Are morals dependent on culture or not?

[rachmaninoff_forever]

We talked about this in philosophy today.

I think that morals transcends all culture and although we have different beliefs, we have the same morals.

[8_octaves]

I would say, that in some extreme cases slightly different general moral-values exist, in different cultures.

Taken, for example, the culture of the cannibals. They have ( or, I hope: had, since I don't really know whether there are still such cultures existing ) , in some particular areas other moral-values than we have. But they DO have moral values, but may be "shifted". There are, I think, many things which seem to them "impossible" / nonmoral, which we ourselves may perhaps do every day.

But also vice versa.

Cordially, 8_oct!

[rachmaninoff_forever]

I would say, that in some extreme cases slightly different general moral-values exist, in different cultures.

Taken, for example, the culture of the cannibals. They have ( or, I hope: had, since I don't really know whether there are still such cultures existing ) , in some particular areas other moral-values than we have. But they DO have moral values, but may be "shifted". There are, I think, many things which seem to them "impossible" / nonmoral, which we ourselves may perhaps do every day.

But also vice versa.

Cordially, 8_oct!

Aha but it's not the morals that's different it's the belief.

Suppose there's a civilization that kills people once they reach a certain age.  Sure on the face of it it would seem like the rest of civilization has different morals.  They think its a good thing to kill people, while everyone thinks it's bad to kill people.  

But the thing is, although that's what they disagree with, that's the belief not the moral.

It turns out the civilization kills people at a certain age because they believe that when you die and go to heaven, you live the rest of eternity in heaven in the same physical and mental condition you were back on Earth.  For example, if you die when you're 90, you're gonna live the rest of eternity wih altimeters, a frail body etc...  But if you die when you're like 40, you're gonna live the rest of eternity with a strong body, strong mind, healthy, etc...  So to them they believe they're doing the people they're killing a favor!

Now suppose that there's some scientific discovery that proves that their belief is true.  You would do the same thing right?

They operate under the same sort of moral code as everyone else: do good to others or help humanity or whatever.  The difference is how they realize their moral agenda.  Ya feel me?

I guess I could've just used your cannibal example.

[8_octaves]

Hi rachmaninoff_forever,

I think perhaps I didn't make one point clear:

We, here, won't see any moral-problems in eating a steak. It's nutritive, and tasty.

The fictional cannibals ( of that type I had in mind in my posting ) do exactly the same with a "human" steak. And for the same purposes and based on the same two reasons: It's nutritive, and tasty.

They haven't a moral problem with that - but we would.

On the other hand: THEY might find it scary and unmoral, to wear clothes, because clothes, as we all know here,  , veil the most important parts of the body, which show others that we are healthy, strong, and good looking girls and guys. 

Ergo: Not a matter of belief, always. Instead: Perhaps a matter of.."drive ( in the psychologic sense ) ", "reason", and "ego" ? 

Cordially, 8_oct!

[rachmaninoff_forever]

Hi rachmaninoff_forever,

I think perhaps I didn't make one point clear:

We, here, won't see any moral-problems in eating a steak. It's nutritive, and tasty.

The fictional cannibals ( of that type I had in mind in my posting ) do exactly the same with a "human" steak. And for the same purposes and based on the same two reasons: It's nutritive, and tasty.

They haven't a moral problem with that - but we would.

On the other hand: THEY might find it scary and unmoral, to wear clothes, because clothes, as we all know here,   , veil the most important parts of the body, which show others that we are healthy, strong, and good looking girls and guys.  

Ergo: Not a matter of belief, always. Instead: Perhaps a matter of.."drive ( in the psychologic sense ) ", "reason", and "ego" ?  

Cordially, 8_oct!

I see what you're saying.

But I still disagree.  Suppose I'm a cannibal and we have this dialogue:

Me:   what is wrong with eating human meat?  It tastes good, blah blah blah.

