Killing; do some people have a right to kill? Or is it illegal FOR EVERYONE? The answer is obviously the latter, because there IS a universal moral code- All humans have an obligation to treat one another with respect and tolerance. If people have a difficulty understanding this then it is our obligation to TEACH them. Many people have difficult backgrounds, or underlying reasons for bad morals or behaviour, but that doesnt make their behaviour acceptable, we just accept it because of our TOLERANCE and UNDERSTANDING.
S. Harris suggests we agree to one universal definition of "morality," as that what is in the best interest of individuals and society at large, directly or indirectly (without causing harm). With one universal definition we can scientifically measure the results of our actions, of our political policies and economic practices. When the results support the well being of individuals and society at large, directly or indirectly (without causing harm,) than these actions are moral.
While I can't objectively verify it at this time, despite my greatest efforts, I can't shake the feeling that without some sort of objective standard by which to verify our actions, we're inevitably trapped in a state of moral relativism that undercuts every attempt we make to find order in the Universe and make sens out of human existence.
Though not intuitively obvious, I would argue that the 'Laws of Morality' as such are as real as the laws of thermodynamics and physics - we just need an Isaac Newton to come along and figure them out.
What is morality? I believe, in concept, it is not causing unnecessary pain in any situation, to any one person, including oneself. Whether the person is living in college or during the Rwanda genocide, the concept is the same. However the way in which the college person would apply this idea, compared to someone living during the Rwanda genocide would be very different, there making the application of the idea relative. But the Application being relative does not make Morality relative, for all application of ideas are relative based on the environment, Just look at government.
What we need to do,
is refine our hearts,
detox our bodies,
and sharpen our minds.
When all three actions are complete,
Darkness will become Light
non-being will become being
There must be something that the whole world has to agree on. Otherwise, the whole world will fall apart. There are some rules that are slightly different in different places, but that is only because it is only interpreted differently. That is why it is genuine that there is such a thing as universal moral value.
I believe in a universal set of morals that are ultimately correct and given by G-d himself. Other countries or society's may have different opinions on whats correct but that doesn't make them morals. They have their opinion we have our opinion and ultimately one of us has to be correct. Morals are eternal, therefore if murder is currently wrong, it will eternally stay wrong despite the majority of the world thinking it's morally correct. If you have an ultimate set of morals, then despite however many people think the opposite of those morals, makes their "morals" become opinions, which is what most people are confused about. People say that in a society that murders, since they believe it to be okay, it makes it morally correct. Although they think its correct, its not morally correct, which makes them opinions.
You can observe and perceive that the natural moral values come intuitively to our minds. When you are dealing with some moral decision, our moral intuition arises to Demand a Right way to act. This happens to everyone everywhere. One thing it is if we decide to accept or not, an another totally different, to say, that there are no moral universal laws. A person can reject after indoctrination, that assassinating is "right", and another, the natural condition of not assassinating.
Morality is not simply a rule implemented by society such as driving in the left lane (which may differ and could easily have been the right lane) It is a standard that indeed exists and is taught to our children through education much like mathematics. You might say, "well, people only keep a moral code because they were socialized that way." And I agree! However, even if a child grew up on an island and they did not know that mathematics existed, its rules and principles would still apply. And its the same with morality. Similarly, a child may be raised to believe that 1+1 = 3, but that doesn't mean he correct or in line with the universal rules of mathematics. You will also notice that morality does not change like fashion does. The morality of today is Very similar to the past. Now, you might say that there were many ideas about Morality that changed or improved over time like slavery and equality due to reformers such as Abraham Lincoln or Martin Luther King who understood aspects morality better than those of their time. But in saying that morality has improved over time is comparing the morality of both the past and today against an over-arching moral code. If humanity did not believe that morality was universal, then we would not have been right in judging Nazi Germany for their actions. We may have still fought them to prevent their ruling the world, but we could not have blamed them for what they did any more than for their hair color if no moral code existed. And you will also notice that the Nazis did not try to reinvent the moral code. They tried to justify themselves by the code that existed. If everyone in the world decided that morality was NOT universal, then Hitler would not have had to write Mein Kampf to justify himself. Different societies across the globe over time may have had some differences in morality, but