Universal morality

[wonby1]

Is there a universal morality? I say there is and it is all based upon the Golden Rule spoken of by Christ. As Jesus said, love your God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself. If these two laws are kept, you keep the rest of the laws by default. Of course, not everyone believes in God, but everyone knows that they have a neighbor and must treat their equal the way they wish to be treated.

And so it goes, all cultures have laws against doing harm to one another, such as stealing and killing etc. However, why does a cultures morality seem to deviate with such things as abortion, slavery, racism, etc?

A good way to understand this is to realize how our morality can be formed. Although we have an innate sense of the Golden Rule, it can be tinkered with. Case in point is slavery in the 1800's. Men took slaves from Africa and brought them to the US to be slaves. How could they do such a thing? Basically the trick is to dehumanize the other party. The slave was seen as inferior and a mere beast of burden. It is then that we use mental gymnastics to justify such treatment, even though we know deep down it is not OK. Once the other party is no longer your equal, you can then treat them like a sheep your slaughter to eat. In fact, I bet if you took an opinion poll back then regarding slavery, most would probably say it was OK even though they did not care for it much. However, many generations later slavery seems immoral to everyone. This shows how vulnerable we are to those in authority over us. We innately look to those whom we respect as being in authority over us, whether it be parents, the state, clergy etc. In reality, God was suppose to be our moral authority all along.

In fact, we see the exact same technique being employed around the world. We must first dehumanize the other party if we wish to mistreat them and justify such mistreatment. The unborn is merely a fetus, the Jews are pigs and apes, those not Muslims are infidels etc.

So never let anyone tell you that morality is relative. It's not relative, it is innate. However, never deny the Biblical truth that we are also mere sheep as our internal morality can be skewed with a mere law of men.

All I can say is, choose your shepherd wisely.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

While I would argue against man being able to establish such a morality, the morality of God is established to the purpose of all men being subject to it. God's Law applies to all, whether they acknowledge it or not. In that sense, all men must be judged by Him according to His word. They may rebel and not accept His authority, but in the end, they will have no choice but to submit to His rule.

Philippians 2 NASB
9 For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name,
10 so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.​

 

[Mike]

There are indeed universal truths. I heard an interesting question a speaker posed to an audience. If you're interested in responding to it, you can choose A or B below. Whether or not any plays along, I'll circle back and say why this guy said one is definitely correct and the other is definitely wrong.

A - Universal truths are true because God said they are true.

B - God espouses universal truths because they are true.

I don't mean to hijack this thread, but working through this question will assist me in addressing the OP more effectively.

 

[Aardverk]

I agree that mankind has an innate morality, same as many animals do. It breaks down in both the animal and the human world where greed overcomes morality. The extreme cases are sociopaths who lack a 'normal' parental 'secure attachment'. Psychologists tell us that the 'secure attachment' gives us the innate morality that most of us have, it follows then that someone with a lack of 'secure attachment' is in danger of being a sociopath without those innate morals.

It gets worse, in that the innate morality can be deliberately removed by indoctrination. To an extent, that is done deliberately with armed forces, often with very unpleasant results. It can even be done with whole nations - think of Adolf and the Jews. Not everyone can be indoctrinated but many can be indoctrinated very easily. Probably 50% of people simply believe whatever they read or are told and don't have the mental capacity to think for themselves, especially not to challenge a charismatic leader. They can easily be made to do some awful things to their fellow man. Sadly that is what we are seeing from the Islamic extremists - in reality ordinary people indoctrinated by sociopaths (simplification).