You:  Well eating humans is bad because human life is valuable and you shouldn't take a human life and eat it cause it's nasty or whatever and you shouldn't cause harm to something that's valuable

Me:  hmmm.  I'm inclined to agree with you actually!  You shouldn't cause harm to something that's valuable.  We are in agreement there.  However, we're in disagreement when you say human life is valuable and eating humans are nasty.  


You see, it's a different belief about the value of human life, but the same moral "code" that causing harm to something that's valuable is bad.  I think its a disagreement about "facts" reasons or whatever but not morals.

So the thig that's dependent on culture is the way people will realize their morals.

  So what constitutes a moral or immoral act is whether or not you or I believe it realizes the overarching moral law or whatever.

[8_octaves]

I see what you're saying.

But I still disagree.  Suppose I'm a cannibal and we have this dialogue:

Me:   what is wrong with eating human meat?  It tastes good, blah blah blah.

You:  Well eating humans is bad because human life is valuable and you shouldn't take a human life and eat it cause it's nasty or whatever and you shouldn't cause harm to something that's valuable

Me:  hmmm.  I'm inclined to agree with you actually!  You shouldn't cause harm to something that's valuable.  We are in agreement there.  However, we're in disagreement when you say human life is valuable and eating humans are nasty. 


You see, it's a different belief about the value of human life, but the same moral "code" that causing harm to something that's valuable is bad.  I think its a disagreement about "facts" reasons or whatever but not morals.

I don't think so, because:

"Belief" has to do with supernatural powers, gods and goddesses, polytheistic or monotheistic world view, and in cases like, for example, the cannibals, perhaps archaic, primal rites and cults. In reality it's like this:

People of those cultures known to us as "cannibals" don't cook every day a meal consisting of .... . They BELIEVE , that on rare days of festivities and rituals, the power of a killed enemy, referring especially to parts like heart, etc.., will be - by eating them - transferred to them ( for example the warriors ) who eat that.

THIS way, you would be right, I think. But: As a rule of REASON valid for EVERY CULTURE, :

Flesh is nutritive. And tasty.

These are completely profane reasons which aren't to be discussed. But WHICH kind of flesh we eat, that is strongly, at least in my opinion, subject to moral views.

And even in our western culture we find people who DISLIKE VERY MUCH eating flesh of animals, because these people find it MORALLY WRONG to kill the poor ones, only to have a tasty and nutritive addendum to the daily food. 

Cordially, 8_octaves!

[rachmaninoff_forever]

I don't think so, because:

"Belief" has to do with supernatural powers, gods and goddesses, polytheistic or monotheistic world view, and in cases like, for example, the cannibals, perhaps archaic, primal rites and cults. In reality it's like this:

Flesh is nutritive. And tasty.

These are completely profane reasons which aren't to be discussed. But WHICH kind of flesh we eat, that is strongly, at least in my opinion, subject to moral views.

And even in our western culture we find people who DISLIKE VERY MUCH eating flesh of animals, because these people find it MORALLY WRONG to kill the poor ones, only to have a tasty and nutritive addendum to the daily food.  

Cordially, 8_octaves!

Well belief doesn't always mean supernatural, gods, etc...  It could also be scientific.  A belief is anything you think is true whether or not it actually is true and/or scientific.


On the surface it seems like the type of meat we eat is subject to moral views.  Consider this:

American dude:  Why in the world would you eat dog?  Eating dog is immoral because dogs are important creatures with feelings and they're mans best friends and good for protection blah blah blah you shouldn't harm something that's valuable.

dude who eats dog:  Hmmm...  You know what?  I'm inclined to agree with you.  I also agree that you shouldn't harm something that's valuable.  But I disagree with you when you say that dogs are valuable creatures.  Dogs are not valuable creatures, which is why I will continue to eat dog.

