@hue-man,
hue-man wrote:I used the wrong word when I said it was inherently wrong, because by using the word inherit you assumed that I meant it that it violated some natural law or right. What I meant was that it is wrong, because it violates a person's will to consent. I don't feel the need to explain what a will to consent means, because it is pretty self-explanatory if you know the meaning of the words will and consent.
I'd still like to discuss the whole 'will to consent' part. Only because if you believe that there is no thing such as a soul etc... then there is no such thing as a 'will to consent' other then the man made creation of it as I spoke of earlier. But I understand you are busy. We can discuss it another time.
hue-man wrote:
Human morals should be universal, in the sense that it should apply to all humans by understanding the common humanity of all humans (the human condition). A person's ethic is individual as long as it does not violate the moral universals of humanity.
So you would say that the universal morals are whatever the large percentage of the population thinks is 'right' and 'wrong'?
So its basically a unity of people that all believe rape is wrong and they agree to force their opinions on others. I don't see much of a difference between universalism and relativism. Universalism seems to me to just be slightly more organized but yet still all completely opinion based.
hue-man wrote:
Human moral sensibility is related to the human brain's ability to empathize and to emotional reasoning, and so it is not merely a product of or relative to our environments. To proceed to break down the brain into its elementary parts in order to try and discredit human nature is simply silly, and it is an example of confusing ethics with metaphysics.
Our brains are wired the way that they are due to natural selection, and maybe even sexual selection. The development of these moral traits were necessary for the survival of our very social species. This primal development can still be seen in our societies and our politics. It is simply evolving with human knowledge.
hue-man wrote:
Human moral sensibility is related to the human brain's ability to empathize and to emotional reasoning.
Your using the word to define itself.
That is like saying: "our brains can sense morals because our brains have the ability to sense morals"
You can't say we have a moral sensibility because our brains can sense morals. That is a tautology.
If your going to say that you have to explain how the brain can empathize and reason emotionally.
Moral universalism seems to come down to me to just be a group of peoples opinions. There still isn't a right to force your beliefs on others.
As I've said before, if you believe that morals are relative whether to a person or a group there is no point in sharing outside of that person or group because by your definition it doesn't matter.
Don't try and convince people your opinion is more right then their opinion. Try and prove to me my favorite color is yellow (its green so you won't get anywhere trying).
To Xris: I don't think the debate is pointless. I'm learning more about universalism..