they have never lived by a totally Other morality. Imagine a world where it's honorable to run from battle and where anyone acting in selfishness is praised. Quite the contrary. Selflessness has always been admired. Different cultures may have different standards of who they should be selfless to, (whether family, friends, or country-men) but there is still a universal idea of selflessness. Lastly, some of you may ague that our urge to do right or wrong is simply a herd instinct or a method of survival, much like an animal. You may say it is like the other instincts such as a sexual instinct, or a mother's protective instinct, or a survival instinct. But humans are much different that animals. If a mother cheetah sees her cubs surrounded by lions, she will be conflicted between the mother's instinct to protect or the instinct to survive. The stronger of the two will win. In contrast, If you saw a man being attacked, you would also feel the same conflicting instincts, however along with them, you will feel a third instinct telling you that you ought to help the man. And that is the Moral Instinct. In this case, the instincts are much like the notes on a sheet of music and the third feeling is the sheet itself, telling you which to choose. We often feel this inside us, curiously telling us to side with the weaker of the two impulses, contrary to hour safely. This proves that the moral code is separate from instinct. You might compare this to a line of notes on sheet music telling you to play the black key instead of the white one. It would be foolish to say that the sheet of music was one of the notes. In general, I find that people don't want to believe in a moral code because they would then have to conclude that there was a God who created them. And heaven forbid, anyone tell them how to live their lives.
[Sorry for how hideously long the explanation was. If anyone is interested to hear more, read Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis.]
A Universal Moral Code does exist in every person. Throughout our lives we have conditioned ourselves to either stray from this moral code or abide by it. There are inherit understandings of right and wrong. Based on cultural differences we may apply the code differently, but the Universal Moral Code remains the same. As we grow, we may become defiant to the moral code. Because this is at odds with our nature we attempt to "justify" our actions. This "justification" process is always needed in order condition a person to oppose the Universal Moral code.
There is a Universal Moral Code but it differs as do most things, sure there are a slightly different set of rules for different places, but they follow the same moral code, just interpreted differently. Some Harvard psychologists think that there is an innate universal moral code in everyone, and i agree. How it is used though, like everything else in this world, depends on the person.
I think there are some things that are universal. For instance, you don't murder people for no good reason. You also generally don't take things that don't belong to you, hurt other people, and help others when you can. There are always exceptions to the rule, and places where the rules don't apply. But, generally, there are a few rules that humanity abides by.
Everyone, no matter what religion, follows basically the same Ten Commandments. Every country and type of religion has and follows the same Ten commandments in their beliefs. They might not call them the Ten Commandments, but they follow the same beliefs that make up the Ten Commandments, as written in the Bible.
While many differ on what the universal moral code is, it is clear that there is a moral code in which all people should adhere. Certainly, many immoral actions can be considered relative to each individual culture. But, there still remains bonds between humans that we universally define as moral or immoral.
Right is right, and wrong is wrong. It doesn't matter if you live in America, Africa, or China, what is right is always right, and what is wrong is always wrong. While a certain culture may view things differently, that doesn't mean that it is right or wrong, only based on their view. Right is right, and wrong is wrong.
While history has shown that humans aren't likely to agree on a complete list of morals, it is clear that certain behaviors cause harm to others, including themselves. And if we avoid these actions, we will find that we would be following the universal moral code. Examples of universal moral code include the fact that murder is harmful by nature. Even though murder is committed by governments, with the idea of justice behind it, even the families of the victims are harmed, as they are full of feelings of revenge and spite, which are known to cause harm to them physically and mentally.
As human beings, there are certain ideas that we think are moral and certain things we see as immoral. I think it is part of what makes up humanity. If we, as humans, didn't believe in some sort of moral code, then we would be running around doing whatever we want, without any regard for laws or our fellow man.
Humans are social creatures, and in every culture, people learn that they have to treat the people around them in a reasonably nice way if they are going to remain in the group. The Golden Rule is part of many religions and laws made by governments. Even animals who live in social groups abide by certain expectations of conduct to get along with the other members of the group. People know right from wrong whether they are religious or not.
If a man collapses on the side of the road, I would most definitely stop and try to help him because I know that if I ever collapse I would hope someone would stop to help me. It's the golden rule.
