Morality (a discussion)

No, I do not.

Morality is not absolute; it is culture-based. And 'flexible' is not an antonym or 'absolute' in this case.

Here here, right on and damn straight

Most "how to be a proper human" schemes become flexible in practice (pertaining to the individual, not any mobs or governments filled with "righteous mechanistic adherence" to the law). But if the formal version itself of one such scheme is already bulging with degrees of freedom (i.e, already loose and murky, rather than leaving it up "real life" to handle that) then it is suspect as a pile of quasi-arbitrary ####. That is, a stimulant for cancer, a collapse of even its pretense of regulated behavior, waiting ahead. A moving target isn't a standard; without a fixed beach to keep sight of we eventually stray / swim too far into deep water and either get ourselves lost or drown someone else. If the rules aren't idealized in the official descriptive format then we don't know what the devil we're being "flexible" about when converting them into action (or non-action).

And a document / doctrine that literally tried to detail its mutability for the sake of local conditions -- by listing all the possible contingencies and the applicable variable responses and consequences - even taking into account all the optional modes of feeling that the "moral agent" could be in at a particular moment ("sometimes I feel like a ruthless asshole, sometimes I don't", etc), and as well the sets of personal situations the agent might be in (married, in financial debt, etc) and the consequences outputted by this or that decision in regard to that - would be a micromanagement Hell indeed. Making a person into far more a robot than a system that bluntly issues universals and the arguments backing them up, leaving it up to the individual to work out entirely on his/her own what degree of coloring outside the lines will be committed in "real life" when the circumstance of "right now" and "right here" warrant it. (Which of course, he/she is bloody damn well going to deviate into unless destined for a crucifixion later on). Fortunately, such a gigantic tome would be impossible for anyone to assimilate to memory, anyway, apart from the rare mnemonic freak out there. So it's back to this illusion of a superficial facade for a "flexible framework" being classifiable as a "moral system", above.

Depends on whether or not you feel some obligation to a creator.

Why?

A creator, much like the manufacturer of a fine machine, is the one most in a position to instruct in the use and maintenance of his creation. Hence, his standards would carry more weight than those determined by either the machine itself or some user who may first be confused over the location of the on/off button.

Are you implying that without a belief in a creator, morality is not possible?

Not at all. The world is full of highly moral people

Well, we agree on that much anyway.

(Of curse, the reverse is also true: depending upon one's viewpoint, the world can be seen as overloaded with high immoral eople. But that's another topic.)

Not all cultures are equal and moral relativism is just a copout, a morality to make sense across the board must be base upon our common biology. A measure of the quality of life and well being is something which can be universally applied. The trouble in many cases is morality has been governed by moronic religious fairytales, that more then boarder on the absurd and/or insane.

Moral thinking is what governs our responses/ethics/actions.

The impact is felt daily. For instance, governments impose poverty, immorally IMO, on the poor. through the tax system.

Morals , in most cases are subjective and not objective or absolute.

To seek objective morals or any morals from religions is not a good idea.

You might have noted how Christians call evil good when they show their love for their genocidal Yahweh.

Regards
DL

Is there such a thing as absolute law?
If the answer is yes, then there must be absolute morality.
Take gravity for example. Though not fully understood, we know we cannot defy its law. Those laws must be followed.

If we go against certain laws, we know what the result will be. For example, {WARNING! PLEASE TO NOT TRY THIS ANYWHERE!) turn on the gas in an enclosed building, and then bet someone you can out a match as quickly as you light it. Get ready to draw the match. Ready. Set. GO!


Why are there fixed laws that dictate, or follow the law of causality?
Since they are fixed, organized, and non-random, were they directed, and ordered?
I can't think of any answer as to how that can be without a law setter.
If anyone has a better answer, I would really be interested in hearing.
If there is a law giver, then morality is set - absolute. Going against absolute morals would result in chaos.
I think that accurately describes this world.
Of course there are other reasons why I am sure there is absolute morality, but I though I'd start here.

The answer from 'scientists' is of course that there are no fixed laws. They argue that those laws are completely arbitrary, and could be any value. At this point they que up the old 'infinite Multiverse' that surely has to exist (in order for their cockamamie story to hold water). Which makes them total ******* hypocrites for violating their own rules of evidence, of which they have not a shred.


Sorry, I started drinking early today and lost all sense of propriety and/or subtltie.
****, where is spellcheck when yo need it

No the "Law" is the Thing itself the Whole. It is not actual law as it doesn't force anything yet to come. To come is done!
The fault in reasoning both from Science and Religious side starts with the question on "Why is there Something rather then Nothing."
The false assumption there is Nothingness.
Given Everything in 4D Space there is no Law from Past to Future. Just Eternal Present of all moments. Causality itself is an illusion of perception within time. There is only perfect Correlation perfect Order perfect Ratio.
Hope you got my point all along.

It may be that Morality and Rules have always existed and man's realization/awareness of them follows on from Nihilism which can be viewed in a positive or negative light depending upon ones stance/belief systems. What I mean by this is that Nihilism doesn't automatically confirm that God does not exist. It could confirm the opposite.The moral RULES, might need to be absolute and not flexible, after all, of what use are flexible rules. There has to be rules established or else how do the biological computer machines (US) know the difference between what is considered to be right or wrong?

My criticism was aimed at the science posers.
That set has virtually no overlap with yours and I’m not much for the 'why is there not nothing' debate.

Yes I know you point to God but frankly on that regard you might just as well in the least advance to a pantheistic pov. The "apartheid" between "god" and nature as far as I am concerned is not well justified. Whatever the word "god" means for you. I personally treat it as N point because I have no special believe in any particular "god" properties. And let me remind you that I play as an impartial role here as I could ever play. I just don't see it.
Anyway thank you for your input!

All values are biologically based, therefore a reasonable morality must be based upon/relative too, the life of that biology and its well being. This could and should be applied across the board, a morality based upon culture would be global chaos. May Ali kill you!!

Embodied cognition and survival of the fittest including Neo-Darwinism social cooperation at complex tasking...so what? No news there buddy!
Who asked for a morality based on culture??? I am at the opposite side of the spectrum completely. I am an Universalist on that regard.
You see species change and have distinct IQ's but the way of surviving as far as Maths is concerned is the same. We do not much better then Ants...