Again they have the same moral principle: you shouldn't harm something that's valuable.  So they don't really disagree morally, they disagree factually: are dogs valuable(Or rather I should say valuable in the same way)?   The reason why the dude from America will say that it's immoral to eat dog because he believes that it falls under the moral principle: you shouldn't harm something that's valuable.  But the other dude says that it's not immoral to eat dog because he believes that it doesn't full under the same principle.  What I'm trying to say is that we have the same moral principles, but different ways of realizing those principles based on what we think are facts.

According to the cultural relativism argument, back when slavery was around, OF COURSE slavery was okay!  Why?  Because it was relative to american culture 200 years ago.  Who are we to judge them if it's not our culture.  Or another example the Holocaust.  relative to Nazi Germany culture, that's morally okay.  Who are we to step in and say that's immoral.  

But what you said in your first comment was that we all share slightly different morals so I guess that permits you to say that what another culture is doing is immoral while also latching on to the idea that morally is relative to culture.  But if that's the case then how do you decide what transcends culture and what doesn't?

[rachmaninoff_forever]

On the other hand: THEY might find it scary and unmoral, to wear clothes, because clothes, as we all know here,  , veil the most important parts of the body, which show others that we are healthy, strong, and good looking girls and guys. 

I don't even think that it's immoral to not wear clothes lol.  As long as it's a good looking girl I'm happy.

[iansinclair]

I think that at a very deep level we humans do share a set of fundamental morals which are not culture dependent.  I think that the best evidence of this is by the curious way in which the moral aspects of many otherwise widely varying religions and philosophical views tend to coincide on certain moral values.

However... the cultural expression can vary tremendously!

I might add that the commentary on cannibals is interesting, and has some valid points -- but when one is looking at that sort of behaviour (whether cannibalism or other behaviour antagonistic to other groups) it is rather important to remember that many many groups of people identify themselves as "people" and all others as some form of "non-people".  This behaviour -- like the shared moral values -- is very very human, and can be seen in most tribal societies, as well as -- lamentably -- in many rather "sophisticated" or "advanced" cultures (it is the root of all xenophobic and racist behaviour, for instance, in my view).  Viewed from that standpoint, the cannibal isn't eating another "people" but a "non-people" (it was, if I recall correctly, very rare for a cannibal to eat a member of his or her own tribe) -- not all that different from eating that steak, for instance.

[Bob]

Probably both.  But people are doing what they think is "good."

Tempered a bit by the environment in that an individual will probably protect itself or its family at some point instead of the community when it's threatened. 


For the cannibal thing, I was thinking those people probably don't consider the person they're eating to be like them.  Or they might consider it a great honor.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

I think that at a very deep level we humans do share a set of fundamental morals which are not culture dependent.  I think that the best evidence of this is by the curious way in which the moral aspects of many otherwise widely varying religions and philosophical views tend to coincide on certain moral values.

However... the cultural expression can vary tremendously!

I might add that the commentary on cannibals is interesting, and has some valid points -- but when one is looking at that sort of behaviour (whether cannibalism or other behaviour antagonistic to other groups) it is rather important to remember that many many groups of people identify themselves as "people" and all others as some form of "non-people".  This behaviour -- like the shared moral values -- is very very human, and can be seen in most tribal societies, as well as -- lamentably -- in many rather "sophisticated" or "advanced" cultures (it is the root of all xenophobic and racist behaviour, for instance, in my view).  Viewed from that standpoint, the cannibal isn't eating another "people" but a "non-people" (it was, if I recall correctly, very rare for a cannibal to eat a member of his or her own tribe) -- not all that different from eating that steak, for instance.

That's exactly what I'm saying.

[hardy_practice]

Or another example the Holocaust.  relative to Nazi Germany culture, that's morally okay.  Who are we to step in and say that's immoral.  

what the f???

[rachmaninoff_forever]

what the f???

IF culture relativism were true that would be the case.

[hardy_practice]

IF culture relativism were true that would be the case.

so it obviously isn't true.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

so it obviously isn't true.