 

[JCitoL]

the morality of the conscience in every human as a rule is: not to be caused hurt/harm to another, but even to be done good to it

Romans 2:14-29 "For when the Gentiles, which have not the law(i.e. when the infidel/non-occult people, viz. the ordinary users who do not practise faith/occultism), do by nature the things contained in the law(i.e. do not violate by nature the things in the Holy Law of (the) faith), these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law(i.e. of the Holy Law) written in their hearts(i.e. in their spirits), their conscience also bearing witness, and |their| thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another; In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men(i.e. the human spiritual/religious activities) by Jesus Christ according to my gospel. Behold, thou art called a Jew(i.e. a cleric/believer), and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God, And knowest |his| will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law; And art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness, An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law. Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal(i.e. do you bereave against the Will of God)? Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery(i.e. do you intrude)? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege(i.e. do you commit unrighteousness in the faith)? Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law(i.e. the Holy Law of (the) faith) dishonourest thou God? For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written. For circumcision(i.e. faith) verily profiteth, if thou keep the law(i.e. the Holy Law of (the) faith): but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision(i.e. is come spiritual/religious iniquity). Therefore if the uncircumcision(i.e. if the infidel/non-occult human) keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision(i.e. its unbelief) be counted for circumcision(i.e. for faithfulness)? And shall not uncircumcision which is(i.e. infidel/non-occult human that is such) by nature, if it fulfil the law(i.e. if it does not violate the Holy Law of (the) faith), judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law(i.e. the Holy Law of (the) faith)? For he is not a Jew(i.e. a righteous cleric/believer), which is one outwardly; neither |is that| circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he |is| a Jew(i.e. a righteous cleric/believer), which is one inwardly; and circumcision |is that| of the heart(i.e. in the faith), in the spirit, |and| not in the letter; whose praise |is| not of men, but of God."

Blessings

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

I agree that mankind has an innate morality, same as many animals do. It breaks down in both the animal and the human world where greed overcomes morality. The extreme cases are sociopaths who lack a 'normal' parental 'secure attachment'.

You are suggesting that animals have morals? That would imply animals have a soul. I think you would be extremely hard pressed to provide evidence of that.

Psychologists tell us that the 'secure attachment' gives us the innate morality that most of us have, it follows then that someone with a lack of 'secure attachment' is in danger of being a sociopath without those innate morals.

Not necessarily true. Secure attachment is a childhood bond. If it does not develop with the parents, that is no sign the adult person emerging from this childhood is going to be a sociopath. In fact, it is an instinct to find some kind of belongingness and a young child will naturally seek one form or another of attachment. Unfortunately, without proper guidance, many times the wrong attachment is achieved. Children can also become addicts, or they can become very driven, aloof adults. Sociopaths are difficult to define, and the simple lack of a secure attachment in childhood is no guarantee that child will become one.

It gets worse, in that the innate morality can be deliberately removed by indoctrination. To an extent, that is done deliberately with armed forces, often with very unpleasant results.

You obviously don't understand the difference between indoctrination and adequate training. This allegation is unworthy of reply. As for your comments about dictators indoctrinating others, only within the limited scope of their personal direct influence. Certainly the masses can be stirred to hysteria, but it doesn't last, and eventually begins to fall apart. In the Soviet Union, for example, the only way the State could maintain control was by sending out secret police who had indeed been indoctrinated by the direct personal influence of the leaders of the State, to monitor and control the populace by threat, intimidation and arrest.

 

[Aardverk]

You are suggesting that animals have morals? That would imply animals have a soul. I think you would be extremely hard pressed to provide evidence of that.

Yes, animals have morals. They love, they protect their friends even at the risk of their own lives, they understand fairness etc. I have not suggested or implied that animals have a soul.

Secure attachment is a childhood bond. If it does not develop with the parents, that is no sign the adult person emerging from this childhood is going to be a sociopath.

No, not necessarily a sociopath, they may simply be unable to form a normal relationship with others. Where it goes after that is obviously variable but it 'always' remains a problem for them. It is not something that can be intellectually dismissed as it goes right back to the formation of the juvenile brain function.

Unfortunately, without proper guidance, many times the wrong attachment is achieved.

Yes!

You obviously don't understand the difference between indoctrination and adequate training.

Actually I understand the difference very well but not everyone does - that is the problem.

