is there a fundamental value that we all share?

is that a vote for pleasure or just procreation?

thats to nuture not nature.

in theory.

Pleasure.

I envy your way of living, shelterd and free of evil.

of course!!
all human beings are same deep down inside....it is the way they are brought up, and the ideology of the people they interact with that causes the visible difference in our thoughts...

If taking care of children is not a natural fundamental belief in humans, I would have to totally disagree with your belief where you believe it is just nurture to take care of children.

Surprisingly, I tend to agree with Joe on this one !

But note in passing that the use of the word "we" already implies unsaid assumptions some of which might be termed "ethical", hence the associated issue of domains of application.

Excellent analysis of kin and non-kin shared values. However, with the exception of incest (at least in modern times), I can see no ethical value which could universally stand as an absolute and not be violated "for the greater good" -- be that the good of kin or nation or humanity on a global scale or the glory of God. When we come to the top of our own hierarchies, what stands as "the ultimate good" or "the greatest good"?

rebecca

Hi Rebecca

In terms of the shared ethics I outlined, they are all viewable only as "true" as the statistical level as is the case with any aspect of biological life. Consequently, there is not a single one of them that is inviolable. However, we might say that some are less likely to be so than others.

In terms of "greater good" or even "good" these words are, I would contend, merely after-the-fact narratives used to assign meaning to behavioural tendencies that exist irrespective of whether those narratives are applied or not.

In other words, many/most of the "ethical" behaviours I outlined are behaviours that are shared throughout much of the mammalian world. In particular, mammalian species that are social in their organisation. However, these other species do not, I would argue, have any meaningful concept of "good". They just do what they do. As do we.

We humans just like to tell stories about what we do, that's all.

Many social anthropopologists and sociologists assume a culturally universal value, i.e., the so called "Principle of Reciprocity," that ethical debt is created when one receives favors from others.

Oh, don't you think we should distinguish between values, interests and pleasures? I have many interests and enjoy many pleasures that I do not hold in high value--I have to resist them.
And, of course, sometimes they are congruent.

That's not correct; all humans share the creation from their genes to produce more. As with most animals, humans must care for their babies until they are self-sufficient. That's a fundamental value even though some mothers kill their infants at birth. They also die from "natural" causes.

these are "pretty" universal, but, for example, we may regard the killing of a human to be wrong from our cultural persepctive, but others would view it as justified, based on religious belief or something.

IMO, we all share a universal desire to just be HAPPY. I know I exist because I can feel my own essence. Now, how can I be happy as much as possible with the least stress, struggle, fear, offense and/or whatever is standing in the way of my basic happiness. When we are little kids, it doesn't take much to make us happy and most of us just are happy at birth. Then begins cultural socialization and programing as we are gradually taught how to maintain or expand our deep interest in just being happy and "fit in". Before long we are often unhappy and are given various methods to get back to happiness - some healthy but most not healthy, IMO. I am pretty old and am just now re-learning how to get back the basic happiness I was born with and lost long ago in the mysterious process of growing up and fitting in with my family and society. I did horrible things in the name of "happiness" and saw horrible things done around me in the interest of someone's "happiness" BUT society applauded us for fitting right in and doing it their way!
I am learning how to be happy without "doing harm" and damaging others and other things in my quest for happiness. I am learning to just BE HAPPY as a mental/emotional choice/decision rather than finding things and ppl the MAKE me happy. I am way less inclined to "do harm" when I allow myself to be naturally happy instead of getting it from others

the problem is what everyone refuse to take anything seriously unless he has to, so prefer to invest all its presence on how to b a happy one constantly

seriously, the one u r at birth is only that instant one, the second instant it becomes out of that one still there plus the instant moment state being and plus the conception of an instant which is the most the real being right plus ur freedom of being since the conception of being is objective fact, so u the free aware or conscious wat are ur aspirations wills in constant terms as long as u r there the same free knowing

the problem is shown on how u keep using scriptures to pretend being real in what u say as if u r the one that means smthg, when obviously ur expression is a lie u just invented, so the problem is really on what u wont ever take anything seriously, while only things are existence of present freedom facts
so u would always mean to fight with truth and past present even urs, but how would u ever beat superior freedom presence since true present before so always more, by meaning enjoying killin it, ur happiness, that is all what make u happy otherwise u feel bored

Yes, we share a desire for breathing because we value life. Those who don't tend to eliminate themselves from the discussion. They eventually commit suicide (in one manner or another.) The question then arises: What follows from valuing highly Life?

Many value shopping for value. Why not maximize the value we get out of life. If you agree, then how is it done?

ANS: By creating value at every opportunity, in every situation in which you find yourself. Here is how: First one has to know which values are more valuable, more worthwhile, than which other values. Then one aims for the higher values, strives to implement them.

The philosophical genius, Robert S. Hartman, who devoted his life to studying values, who became a leading authority in the world on Axiology, formalized and systematized the field of values. He concluded that meaning is the measure of values. ....the more properties, the more value. The more meaningful something is, the more value it has. Logic uses predicates (property names) to comprise a logical meaning. Hartman made a breakthrough: the insight came to him that when a valuer sees that something (or someone) fulfills its meaning it has value.

Fulfillment is a matter of degree. To fulfill is to match, to correspond. Match what? When the perceived, actual, properties match the supposed properties in the mind of the valuer (that her or she supposes an item should have) the valuer (the judge of the value) is likely to find the item valuable. The matching is a one-to-one correspondence. If you say, for instance, that a piece of fruit you seek to purchase is supposed to be dark orange - and now you come upon that kind of fruit and it is indeed dark orange, you will tend to find it "valuable." If you evaluate it as completely 'all there', you may exclaim "Good !" Valuation, of course, is not confined to shopping; this was only an illustration or example. If a criterion you have for a human being is that s/he is to be authentic, or real ...and you encounter a person you consider to be genuine, you may prize him/her. [Again, only an example - not to be argued over....].

The important issue is which values are more valuable than others? And how do we implement them in practice, in daily life? Life is one of them. Love is another. Also Peace; and Health; and Well-Being. The bottom line is to seek and aim for a high-quality of life for all. Anything short of that will not give an individual the highest-quality life, for if others are miserable or diseased he is liable to be brought down, he will not enjoy the maximum quality possible. We ought to maximize well-being AND minimize suffering. This is what an awareness of Ethics directs us to do.

Do you realize that your use of capital letters confirms that you a merely doing a bit of "Secular Preaching" ?

Hartman's stuff looks interesting from an intellectual point of view, but is open to potential demolition by a non-dualistic argument regarding the nominal level of measurement (i.e. allocation of set membership) which precedes ordinality. It is also open to Derrida's argument that signifier and signified cannot be separated.

Forums like this are not the place for technical arguments, but nor are they platforms for preachers as you now know by the blocking of your last attempt at self-referential material.

If there is a fundamental value that we all share, it's the instinct of survival, or the notion that life is worth fighting for. Those who don't share it don't survive. I have lost friends who didn't share the value that life is worth the effort, and therefore ended it.

That "instinct" does not explain altruistic behavior or pseudo-religious martyrdom. The phrase "we all share" is problematic since some of that "we" believes that "this life" is not the full story. As already indicated in other posts, other than generalized concepts of pleasure seeking and pain avoidance, I can see little else which with which the word "value" can be universally associated. The discussion of "relative values" is an irrelevance since universality is absolute.

I agree; survival means doing all one can do to live a healthy, productive, life.
Many people smoke, eat fatty foods, drink to excess, knowing they are unhealthy. Many do not exercise enough. Everybody has a choice.