That's the point lol👻

[outin]

IF culture relativism were true that would be the case.

Culture relativism does exist, which is why the whole discussion is a bit silly. Lets take a bunch of psychopaths and let them start a new society. I bet their "morals" will be totally different from what you are used to

If you study history, in many cultures things that you find horrific where totally acceptable and caused no moral concerns for the majority. What we call "moral" is heavily depended on our definitions. Meaning that when a culture defines some group of people more like animals or defines a human being just as a resource without no higher value, then their "morals" would not in any way clash with their actions, no matter how brutal.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

Meaning that when a culture defines some group of people more like animals or defines a human being just as a resource without no higher value, then their "morals" would not in any way clash with their actions, no matter how brutal.

No it's the other way around.  Their ACTIONS wouldn't clash with their morals.  

So lets say the moral here is causing harm to something that's valuable.  

They don't define humans as valuable, so their actions won't clash with their morals.  The thing that differs here is what they and the rest of human civilization believes are FACTS: Humans are/aren't valuable.  The thing that's the same here is the moral: causing harm to something that's valuable is wrong.  

So ALTHOUGH we have the same moral truths, we will BEHAVE differently based on what we believe are facts.  If you believe that humans are valuable, then killing people would clash with causing harm to something that's valuable.  However if you believe that humans are not valuable then it won't clash with causing harm to something that's valuable

fact:  Humans are/aren't valuable
moral truth: causing harm to something that's valuable is wrong.


The way that people will BEHAVE is relative to culture, but not core moral truths.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

Culture relativism does exist, which is why the whole discussion is a bit silly. Lets take a bunch of psychopaths and let them start a new society. I bet their "morals" will be totally different from what you are used to

Suppose there's a civilization that kills people once they reach a certain age.  Sure on the face of it it would seem like the rest of civilization has different morals.  They think its a good thing to kill people, while everyone thinks it's bad to kill people.  They think it's perfectly fine, but we think it's horrific.

But the thing is, although that's what they disagree with, that's the belief not the moral.

It turns out there's a civilization that kills people at a certain age because they believe that when you die and go to heaven, you live the rest of eternity in heaven in the same physical and mental condition you were back on Earth.  For example, if you die when you're 90, you're gonna live the rest of eternity wih altimeters, a frail body etc...  But if you die when you're like 40, you're gonna live the rest of eternity with a strong body, strong mind, healthy, etc...  So to them they believe they're doing the people they're killing a favor!

Now suppose that there's some scientific discovery that PROVES that their belief is true!  It is a FACT that killing people at age 40 will send them to heaven to live in eternity in a healthy body/mind!  You would do the same thing right?  Would it still seem horrific to us that they kill them?  Actually it would seem horrific NOT to do it.  

It doesn't seem like we have different morals at all.  It looks like we just have disagreement on what are facts.

[outin]

fact:  Humans are/aren't valuable
moral truth: causing harm to something that's valuable is wrong.

Why should it be so? It can as well just be:
Causing harm to something that *I* define as valuable is not *rational*.

The way I see it that the whole idea of morals is embedded to you by your culture. Evolution seems to have favored those who are open to such development. But at the same time there still are people who do not respond to this and do not develope the ability to moral consideration. So how could this not be relative? 

[rachmaninoff_forever]

Why should it be so? It can as well just be:
Causing harm to something that *I* define as valuable is not *rational*.

I think the difference between "rational" and "moral" is that morality allows you to feel guilty if you actually commit the act.  And I'm not talking about like me breaking my laptop, I'm talking about something like killing a person.  

If you do something JUST  irrational, you can never feel guilty, but if you do something immoral, more often than not, it's irrational, but it allows for you to feel guilty.

Unless you wanna take the whole *there's no such thing as morals route*.



I think it's also important to note that there are different types of value.