This allegation is unworthy of reply. As for your comments about dictators indoctrinating others, only within the limited scope of their personal direct influence. Certainly the masses can be stirred to hysteria, but it doesn't last, and eventually begins to fall apart.

I offer you the Hitler Youth Movement as an example of mass indoctrination successfully removing innate morals.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Yes, animals have morals. They love, they protect their friends even at the risk of their own lives, they understand fairness etc. I have not suggested or implied that animals have a soul.

In animals, it is a God-given instinct, not a moral decision. My cat and dog are both smart, but moral? They don't know anything but to react instinctively to the affection and care I give them. If I died and they were left on their own, to survive they would eat me right here in the house, then turn on one another. Morals are foreign to animals. The instincts they display may be confused by some as moral behavior, but it is not.

I offer you the Hitler Youth Movement as an example of mass indoctrination successfully removing innate morals.

In the end, the Hitler youth were cooperating with American and Russian troops operating behind German lines in order to bring the war to an end.

 

[Aardverk]

In animals, it is a God-given instinct, not a moral decision.

You do realize that is just your assumption - don't you?

My cat and dog are both smart, but moral? They don't know anything but to react instinctively to the affection and care I give them.

There has been much research and experimentation on this. You are trying to make a distinction between instinct and innate morals. The tests that have been done to establish that animals have a clear sense of fair-play are the most telling that it is not just unthinking instinct as 'fairness' requires a 'moral' judgement.

In the end, the Hitler youth were cooperating with American and Russian troops operating behind German lines in order to bring the war to an end.

In the end everyone in Germany was cooperating so that indicates nothing - does it?

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

You do realize that is just your assumption - don't you?

No, it's proven fact. There have been instances like the eating of the dead owner that I posted. That proves animals are not moral, or they wouldn't eat the person who took care of them all those years.

There has been much research and experimentation on this. You are trying to make a distinction between instinct and innate morals. The tests that have been done to establish that animals have a clear sense of fair-play are the most telling that it is not just unthinking instinct as 'fairness' requires a 'moral' judgement.

There are studies which purport to show that animals have a sense of fair play, but the reality is, there is no way an animal can display moral behavior. An animal has to have the ability to determine through cognitive process that something is innately right or wrong, and animals have never been proven to have that capacity. I find it interesting that these studies that purport to "prove" animals are able to make moral decisions also refer to humans as "animals" which condemns these studies as being nothing more than the ongoing effort to dehumanize humans and show that there is no God, no Creator, no Moral Judge.

In the end everyone in Germany was cooperating so that indicates nothing - does it?

It indicates my previous statement that hysteria works for awhile, but eventually fades.

 

[Aardverk]

No, it's proven fact. There have been instances like the eating of the dead owner that I posted. That proves animals are not moral, or they wouldn't eat the person who took care of them all those years.

Well, you neatly avoided answering the real question but let us look at this point alone. You are claiming that it would be immoral for the animals to eat your carcass. As a 'student of history' I am sure you are well aware that many, many people have been eaten by humans in order to save their lives. There are plenty of examples, like remote accidents, where isolated cannibalism has occurred but there is also mass cannibalism by the starving during wars. They do it simply to survive and to enable their children to survive. To assume that animals show a lack of morals for doing exactly the same is an unsound conclusion.

Jeremiah 19:9 I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and daughters, and they will eat one another's flesh during the stress of the siege imposed on them by the enemies who seek their lives.'[NIV]​

There are studies which purport to show that animals have a sense of fair play, but the reality is, there is no way an animal can display moral behavior.

I note your presumption but forgive me, I choose to believe the experts rather than you.

It indicates my previous statement that hysteria works for awhile, but eventually fades.

Rather than me explaining it to you, just look up the difference between hysteria and indoctrination. I ask you also to consider the reasoning behind the Jesuit maxim "Give me a child for for his first seven years and I'll give you the man". Hilter's logic was exactly the same. Although he admired the antisemitic teaching of Martin Luther he was after all a Catholic, well versed in indoctrination technique.