The Bible--God's word--is where I get my information from. The Ten Commandments were given to us to make us realize that we are sinners and then after we have received Jesus as our Savior, we are then the righteousness of God in Christ Jesus. In the New Testament God has given us the two great Commandments and these are God's Commandments to love him with all our heart, mind, soul and all our strength and to love your neighbor as you love yourself. All integrity comes from God!
If there were no universal moral code we would not aid each other after earthquakes and other natural disasters nor could we enjoy the pleasure of each others company for Olympic Games!
A human being has to have freedom but his freedom is limited by the freedoms of others. This is a simple moral code which should always be universally true. You are free to do what you want but your actions should not restrict the freedom of anyone else. For example you are not free to kill another person because you are depriving him of his freedom to live.
Universal moral code to most people means a large set of rules which are supposed to govern our conduct. I strongly disagree with such a moral code. But some things like right to live and protecting this right are and will always be true
I have not yet found any arguments to support either sides, but if you support people's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, you support an universal moral code.
If you take away those rights, you can not truly fulfill yourself as a human being according to human nature. If you support an subjective moral then peoples right to life itself is questioned.
Every individual knows what is right and what is wrong. We all have this same moral code embedded in us because we all know what we like and what we do not like. We all have the same wanting for love and care, as we all do not like feelings of negativeness. Therefore, based off of how we want to be treated and how we do not want to be treated, we all have a moral code on how to treat one another, universally, without it even being taught or translated.
Biological Natural Emotions/Tendencies conceived before the child is being influenced by outside sources (e.G parents, siblings, teachers, etc.) is controlled purely by biological processes/natural science. Therefore, anything that would subvert this or change it in anyway can be thought of as immoral. Optimists will argue that the child is born good and is corrupted by society. Pessimists argue that the child is born evil and society civilizes him/her. Whatever the case (the optimistic view is more strongly supported), the natural tendencies of a man can be called the Universal Moral Code. Because after all, isn't that what makes a man? -Sri Sathya Sai Lecture/Discourse
Different groups have gone off and made their own right and wrong. In the beginning there was a right and a wrong. Then we kind of all separated and made our own rights and wrong. Because we all know, as groups come together they form their own foundation. So in reality we do have a universal moral right and wrong. But in real reality society makes up our right and wrong. So in conclusion, we do have a right and a wrong. We just don't use it. Because we as humans are selfish, we want our own ways.
People say right and wrong differ in each culture; that is true, but it is only the interpretation of the concepts that differ and NOT the concept itself; that implies absoluteness of the concept of morality. So if one assumes there is morality, then one must also assume that there is a correct set of standards to follow since two differing standards cannot be simultaneously true although both can be simultaneously false. Humans cannot be the ones to set the standard of morality simply because we are immoral creatures by nature. So if morality exists, the most objective standard would be given by that of a Creator; if you leave it in the hands of humans to decide what is immoral or moral, you can see how this is wrong by simply looking at the world today.
There is a moral code of the universe. It's very simple. And very obvious. The bible (the New Testament and the 10 commandments) are the universal moral code we are gifted with. However, not everyone chooses to follow the code and do what's right. It's like saying "Would you murder someone?" The moral code set down by the bible is the only logical moral code, but not everyone chooses to follow it.
In every culture you see boundaries and rules. It may not be to our modern standards but we see that groups of humans require guidelines and limits, while experiencing freedom and free-will. Because we are given a drive for boundaries our sinful human nature also wants us to break them. But since we are humans we are not perfect, so we fall short of our own standards.
I think there is no universal moral code as morality shifts depending on the situation. In this case imagine a man absolutely destitute, who's hit rock bottom and has no money. He's lost all of his money through no fault of his own, and he has three kids to feed, with no money to feed them with. His only resort left is to steal- what then of the idea that stealing is wrong, if he's doing it to prevent the death of his only children? Now just imagine a man who steals simply for the sake of stealing-- what he's doing is wrong as it's disadvantaging him for no other reason for the sake of it- nobody benefit's form the action whereas in the former example him and his children benefits. A universal moral code would have to be completely inelastic, yet here it's shown to be completely elastic.
Different cultures and individuals have different standards of right and wrong. Moral standards also change overtime in the same culture. For example slavery was considered moral in the United States at one time but not anymore. Also this paragraph is pointless and I'm HIV positive, I also suffer form severe lack of Vitamin G. There is no universal rule that defines right or wrong. Instead, morality is determined by the standards of a person’s own authorities, these authorities might be a government, a religion or even a family member.