So I really like fruit.  They're valuable to me.  But I'll eat it anyways.

vs...

I love playing piano.  It's valuable to me.  So I won't stop playing or hurt myself to the point I can't play.

vs...

I love my mom, she's valuable to me.  So I'll try not to hurt her.

vs... 

I may not personally know all the humans on Earth, but I don't think you should innocently kill someone.  If I killed an innocent person, or even a guilty person, I would feel guilty.

[outin]

I think the difference between "rational" and "moral" is that morality allows you to feel guilty if you actually commit the act.  And I'm not talking about like me breaking my laptop, I'm talking about something like killing a person. 

If you do something JUST  irrational, you can never feel guilty, but if you do something immoral, more often than not, it's irrational, but it allows for you to feel guilty.

Unless you wanna take the whole *there's no such thing as morals route*.

Please refer to my edited post above.

[outin]

If I killed an innocent person, or even a guilty person, I would feel guilty.

I wouldn't. First I would be too busy worrying about not getting caught. And anyway, how to define "innocent"?

The reason I don't go around killing people is that it's not rational and my urge to do so has never been strong enough for me to take the risks involved. It has nothing to do with morals.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

The way I see it that the whole idea of morals is embedded to you by your culture. Evolution seems to have favored those who are open to such development. But at the same time there still are people who do not respond to this and do not develope the ability to moral consideration. So how could this not be relative?  

I do agree the morals are imbedded into you by culture. They're imbedded to you by culture but it doesn't vary at all.  I think what varies is the way people behave according to moral truths which may at first seem like people have different morals because you see everyone acting differently everywhere.

Well if it's relative then that makes hitler the good guy and Martin Luther king the bad guy.  I mean back in ww2 the mass extermination of Jews in Germany was the culture majority.  Hitler was in the culture majority, so he was a good guy.

The culture majority back when Martin Luther king was around was segregated schools, busses, water fountains etc but he fought against that so that makes him the bad guy.

Or what about slavery?  Relative to American slave culture up until 1864 people who were in favor of slavery was in the majority.  So i guess that's okay.

What if a moral hot topic is split 50 50?  Is there no moral fact of the matter?  

[rachmaninoff_forever]

I wouldn't. First I would be too busy worrying about not getting caught. And anyway, how to define "innocent"?

The reason I don't go around killing people is that it's not rational and my urge to do so has never been strong enough for me to take the risks involved. It has nothing to do with morals.

Then you just value your well being than other people.

Which I would too.  I've felt the strong urge to seriously harm people before, but I don't do it because I don't wanna deal with the consequences and risks.  

But if I killed someone, sure I would try not to get caught, but I still think I would feel guilty.

Or even if you don't feel guilty I would still know that I did something wrong based on what I consider are facts about the value of humans.

[outin]

Then you just value your well being than other people.

Of course I do.
But where is that non-relative moral sense then?

Isn't it just as reasonable to think that since human cultures are not created from nothing but have always interacted with those that exists before, at the same time or after, the moral considerations in the cultures also show similarities. I would see written word as crucial to passing this on and spreading it around the world.

But if I killed someone, sure I would try not to get caught, but I still think I would feel guilty.

Or even if you don't feel guilty I would still know that I did something wrong based on what I consider are facts about the value of humans.

That's true for you but not for me. Isn't that an indication of relativeness?

[outin]

Well if it's relative then that makes hitler the good guy and Martin Luther king the bad guy.  I mean back in ww2 the mass extermination of Jews in Germany was the culture majority.  Hitler was in the culture majority, so he was a good guy.

And there are indeed still subcultures that think this way.

Is it nice? Of course not, but that's not under debate here.

As I see it those who so passionately deny the relativity of moral concerns are actually defending their own idea of morality, regardless of whether it is actually in the best interest of everyone else or not.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

Of course I do.
But where is that non-relative moral sense then?

