Relativity of morality

I wouldn't. Would you?

Transcendence dictates that kindness is error, because kindness is dependent on unkindness; outside of transcendence, thinking this idea feels wrong to me.

The problem with morality is that it requires difference, which in turn requires violence and prejudice. Therefore to me the solution is simply to negate the root cause of morality (nations and greed etc).

Those are not postulates they are enthymemes.
Morality is relative is a postulate. TO deduce the conclusion that anyone can believe anything you need to supply a premise. But actually what you WANT TO DO is to postulate that anyone can believe anything directly.

In short, these are a mess as the basis for discussion.

Further you say things that contradict what you seem to be aiming at.
One is also able to tell oneself lies too. Right? And the immorality of many lies is in the fact that you weren't able to tell the truth even if you wanted to -- BECAUSE you were to lazy to get to the truth in the first place.

If relative morality is to relate to something it would be wise if it related to something we all have in common, like our common biology, we all tend to value that, yes? Relative morality based upon culture is globally a recipe for kaos

Let's have an example.

White/European cultures believe in monogamy. Until recently marriage was always one man and one woman. We have relaxed the gender, but marriage is still exactly two people.

Most indigenous cultures practiced polygamy. These cultures (until White people came to stamp them out) had men with multiple wives that were often given as children.

I don't see how arguments relating to biology help at all in these cases. In history, the more militarily dominant culture imposes their own moral values on the indigenous culture and after a few generations, the dominant culture is seen as superior by everyone.

Please explain how biology tells us anything in these cases?

Max, A whole lot of ******* going on, do you really want to base your argument on that? All of this variations seem life supporting to me, argue your case.

Are you accepting these variations or not? If you impose a global morality, there will be no variations in cultural ideas about morality.

Max, If you believe these variations are anti-life, read not life supporting, then make your case. The idea of a morality based on our common biology is to assure that it is life substaining for all.

Our common biology causes us to kill each other. War is part of human nature.

Very true but to wage war you better first get some trade and sense of community going.

Max, The present moralities pay lip serves against killing, definitely antilife, with the exception as far as I know of Islam. These mythologies/religions are not grounded in our own being, as in our common biology. There may be vague references seemingly almost by accident. If you start from an irrational perspective, you rather set your course, haven't you.

I think you are bigoted toward Islam.

If I can show you where factually Islam "pays lip serves[sic]" against killing, will you admit you are wrong? If you can admit your mistake and become a better person from this, I will be pleased.

Max, Say Good Night Gracie!!!-----------That means DUH, by the way!!

Men have created thousands of religions, and morality is a man-made concept with no meaning. We are first and foremost, animals with normal animal behaviors. What controls humans are laws, rules and regulations within the culture and society in which one lives. These laws, rules and regulations are all work in progress. That man is capable to create bombs that can kill millions is the major threat of our times. Also, man isn't doing our limited environment and resource any favors for the future of all living things.

No!
For the purpose of explaining you how Evolution works on Morality, lets grant for a second this randomness of moral relativity cultural dependent mkay?

What would happen to a culture where killing all the babies was the relativistic moral cultural standard Cic? Yep it would go extinct!

And what would happen to all other cultures that would protect life, ones better than others? yep the one who did it best would have more offspring, thus it would have the most population.

Now, what would happen as evolution goes on? What genes from what cultures would be left and what genes would be gone? Yep the ones on which the instinct to protect life and cooperate were prevalent.

There never was a culture that killed "all" babies. Infanticide was practiced by many cultures, but that doesn't mean they killed all babies in existence. Also, all humans originated from South Africa. That is the scientific conclusion of anthropologists and scientists who have studied homo sapien evolution.

Thanks for making my point!
That was exactly the conclusion you were supposed to reach!
The process of not let offspring die started hundreds and hundreds of millions years ago way before homo sapiens and before mammals and even before dinosaurs were around. This in the species that have low reproduction ratios. And indirectly by protecting eggs in the ones who have high reproduction ratios. The property of having attachment and later affection and love spout out of it.

That is convergent evolution and there is nothing relative on that!
Moral behaviour that is bad for the working of society will go extinct!

Likeness, identifying with the self in another is the seed of compassion, where there is no identification, there is no compassion, there is no morality, there is no civilization. Biology defines all!

Of course, everything you post on able2know are nothing more than your biology.

cicerone, Thanks for the support, or was that intended to negate? Why on earth would anyone argue against the well being of all? Think for a moment cicerone, how do the things of the world gain their meaning/values if not from a conscious subject, biologically conscious beings.