What some may call as "wrong" is actually not "wrong" but simply not falling in place with their ideology/beliefs. But is there any absolute ideology? I don't think so and from what everybody can clearly see we haven't anytime in the past reached that before. I also think we haven't reached that state of mental potential even now, or that we will ever do. It's just the way reality is. And when things feel real, in reality these things are just in adaption to the surrounding conditions. And how can something that seems good given only to something else or because of the right conditions being involved, be an universally positive (good) action?
Ethical relativism means that different cultures have different moral codes, and I think this is because there is no universally agreed-upon moral code. For example, in some cultures, it is considered "moral" and "normal" to eat your father after he has died. Likewise, in the United States, it is equally "moral" and "normal" to bury or burn your dead. There is no moral code that is universally agreed upon.
Morality is constantly changing. People's beliefs, values and ideas are constantly evolving. What was labeled as wrong 20 years ago, is accepted today, and what is labeled as wrong today, will probably be accepted in the near future. Every culture and sub-culture have different social standards in what is accepted as 'good'. I do not believe that there is an overall moral code in which everyone follows universally, because we as individuals have different ideas in what we believe as moral correct, that is what makes us an independent species.
Think about our past... why was murder considered 'bad?' It was considered bad because it hindered the social cohesion. Losing a member could mean losing a valuable hunter, negotiator, etc., and a murderer could be seen as distrustful. It's not the act that was considered 'bad,' but what it does to social cohesion. Think Roman Empire or ancient Hibernia, think about murders there and how they were handled!
In other words, the fact that such a survey exists is a proof that there isn't an universal moral code. Even in extreme cases like murder, etc. there will be someone who genuinely believes there's nothing wrong with that. We may deem him insane, and exclude him from society, but his existence alone makes the code not universal.
Moral codes are relative simply because Laws and what is considered socially acceptable differs so much based on religion or the lack there of. Geography is also a big factor in what a moral code may consist of. There are so many factors that affect what a person or group of persons might consider immoral. Personal and cultural philosophies is another factor that shapes one's moral code. If there is a universal moral code it looks like a huge Venn diagram which means it is not at all universal. Morals are universal we all have them but the code is personal no two are exactly alike.
Although in modern society, because the world is 'shrinking' and becoming more diverse, what is wrong and what is right has become more or less accepted through out the world, there is still no universal moral code. Take for example, the recent violence in the muslim world, which is supposedly caused by a youtube video disrespecting the prophet Muhammed. In western society, killing people just for expressing their opinion is unacceptable. But in the middle east, it is justified. Differences in the moral code for human beings become more apparent when the world was not as interdependent as it is today. One example would be between the Native Americans and the European colonists. The Europeans believed that it is perfectly fine to buy and sell land, and that it is acceptable to conquer land. However, in Native American society, there is no concept of owning land, they believed it to be wrong to fight over land. The moral code of a society is affected by many factors: current leadership, geography, their history etc. and as it is impossible for every human being to have the same of those factors, the moral code is not universal.
Every religion, every atheist, and every individual lives by their own moral code that is a combination of their belief system, culture, environment and parenting. One person's heaven is another person's hell and, inevitably, there is a third person who sees no heaven or hell, but only the now. It is impossible to derive one single code that every human being agrees with or would abide by.
There is no moral universal code. There are bad people and good people in every society. A religious person would probably tell you there is, but I take the opposing side of that argument. Each culture is distinctly different and unique, so how could their behavioral patterns resemble each other at all? Things acceptable in the Middle East aren't acceptable in America; it's that simple. Universal morals are constantly changing within each society based on that society's actions and standards.
People who clash in their core moral intuitions may not be able to reach agreement on moral controversies, and cultures may face similar gaps in worldview. But while some differences represent incompatibilities of taste or sensibility, in other cases one side is right, and the other wrong. To reach this conclusion too quickly in a given moral conflict is itself dubious and perhaps the first step toward an immoral way of responding. But the conclusion remains. For those attracted to a fully relativistic paradigm, consider the changing understanding of morality within a given culture. In the U.S. today, we recognize evil in discrimination against women, slavery and Jim Crow, and our genocidal assault on Indian nations, although such practices were once deeply embedded in American culture. The arbitrary control over others' lives and the suffering involved seem clear and morally crucial. Reasoning sometimes clarifies things; but time also broadens perspectives.