Isn't it just as reasonable to think that since human cultures are not created from nothing but have always interacted with those that exists before, at the same time or after, the moral considerations in the cultures also show similarities. I would see written word as crucial to passing this on and spreading it around the world.


That's true for you but not for me. Isn't that an indication of relativeness?

Yeah, that's what I'm saying.  What people believe are FACTS are relative, but not the moral truth.  You value your life more than others.  That has nothing to do with morals that has to do with what you believe is true in reality.

The reason why you don't see anything written and spread across the world is because we all disagree with what are facts.

Again it's true for me but not true for you.  You're right, something is relative, but not the moral, it's the value.

[outin]

Yeah, that's what I'm saying.  What people believe are FACTS are relative, but not the moral truth.  You value your life more than others.  That has nothing to do with morals that has to do with what you believe is true in reality.

The reason why you don't see anything written and spread across the world is because we all disagree with what are facts.

Again it's true for me but not true for you.  You're right, something is relative, but not the moral, it's the value.

I'm sorry but that makes no sense at all. What I say about written word is exactly the opposite: It is what spreads the *idea* that there is some common moral ground.

But edited my post above again...

[rachmaninoff_forever]

And there are indeed still subcultures that think this way.

Is it nice? Of course not, but that's not under debate here.

As I see it those who so passionately deny the relativity of moral concerns are actually defending their own idea of morality, regardless of whether it is actually in the best interest of everyone else or not.

Really?  I think it's an important argument.  Moral cultural relativism glorifies hitler and diminishes people like ghandi and MLK.  Yet we are so quick to do the opposite judge hitler as the bad guy and glorify mlk and ghandi.

The point is if you accept that moral cultural relativism and accept that the hollocaust and slavery were  bad, then you have an inconsistency in your argument.  Cultural relativism doesn't allow for judgment over anyone else.  Why?  Because it's relative to their culture.  We had no business stepping into ww2 and stopping Germany.  Relative to them, mass genocide was morally okay.

If you accept that those were morally wrong acts, that creates an inconsistency with your argument.

But if you say they were okay because it's relative to their culture...  Well that's a different problem.  But at least your argument is consistent lol.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

.

As I see it those who so passionately deny the relativity of moral concerns are actually defending their own idea of morality, regardless of whether it is actually in the best interest of everyone else or not.

yeah.  I'm defending the idea that we all have the same morals.  Whether or not it's in the best interest of anyone is irrelevant. 

If we talk about whether or not global warming is real it doesn't matter whether or not it's in everyone's best interest if global warming isn't real.  If it's real it's real.  If it's not it's not.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

I'm sorry but that makes no sense at all. What I say about written word is exactly the opposite: It is what spreads the *idea* that there is some common moral ground.

But edited my post above again...

You don't need to spread the idea because it's already built into us.

It's like the sky is blue you don't need to spread word about the color blue, you just KNOW that the sky is blue.

But yes I acknowledge that people will behave WAY differently and will think WAY differently based off of their culture.  But innate moral truths are built into everyone and you will use those moral truths to conduct your actions based on your core values which is why people behave differently based on their culture.

Same morals + different core values/beliefs = drastic variation in behavior

[outin]

If you accept that those were morally wrong acts, that creates an inconsistency with your argument.

I never did. I just said it sin't nice (for everyone involved that is). It has nothing to do with morals.

Lets think about this killing business. If there was any univarsal sense of morality when it comes to killing, then I guess people would agree whether killing as an act is immoral or not. But they don't. People are strongly divided in this matter. Some people think killing is always immoral. Some people think it's not immoral if you are forced to do it defending yourself. And some people think it's not immoral in specific cases (death penalty, assuming the guy actually did it, or war). And some people think it's only immoral when the target is considered a human being. And some people only care when they are the one being killed...

[outin]

You don't need to spread the idea because it's already built into us.

It's like the sky is blue you don't need to spread word about the color blue, you just KNOW that the sky is blue.

