is there a fundamental value that we all share?

- It is wrong to kill humans for no reason.

- It is wrong to rape babies for fun.

- Do unto others as you want them to do unto you.

Those three are pretty universal.

Fundamental values tend to derive from the similarity of human emotions such as empathy and compassion. This is what we share in common which gives us a foundation from which to build morality and ethics.

The emotions are fundamental (and almost always similar), but the morality and ethics which spring from them are molded by various societal behaviors.

It's pretty much what Thomas said; "do no harm."

Isn't Christianity the answer then, if we all believe that we should "do no harm"? what does "do no harm" mean? physical harm or emotional harm, or both?

ep, According to my "reality" gage, religion has not helped much when it comes to "do no harm." Maybe, even the opposite may have been the historical and contemporary fact(s).


It means both physical and mental harm.

When religious folk boast the moral high ground on matters of morality, they neglect the fact that their so called moral high ground is only applicable among those following their particular creed and is in direct conflict with hundreds of other religions all over the globe, how is fabricating a global schism of morality a good thing over ideas that most take for granted as animals. For example, a fundamentalist Christian would claim that there book is the moral foundation of which all should adhere, the same is said by all religious folk and their apparently infallible tomes. Within the confines of thier own religious peers this is all well and good, but within a supposedly secular society such as the United states, religious interference can be extremely destructive to the due process of supposed secular legislators especially when religious lobby groups start beating their drums and waving their crosses (as if possessing and flaunting a symbol of persecution was something that should be honored). So if religious morality is belittling of all not born in their particular sect, how on earth could they possibly claim such moral superiority? They shouldn't, but they do it anyway. Propaganda anyone?

It's so obvious how those of religion would advocate for the discrimination of gays and lesbians. They claim "marriage is between a man and woman," and is a sacred trust given by god. WHOA! So, we see divorce rates approaching, if not exceeding, 50 percent of marriages of heterosexuals. That's sacred? They want to use a word like "marriage" because of the ignorance and religious' beliefs to impose their own standard of morality while discriminating against their fellow humans while they break all the "moral rules" of marriage.

Well, if ethical opinions are just emotive, then there's no reason to determine if there are any fundamental values that humanity shares, since those values wouldn't be ethical values. That's Ayer's point.

It is also fruitless to determine if there are any fundamental values that all of humanity shares, since one could always find exceptions to any ethical rule somewhere. Surely there must have been someone, at some time, who thought it was all right, for instance, to rape babies for fun. But then that sort of analysis just leads to moral relativism, which is nothing but a dead end.

Why shouldn't they? Because we live in a pluralistic society? That just means that there is a higher order ethical rule (respect for divergent opinions) that trumps some lower order ethical rule espoused by the religious folks. But then that means you're not arguing against moral superiority per se, you're just arguing against their moral superiority. In other words, you are saying that religious folks who claim to be morally superior are wrong, because you are morally superior to them.

In theory, a vague maybe. In practice... well, the historical record doesn't look too promising.

Good to see you don't have any issues reading joe.