No I disagree that there is a universal moral code. A universal moral code is the set of standard rules and regulations in the way which people acts or behaves. Although I feel there is not a universal moral code, people still do follow the similar moral principles generally.
Look at the way some societies value human life, while others destroy it for the most minute reason. Culture, environment, religion, etc ... all effect one's morality. Culture, environment, religion, etc ... vary greatly across the globe. (This is why some cultures refer to others as barbaric and uncivilized.) Hence, there is no universal moral code.
Over the years as I have seen a lot of shows about animal life, and been interested in sociology, I believe that life will be only for the most fit. Man's inhumanity to man and the way that animals will even kill their own offspring, show to me that there in no moral code in the universe.
Earth has a vast variety of societies, some of which still practice cannibalism. Within the United States this act is repulsive and immoral, but it's not perceived that way within the cultures that practice it. Moral standards are built around common interests in a particular geographic area.
In a much broader sense of the term "universal moral code", we cannot expect alien life to have moral codes similar to ours, because what we might find painful could be like water to said aliens.
Although IM saying no, It doesnt mean there is no relevance to this topic. I believe that it's all about how your brought up. Personally I come from a "Higher Class" Home with high expectations of what I am gonna do and achieve in my life so with that comes a high moral up bringing. But if you come from a drug abusing home or poverty ridden country, The odds are less.
As proven through archaeology, civilization has never actually agreed on what is a "universal wrong". Different civilizations work off of different moral codes; ideas such as human sacrifice are not looked down upon in many civilizations. The idea is really broad, thus concluding the inexistence of a moral code. Moral code is more like an opinion that differs among people.
Calling it a universal code is what makes it invalid. People are not a monolith; there is what is common to the point of near-universal acceptance, but the outliers still count. Who we currently consider mentally ill, such as psychopaths who have no emotion for regret or feeling wrong, are still people. They aren't held to 'the code' because nature didn't give it to them. The vast, vast, vast majority of people find murder abhorrent, but if just one does not, it is no longer universally abhorred. There is a common moral code, undoubtedly, but calling it universal an overstatement that dehumanizes outliers.
[And that, my friends, is frankly immoral.]
Watching the news, there is so much that is presented as people doing immoral things to one another. But can you blame them? The third and final thesis of moral relativism is the thought of a universal morality. There is no universal moral that is present in all individuals over all of time. Every action that can be done was considered justifiable or moral at one point in time, and unthinkable and immoral at another; they can even happen at the same time, but in different places in the world.
If you need to justify it, it's not universal.
It is solely circumstantial. Self-defense could be taken as murder. It is the taking of a life in an unnatural form. But the majority of you reading this would justify it as the fact of self-defense right? Right. I'm a Christian, but I do believe that morals are circumstantial and not universal. Universal contains these morals in a box that all of us are bound to break these moral codes at some point. It's hypocritical if you claim one thing, yet do another. Or what about stealing? Is it wrong if a child overseas steals from a market place to survive the day, when a teen girl steals jeans from a store. It's stealing is it not? Universal idea would consider both means morally wrong. While circumstantial ideas would consider one a means of survival and the other a mean of selfish motive. Death penalty. Is it morally right to kill someone for taking a life by taking their life? Universal morality sounds good in theory, but when examined closer and more carefully, you can see how faulty it is.
Especially now as we live in a global village. There is jut too much evidence to the contrary. People's moral codes developed based on the local biological, environmental and societal needs. As these clash with other societies' it becomes evident that there is no universal moral code. However, depending on the circumstances, people can agree on a number of issues.
Take rural Kyrgyzstan for example. A place where kidnapping women and forcing them into marriage is not only completely normal, but a socially accepted practice. Doing anything like this would be seen as completely abhorrent by most people in, for example, France. If a moral code is to be universal, there can be no exceptions.
For example, when you marry you are not supposed to physically abuse your partner. Americans (specially men) punch their wives because they feel that they are the ones wearing the pants at home. On the other hand, in The Dominican Republic (just an example of another culture) most partners respect each other.