Do humans have intrinsic moral value?

So you call the need to survive, morals. What kind of messed up definition of morals do you have?

The standard dictionary definition is good enough:

Rules or habits of conduct with reference to standards of right and wrong.

References to a "higher purpose" are not necessary.

I would say that the concept of right and wrong must be in relation to a higher purpose or imo, they are not actually right and wrong.

Love to know what you could mean by a higher purpose if you are not going for some supernatural god fantasy.

Without the supernatural that is outside the rules of the universe how can you have a higher purpose.

So ok define a higher purpose that is not connection to the supernatural.

Ok, but you don't explain how or why.

The ideas of right and wrong are applicable to idividuals and any given groups, and are manifested in things like laws, and codes of conduct.

No you still don't understand, I dont believe that there IS a higher purpose hence IMO morals don't exist, do you understand me now? That's the point I don't think right and wrong, or morals exist because there is no possible scenario where there could be a higher purpose. Imo.

But that's the point, they are malleable, therefore IMO there are no basic morals. I think you could raise a kid to think humans were evil and needed to be tortured and killed and according to his own psyche that would be "right". The lack of objectivity is where morals break down.

The very notion of value itself already seams to imply the notion of moral value, that is, that there is indeed an order of things that are socially valuable and worth kept or protect and that such view is widely shared on a number of core concepts like life itself for instance, in such light what is in dispute is not the existence of such consensus in a given range of important concepts but rather to know if such values are relative or absolute and if relative relative to what...equally it seams plausible to agree that conflicts of interest between groups are natural processes of dispute and thus that moral values must be framed taking into account the cultural local distinct processes and specificity's that spontaneously give rise to such disputes...norms of conduct are principles of behavior established by a society in its historical process aiming to fulfill common needs by assuring that the common best interest of the group is protected...such rules can be framed in several distinct contexts that progressively narrow and tighten the field of agreeing subjects to rules always and when such distinctions are naturally justified...there can be of course general agreements concerning all living beings, agreements that strictly apply to a number of species and agreements specific to culture and region...in each progressive step inward you take the more complex and less universal is the agreement or natural consensus emerging collectively...the problem of moral relativism is not a problem of distinguishing the differences of field in which such rules are naturally apt to be applied but rather the contention in which a group tries to enlarge and impose to other groups the field of its own specific rules, a matter of territory of course, what else...finally it is important to remind that such contentions when framed as part of a natural self revealing process are historically justified by facts and thus that moral relativism is to an extent the expression of a competitive selective process between cultures...

Right and Wrong are always always subjective and relative to the circumstances at hand, thus the concept of right and wrong does not need to be in relation to some higher purpose.
If you look at normative ethics, there are a diversity of opinion in most cases as to who is right and who is wrong, thus it can not be objective as well. Morals are more flexible to change than ethics, and it commonly does, seen when an individual’s belief system change over time. Granted there are some moral absolutes, that could be seen as objective, and may be existent in all individuals manifested in the deepest intuitions which tell an individual that some act is blatantly wrong, such as rape, or murder. Much confusion is developed from a standard to which something is measured. Many different platforms and models equates to subjective beliefs, and that none of them is objectively valid, which actually presents a contradiction that if two design of thought are independent yet equally right on the same stance, you arrive at a paradox or an inconclusive decision for determining right and wrong. The other argument is that there is only one correct model and all others are invalid, which is the only possible correct model because it eliminates the possibility of contradicting models. For affairs effecting humans, I personally believe that survival in and of itself should is the core "good," and anything that digresses from survival can be construed as "bad," and survival or "good" could also be interpreted to examples where an individual acts to sacrifice their interests for the betterment of the group.

That they are malleable does not negate the possibility of their existence. Malleable things exist.

Morals exist as generalities that are malleable because of the qualifications and exeptions that arise because, among other things, of the dynamic between the good of the group and the good of the individual. For example, killing is generally wrong, but that idea is qualified and has certain exemptions by the circumstances of a given instance, like self-defense.

They are malleable to the point of stupidity, there is a difference between permutations of the same thing, and something which is different entirely- you can bend and shape morals to the point where you could get a kid to kill in the name of morality: they do not exist.

Ok.

Addressing your claim of non-existence of morality, let me ask you, if something is in the mind, does it exist? Happiness, sadness, jealousy, all things which exist in the mind is generally agreed upon to be not woven into the framework of the universe, or embedded physically in some matter, thus physically it doesn't exist. Similarly that is the case with morality. It exists within our mind and expressed through the actions and thoughts of each individuals every day. So it is an idea, and for ideas to be placed in the non-existing category, it must be non-originated, not thought of, vacant from the mind. As such is not the case with morality and ethics, it does exist, even if it only is an idea. Thus what we call the general thought constituting a set of ideas on how to best live our lives, morality, thus it exists withing living things, or at least a species of living things called Homo Sapiens.

I am not talking about whether physically morality exists but rather I don't even believe true morality exists in the mind, these ideas IMO are just constructs of thought, just a chain of chemical reactions designed to make you more successful in group scenarios. The problem is, what is good? What is right? What is wrong? The fact that these questions can not be categorically answered IMO means morals don't exist. A child is like a blank canvas, this is as innocent and untainted as a human can get, in the way they think, in the way they act, and yet they can be bent in all most any way you can imagine, to take on there own perverse set of "morals". You are telling me they exist, you are telling me there in the mind but your not even telling me what they are or high lighting a possible scenario where they could possibly exist.

Morals exist as must as the anything else so saying that they do not exist is like saying the solid ground under you feet does not exist.

Yes 'true morality', whatever that means, does not exist however the everyday morals surely do exist.

I've told you what they are, but you reject the explanation by saying "they do not exist,” and attempt to mold your conclusion on the idea of “imagining for a second that one were an immortal being,” and then begging the question that that kind of idea is the only objective point of view, and dismissing the idea of “human standards.”

You’re basing your argument on conjecture, question begging and leaps of logic.

Please. Explain.

What leap of logic? there is no objective way to look at morals, how could you possibly say that any kind of benevolent prerogative actually exists, ? give me a solid step by step guide as to what they are. I have told you why they don't exist, that is to say that they can be molded and bent and shaped to the point where the definition is completely impractical, how can you define something that could be almost anything? It's all well and good telling me what I said but what exactly is wrong with imagining your self as something out side of the established system. Human standards are not objective they are exactly that human standards independent of everything else, they are not objective.

P.S if you aren't willing to look at things objectively how can we possibly get to the bottom of the question?

Actually it even works with pet.

Wouldn't you agree that you put an inherent value or fundamental rights over you own pet rather than some animal that you don't know, such as some random spider crawling through your home?