The sad thing is that you know even if I hadn’t come in late to the thread and wasn’t striving to respond to various points, I still would have been prone to leaving a long comment. Passions or interests get sparked and off I go! ;p

I just don’t always have to subject your other readers to them, haha.

To answer your “random question,”

Muhahaha. Random but pertinent.

yes I’ve read C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity and it’s very well presented argument for an absolute morality. The differences in individual theologies aside, I tend towards agreement with Lewis’ premise of an underlying “moral law” that is both fundamental and nearly mathematical in its operation

Thought so. ;p

LOL – There’s nothing wrong with the occasional long comment, especially when someone is coming late to a thread and striving to respond to various points.

To answer your “random question,” yes I’ve read C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity and it’s very well presented argument for an absolute morality. The differences in individual theologies aside, I tend towards agreement with Lewis’ premise of an underlying “moral law” that is both fundamental and nearly mathematical in its operation

Phew, read through all the comments and the post. =) So much fun to delve in…great post/discussion.

It is also possible though this was immaterial. We’re discussing a “profoundly prosaic” concept. It could have been in use over a wide area long before anyone thought to codify it into a set of words. Philosophers often “make the rent” by writing down and expounding upon things people already “knew.”

Hahaha. *shakes head*

All this is why I only said The Golden Rule was enough evidence to support postulating a universal absolute morality. It’s a long way from definitive proof, but we need good postulates before we can even begin to search adequately for that proof.

Random question: have you read C.S. Lewis argument for a universal, absolute morality in “Mere Christianity”? Just curious. =)

Technically and at its most basic level morality is a system of determining right and wrong that is established by some authority. That the authority is an absolute one is not actually required by the definition, nor is adherence by people required.

Now I agree with you – it’s the focus of this article – in the belief that there is an absolute morality – a fundamental and absolute Right and Wrong. By the very nature of that belief I also believe that this absolute morality is not situational; it does not change based on circumstance.

Agreed.

Approached from a normative sense one could assert that any society, culture or population group might develop a morality that is not in line in all – or potentially any – points with the dictates of the overarching absolute morality.

Since all continuing societies ascribe to this basic rule, I think it could be evidence of an absolute morality – that is all. Your own view – as posted here at least – could be summed up prosaically as “play nice!.” and equal valid viewpoint on the issue. Both are essentially pragmatic and prosaic expressions of common concepts of most cultures.

I’ve always found this subject fascinating…in layman’s terms…I think the worldview/system of belief expressed in Judeo/Christian Scripture best fits the evidence for how all these societies and beliefs systems hold the same basic “morality” or conscience and why there are so many Noah’s flood type stories, Garden of Eden stories, etc. worldwide…there does seem to be a common thread or element. And while opinions and culture practices vary in terms of, say, the number of wives one man may have, in general, and throughout history, it’s been usually viewed to be the case that infidelity is immoral (though I wonder if that’s the case today) – but for centuries, that has been the norm cross-cultures. I purposefully am not using absolutist language, here, but that argument, in part, was one of the foundational arguments that started my inquiry into this subject. I think the basic premise of a Creator God who gave us all a conscience, infused in us a “basic morality code” in us, so that intrinsically, we know between right and wrong on some common, shared level…makes a lot of sense. Furthermore, if you consider the possibility of Noah’s flood and the Tower of Babel stories possibly being more history-based than myth, then…a common shared history and oral story tradition, passed down, would be shared by all of humanity that God created…and it would make sense that if after the flood and through the Tower of Babel story, people’s tongues were mixed, and therefore, they were forced to separate into groups (the start of our cultures and ethnicities)…and move to all ends of the world, and not mix due to language constraints, then it would naturally seem to follow that as those specific cultures and people groups developed and moved through the generations, the common stories would change and morph a bit but have a shared ancestry. Thus, the multitude of flood stories, etc. worldwide. =)

Anyway, great post!

And you make a good point. Although I have to point out that “morality” has a strange connotation of idealism associated with it, when it’s really just evolution – or – survival that guides such rules. It doesn’t change what you’re saying though.

Since all continuing societies ascribe to this basic rule, I think it could be evidence of an absolute morality – that is all. Your own view – as posted here at least – could be summed up prosaically as “play nice!.” and equal valid viewpoint on the issue. Both are essentially pragmatic and prosaic expressions of commn concepts of most cultures.

It is possible those those common sense rules that you mentioned are the basis of morality.

Thank you for taking the time to comment. I hope you’ll return here again.

It’s absolute only in the sense that humanity has the wherewithal to understand societies won’t survive if we hurt each other. Therefore it’s based on survival, not morality.

Morality, I think, would be more akin to “doing unto others what it is your duty to do. Which is to not act on the selfish premise of first thinking about how you would have them behave unto you and then applying that on them. It would be to do unto them what have you from the goodness of your heart.”

Did you guys notice the difference between the Christian version (and muslim much later, though most likely taken), and all the other religions? “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” compared to “Do not unto others as you would not have them do unto you”.

I know I am going way out on a limb here, but I would have to assume that a Universal Morality must also fit for other species, outside of Humans. Just looking at nature, it is hard to find a universal set of morals. Predatory animals have a completely different set of morals from non predatory. I know that this is a bit abstract, but I honestly don’t feel that we are a great deal different from Animals, outside of our intelligence of course, which would imply that our set of Morals, if universal, must apply to them as well. To go even farther, we can look at extra-terrestrial beings as well, but it is hard to argue about something that we know nothing of.

Regardless, I have no intention of convincing you of my opinion. Reading some of your other threads, it is clear that we agree on much, but disagree on numerous points as well.