Morality is ultimately the result of one's selfishness, seeking to better themselves both physically and mentally by helping others (whom he expects will help him back).
Of course, there are a multitude of other explanations. But the idea of a universal law is a fascinating one. For one thing, why would man go out of his way to help another when it costs him more than he gains? Why to people routinely risk their lives for others? What sort of gain is there if the possibility of death is a terribly reality? If man were truly selfish and only engaged in things like morality for his own personal gain, how does one explain the presence of people in our history so selfless and giving that they receive almost nothing in return? Where does this compulsion come from?
Discuss, and try to be coherent about it. I've accepted that none of you can friggin' spell or write a proper sentence (or at least try like I do), so just make sure I can read what you write.

I object to being thrown in with the grammar idiots. :D

And personally, I believe that no person is truly selfless. I believe that (even subconsciously) people give to be recognized and given admiration.

But that's just me being my pessimistic self.

[KT Samurai]

Persoanlly, I doubt that there is a Universal Moral Law. In my opinion everything is subjective, including what people think of as moral. Morals change as the needs of society change, consider some of the old laws of the Bible, you couldn't eat some animals because they were "unclean". We now know that these animals are no more unclean then anything else you eat, but in those days there may have been valid health reasons for not eating those animals.
Freud said much the same thing, that we come up with morals and whatnot in the same way that we create our traffic laws; whatever works, we keeps, whatever doesn't, we don't. I largely agree with that sentiment.
Oh and one more thing:
That's not very nice
What're you worried about? I can read your posts fine.
I object to being thrown in with the grammar idiots.
If there's one thing I like being proved wrong about it's that someone other than myself will actually take a moment to ensure that their posts make any bloody sense. Object away.
And personally, I believe that no person is truly selfless. I believe that (even subconsciously) people give to be recognized and given admiration.
But that's just me being my pessimistic self.
Even white lies show that someone is able to look out for themselves a little. I've never met a completely selfless person, and if I did I imagine they would be dead by now.

[VampyreLord]

KT Samurai, Sateck started a similar thread to this called "absolute good and absolute evil" if you have a look there you may find some interesting arguments put forward about moral codes.

[Daeruke]

i dont believe in god or morals. and extreme goood and extreme evil can't exist 'cause the opposite side would quickly destroy such beings. n there is no such thing as all good since u need to fight the bad guys if ur the good guy. and fighting is bad. and no person can't be truly evil since instincts such as holding back will happen. but i will say this, human kind need hope and faith. thus a divine being and morals are needed.

[_Ink]

this is not relevant, the fact that you are saying some superior being even started some kinda system so that we act that way once we learned how to harness the good around us through a slow cycle already made it rather obvious that you 'have an explanation' to the situation at hand.

ok, let me put it this way, in many cases, we developed the sense of good and bad through trial and error. I have reasons to believe man first approached helping each other cause it is natural. remember, without a mother, a child cannot foster (even if abandoned, only with the aid of the public, say an orphanage) can the child being cared for, continue to grow.#

Such is the beginning of caring for the species, just as a mother would protect its child, it is natural for man who by far more intelligent, can understand that helping each other benefit in the long run, ie. survival of the community, which means, unlike species of animals which are solidatory, we are community animals, and we must come in groups, without the group, we die.

Inseparably, we must also replicate, harmonize and survive by group, our survival, births, deaths, foods, and all sorts of needs are handled in the group format, if we intend to be separate from the group, then we die, or diverge to a different species, possibly a solidatory man like beast (in terms of evolution) or simply devolve rather than evolve.

If our survival pends on the group,.there is no reason for mankind not to do good for the parties involved, in order to receive a common benefit in return.

I believe morals more or less evolved from needs, needs is what defines the species, no matter which, monkeys, mammals of all sorts, community based animals, all require one of the other, albeit none has matched the human species in terms of a collective but individually minded individuals. (excluding the ants and the bees of course in this case)

in time, mankind who achieved knowledge in a slow and steady process begins to understand, and then write down extras and laws to govern the community, so that it fosters the community in the right direction, however, like many said, rules are meant to be broken, hence why we constantly change, and therefore, I do not agree there is a universal law, to me, that is a sign of human vanity. Just as religion is.

[KT Samurai]

i dont believe in god or morals. and extreme goood and extreme evil can't exist 'cause the opposite side would quickly destroy such beings. n there is no such thing as all good since u need to fight the bad guys if ur the good guy. and fighting is bad. and no person can't be truly evil since instincts such as holding back will happen. but i will say this, human kind need hope and faith. thus a divine being and morals are needed.

Haha! Okay, you obviously don't read the paper very often.

There are extremely good and extremely bad people out there. There are folks who will risk their lives to pull someone out of a burning wreck and there are people who will slit your throat if you look at them funny. Fighting may not be good but we all know it's necassary and sometimes is indeed for the greater good (like beating the Nazis). You're stating junk you clearly haven't thought very much about, or you're just refusin' to look at facts and daily events.

Also, we may need hope and faith, but I don't think a divine being is needed in order to have it. I know people who would vehemently disagree with me but I stand by it: human beings can make it on their own.

[ShadeKai]

I think the concept of moral and such has been quite oversized, if you understand what i mean. Some philosophers talk about "norms" in which the society acts and judges people on, in this case the "norms" forge morals to which everyone is supposed to act accordingly to. This could otherwise be known as laws. But could laws be said to be sme kinde of morals? Maybe it could since laws can be interpreted as morals because: "These are things that you shouldn't do because it's leagally and morally wrong." Customs is also an issue, these are strict morals made up by an society, or group or equivalent, to in some cases distinguish themselves from others, but these customs have sets of morals that should be heeded otherwise one wil be "put out of the system".

Now I agree that morals are mostly subjective there I think that there are a base of morals that applies to everone and that we thereafter construct our own morals and principles. In philosophic terms morals are the dividance between good and evil actions: "Is it morally right for me to do so?" etc.

Concering the topic of good and evil, I think that there is good and evil in this world but sometimes I think that we define something as evil to justify our own actions. Take for example the crusades, the crusaders cosidered the muslims heretics and thus justifying their actions although what they did is to me wrong. But I don't think that there are extremely good or extremely evil persons or things, I think it is just the way we perceive things and the way we judge them.

These are only my thoughts...

[daimond]

I think morale guard as comunicate betwen other people or social class. to maintain healthy comunity.

if the law of morale been destruct there certain impilcation like chaos would bee happend in the comunity.

as far i know the feeling afraid and shame are the last stand for moral guard in the comunity.