And of course it really isn't  

Where is the evidence again of this inbuilt idea of morality?

As much as I would love to continue this really interesting discussion, it's time to do some work...Not that I have any moral concerns about skipping some 

[rachmaninoff_forever]

I never did. I just said it sin't nice (for everyone involved that is). It has nothing to do with morals.

Lets think about this killing business. If there was any univarsal sense of morality when it comes to killing, then I guess people would agree whether killing as an act is immoral or not. But they don't. People are strongly divided in this matter. Some people think killing is always immoral. Some people think it's not immoral if you are forced to do it defending yourself. And some people think it's not immoral in specific cases (death penalty, assuming the guy actually did it, or war). And some people think it's only immoral when the target is considered a human being. And some people only care when they are the one being killed...

I never said you did that's why I said if.  But you didn't answer the question.

Okay this is the main thing I'm trying to get across.  Just because people have the same sense of morality that does not mean that everyone's going to agree win whether or not killing is okay.

That's becauee the moral truth being discussed here isn't whether or not killing is bad, it's how valuable is the person being killed and the REASON for them being killed.

Suppose there's a civilization that kills people once they reach a certain age.  Sure on the face of it it would seem like the rest of civilization has different morals.  They think its a good thing to kill people because that doesn't violate the truth you shouldn't harm something valuable, while everyone thinks it's bad to kill people for the exact same reason.  They think it's perfectly fine, but we think it's horrific.

But the thing is, although that's what they disagree with, that's the belief not the moral.

It turns out there's a civilization that kills people at a certain age because they believe that when you die and go to heaven, you live the rest of eternity in heaven in the same physical and mental condition you were back on Earth.  For example, if you die when you're 90, you're gonna live the rest of eternity wih altimeters, a frail body etc...  But if you die when you're like 40, you're gonna live the rest of eternity with a strong body, strong mind, healthy, etc...  So to them they believe they're doing the people they're killing a favor!

Now suppose that there's some scientific discovery that PROVES that their belief is true!  It is a FACT that killing people at age 40 will send them to heaven to live in eternity in a healthy body/mind!  You would do the same thing right?  Would it still seem horrific to us that they kill them?  Actually it would seem horrific NOT to do it.  Of course this is at the mercy of how much you value other humans besides you and whether or not you believe the scientific data.  But the point is still made.

 we don't  have different morals at all. we just have disagreement on what are facts.

 i gave this example earlier.

  

[rachmaninoff_forever]

Where is the evidence again of this inbuilt idea of morality?

Evidence:  every seemingly moral argument dissolves down to different values and beliefs which are dependent from morals.

That's cool I'm out too.

[outin]

But if you say they were okay because it's relative to their culture...  Well that's a different problem.  But at least your argument is consistent lol.

Yes, this is basically how I think. MORALLY the acts were ok from their point of view. And I cannot judge them on the grounds of any universal morality since I don't believe such a thing exists.

I might judge them on other grounds, reason, international law, human rights agreements and so on. Or even bible if I was religious. But that's a different matter.

[outin]

Evidence:  every seemingly moral argument dissolves down to different values and beliefs which are dependent from morals.

You don't see anything wrong with that argument? 

[outin]

Again they have the same moral principle: you shouldn't harm something that's valuable.  So they don't really disagree morally, they disagree factually: are dogs valuable(Or rather I should say valuable in the same way)?  

But should we not ask valuable to WHOM?

If you define moral judgement as me deciding not to eat something that is more valuable to me alive AT THIS MOMENT, then I guess it might be quite common to all humans... Except the really stupid ones

[starlady]

A minor correction to your original hypothetical:  There are many scary aspects to old age, but altimeters are not among them.  Altimeters are handy little gizmos.  --s.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

But should we not ask valuable to WHOM?

