Moral Relativity: Where moral values come from?

I agree. All wars kill innocent people. Criminals should be brought to justice by a world court.

And if I'm not being naïve, we have the means to carry that out.

Navy Seals love this sort of thing. If the Bin Laden story is true why don't we carry out more black Ops but instead of killing the target we bring them upon the court of the world on charges of crimes against humanity?

Get rid of tanks, fighter jets, nuclear bombs, assault riffles and drones. Just send in seal team X and bring them in.

Its cheaper and far less innocent casualties. Its 2017 damnit let's get this childish war thing dealt with.

That's an ideal that will not happen in our lifetimes.

Morality is a Necessity of Social welfare such that combined complex tasking, civilization, technological development, progress, can happen.
There is no magic behind it. No big mystery. Neo Darwinism explains it.

I do not believe "morality" is an easy definition. Why did humans develop bombs and nuclear weapons?

There is no big mystery to nuclear weapons. Neo Darwinism explains it all. Nuclear weapons are the ultimate in morality.

Immorality.

It creates a stalemate situation. A Mexican standoff. If one fires the other is just as screwed. I think bombs fall more into ethics than morality.

They have a name for that. It's called MAD.
I was in the USAF in the late fifties and worked with nukes. We had enough back then to blow up this world ten times over. One thing I learned about those bombs is the safety features in them. It's impossible to have an accidental explosion/implosion. Even when it's dropped accidentally.
Russia knows they can't win a war, because we have the Strategic Air Command all over the world, and it's impossible for Russia to stop all of our missiles and bombers.

No Cicerone, I meant nuclear weapons are the ultimate in morality. If the argument is that morality comes from human advancement through evolution... then nuclear weapons are the ultimate end of this.

We evolved the desire for nuclear weapons. And, we evolved the technical ability to create nuclear weapons.

Therefore (by Fil's logic) they are an example of morality.

And think of it this way; after the successful use of nuclear weapons, there will no longer be any jealousy or hatred.

There are some moral rules that are inescapably universal.

If we examine the moral rule "Rape is immoral." That is universal and cannot be relativistic. Rape, by definition, means that the victim does not want it. If one were to propose the inverse--that rape is moral, then that would mean that they would want to be raped, at at the very least would say that the victim should welcome being raped since it is moral. However that is a contradiction because one cannot want to be raped-- rape has to be unwanted, by definition. Therefor, rape is immoral and is not dependent upon culture or any social influences.

Same thing with stealing. Stealing is immoral and is universally so. The inverse-- stealing is moral-- is not rational because stealing relies on NOT consenting to something being taken from you. If one believed stealing to be moral then that person would welcome being stolen from. However, if a person who believes stealing to be moral wants me to take their car, and I take their car, then I did not steal it-- I simply took something that they want me to have. Stealing cannot logically be moral since stealing relies on NOT wanting something to be taken from you.

These are two moral rules that are universal and cannot be relative because of the definitions of what "rape" and "steal" are. This is true, independent of culture or society unless you change what the definitions of what rape and stealing mean. If we accept these two moral truths, then one cannot claim that all morals are relative. Moral rules should not be confused with preferences (I like ice cream) since moral standards are applied to others and preferences are not. If one were to say "It's fine if you think X-action is moral but I think it's immoral. We're both right." then that person is not talking about morals but is talking about preferences ("It's fine if you don't like ice cream but I do."). Since morals are not preferences, and they apply to others, then the moral rule "rape is immoral" is not invalidated by an individual's desire to rape-- that is simply their preference and they cannot logically say that it is moral to rape, since by definition rape relies on the victim not wanting it.

One thing to consider is the "if you have a gun to your head" argument which would justify theft. "Steal that orange or I'm going to shoot you." We have to keep in mind that whenever coercion is involved then choices are no longer moral choices. If you have a gun to your head and are told to move left or move right, moving either to the left or to the right is neither moral nor immoral.



Lastly, an extra bit for a relativist: does absolute truth exist? If you answer no, then you are essentially saying "absolute truth does not exist." Is that statement true without exception? If so, then it would mean that it is absolutely true that absolute truth does not exist. If there are exceptions, then that would mean that some things are absolutely true. Answering either yes or no to the question leads you to the same answer-- absolute truth exists.

Moral behaviour as anything else that exits springs from necessity. That is to mean, it happenns because group organizing witn effiency requires it. Debating the obvious is a waste of time. People confuse form with substance. Moral forms may vary to an extenct but not their substance and functionality. /mediocre thread !

This "mediocre" Thread has lasted four years, Fil. And even you can't resist posting on it! Obviously something here is grabbing you.

(Ironically, on truly mediocre threads no one bothers to comment on how "mediocre" they are.)

The thread is mediocre as a sum of its contributers nonsense...not that the question of Moral relativism per se is much better...
As for how long stupidity trivial status quo talk can last it is not criteria of quality...

Do you realize that you are, by definition, a contributer [sic] to this thread? If it's nonsense, then why to do continue to contribute to it?

Sometimes it's necessary to give an opinion. Should people be forced to with hold their opinion if you deem it "negative"?

I think it's silly when you express a view point and some one else says how can you criticize this without first doing it yourself. As if you can't say a movie or song sucks unless you are a director or musician.

So if his opinion is this philosophical thread is silly it should just stand as is without a need to ask why a person would take the time to state it.

Its like today's society ONLY wants praise and agreement and NO critique or disagreement. I'm sure pointing this out will be flamed that's how much it's hated.

Plenty of disagreements out there on politics and religion.

Moral relativity is an excuse not to confront the problem. It is a cop out. Period.

You have that backwards Cold Joint.

Moral absolutism is a cop out. Any idiot can decide that they are right and that everyone else is wrong. If you don't question your own beliefs... you never have to face the fact that you might be wrong.

It takes courage to consider ideas from other points of view.

It is a lack of courage.