If you define moral judgement as me deciding not to eat something that is more valuable to me alive AT THIS MOMENT, then I guess it might be quite common to all humans... Except the really stupid ones

what people will consider valuable isn't the same for everyone, but what IS the same is that no matter what you still don't wanna harm whatever it is.  THAT'S what's built in every human.

Precisely.

WELL...  okau it's close enough lol

[rachmaninoff_forever]

I might judge them on other grounds, reason, international law, human rights agreements and so on. Or even bible if I was religious. But that's a different matter.

Exactly

You guys disagree with beliefs.  That's what I'm trying to get at here.

Same moral truths, different reasons for acting upon that.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

You don't see anything wrong with that argument?  

What is it?  

You think values and beliefs and morals are the same thig?  

Value:  Human beings are important people
Belief:  a fetus is a human being
Moral:  don't harm something important

Conclusion: I think it's morally wrong to have an abortion

Or...

Value:  human beings are important people
Belief:  a fetus isn't a human being
Moral:  don't harm something important

Conclusion:  I think there's nothing wrong with abortion

Or...

Value:  human beings aren't important people
Belief:  a fetus is a human being
Moral:  don't harm something that's important

Conclusion:  I think there's nothing wrong with abortion

See the difference?

Different values and beliefs, same moral.

Unless if I'm wrong with what you think is wrong with the argument then correct me I don't wanna be talking out of my ass

[outin]

what people will consider valuable isn't the same for everyone, but what IS the same is that no matter what you still don't wanna harm whatever it is.  THAT'S what's built in every human.

But that's just simple rationality...
Harm something that is valuable to you and by that make it less valuable to you -> negative consequences

You can see this in animals as well, evolution has created instincts that will prevent certain negative consequences. Is that what you consider as morals independent of culture?

[outin]

Unless if I'm wrong with what you think is wrong with the argument then correct me I don't wanna be talking out of my ass

Evidence:  every seemingly moral argument dissolves down to different values and beliefs which are dependent from morals.

If every seemingly moral argument dissolves down to different values and beliefs which ARE DEPENDENT from (?) morals, wouldn't it still be just as likely that the morals are different?

[8_octaves]

I just remembered to have once heard ( and seen a film ) about this extreme situation, in which morals, beliefs, and endurance of normal people have been driven to the frontier of imagination, and will blur.. . But it has, as we probably all know, really happened - and it had, at least for some participants, a "happy end":

https://www.viven.com.uy/571/eng/accidente.asp

In extreme situations, humans will want to survive... .

Poe has written the marvellous and exciting story of Arthur Gordon Pym from Nantucket, and Lovecraft himself describes in one of his stories a man who meets another man who must have made special..experiences in his life and..somehow..must have become accustomed to them.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Picture_in_the_House

Cordially, 8_octaves.

 

[outin]

You guys disagree with beliefs.  That's what I'm trying to get at here.

Same moral truths, different reasons for acting upon that.

But R4, what if what you think of as "morality" IS in fact a system of beliefs and value judgements? And any person's or culture's morality is dependent on those judgements, developed over time and passed on by oral or written tradition, not the other way round?

[swagmaster420x]

What is it?  

You think values and beliefs and morals are the same thig?  

Value:  Human beings are important people
Belief:  a fetus is a human being
Moral:  don't harm something important

Conclusion: I think it's morally wrong to have an abortion

Or...

Value:  human beings are important people
Belief:  a fetus isn't a human being
Moral:  don't harm something important

Conclusion:  I think there's nothing wrong with abortion

Or...

Value:  human beings aren't important people
Belief:  a fetus is a human being
Moral:  don't harm something that's important

Conclusion:  I think there's nothing wrong with abortion

See the difference?

Different values and beliefs, same moral.

Unless if I'm wrong with what you think is wrong with the argument then correct me I don't wanna be talking out of my ass

Maybe the moral of "don't harm something that's important" is more of a base survival instinct? A living thing with the opposite instinct probably wouldn't stay alive for very long.