Man's own moral code...

What is it you mean by 'moral code'?

And what is it you mean by 'real backing'?


I wanted to answer, but I'm having difficulty understanding what it is you want a debate about.

Are you saying man has an inherent moral obligation of some kind? A set of procedural rules in which he must adhere to? Are you asking if this is possible?

Philosophically, yes. At least that's what I think.

When there is a majority or plurality inter-sibjective agreement.

Global rules?
I don't know if there is a global moral code. Some people think Mother Theresa was a heroine - other people see her as evil. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

Of course it does but not every man has the same "moral code". I think the basic things like your word is your bond and try to treat everyone with respect and honor contracts and the like.... fare fighting..... being trustworthy..... everyone has a different idea of what is morally right and wrong sooo

My problem is that atheists keep saying that there is a way to have a moral code instituted by man(wrong/right) the problem is that every single person on earth has different ideas about what is right and wrong. Since this is the case, wouldn't that mean that there infinite different moral codes? Who is to say who is right, and what authority would they hold if it is a matter of opinion?

Really? I've never heard an Atheist say that in my life.

Rather, most of us understand that any 'moral' grounds is most likely brought in by religious teaching, and thus don't believe in them period.

My personal belief on moral codes is this: I have a sense of what is wrong, and what is right. However, if someone were to come to me and wrong me based on what I believe is wrong, how can I punish him for this? He is not in the wrong merely because I believe he is. Thus, moral grounds, for me at least, are ideals that I follow, yet don't expect others to. I think that as humans, we've strayed from our truth, which is the fact that we are just another species of animal, and that 'morals' are a way of raising ourselves above other species. I don't think that morals would be law without the majority of human support behind them (meaning, they don't occur naturally), but it makes life more convienent (we don't get hurt), and thus we follow them.

What?!!?! I thought we lived in a naturalistic world?!?! If they didn't come from nature, they can't exist. Where did they come from????!!!

Human minds... This is how (I believe) it works: We don't want our children or spouse to be murdered when they walk out the door. Sooo.. we create this ideal that it is wrong to kill. Now, is it truly wrong to kill? Of course not. Killing is a part of nature. However, it hurts us and causes us pain, and so we've created ideals that make it appear injustified. Like I said, it's not in reality. I mean, we kill animals, animals kill eachother, what makes humans different? We're not, we just attempt to make ourselves through morals.

Making sense?

How many moral codes were on Earth before religion was invented/discoveredf/developed/appeared?

How were those moral codes devised?

My take is this: humans may or may not have an in-born sense of morality (I think not, honestly). What we do have, since we settled and had to live with one another in close proximity, is some sort of agreed sense of what is ok and what is not ok. It's evolved over time and what we consider morality today is based, likely, a lot on religious codes (and religious codes probably were built on earlier versions of societal morality, too).

Do we expect that pre-deism human populations had no sense of right and wrong?

I don't know. But it's an excellent question.

I don't think they did though. I'm speculating here as I have no knowledge in the area but I wonder if pre-deist populations had any sense of "right" or "wrong" (which surely assumes a moral code) but had a sense of "okay" or "uh-oh".

I'm envisioning a set of rules along the lines of "that's safe" and "don't touch that". Now there would be no "moral" basis for that behaviour, it's learned behaviour, learned from personal experience and also learned from others.

Could it be that that learning became a moral code?

As I said, I'm speculating, sometimes it's more fun to try and find the answers than know them already.

On edit: I may have gone over the ground you aready covered as I was thinking about the question. My own moral code of not pinching someone else's ideas kicked in and I had to make that clear if I did it was accidental.

It is my opinion that the only universal of morality is the belief that some things are good and some are bad. From culture to culture and to a lesser degree from person to person those things which are good and those things which are bad vary. The natural basis of morality is that we are born with the basic equipment to run the morality system, but little or no software installed.

If the question is whether morality exists outside of human thought then no, I see no reason why it should or fashion in which it could exist.

I don't actually have any evidence for these opinions, they just seems to fit the data well.

goodfielder - didn't see your post before I posted! Funny.

I like the analogy, watchmaker, of software/hardware.

I think there was likely more to morality in pre-deist life than ok vs dangerous. Well, dangerous could mean, if you do that, I'll knock you over the head with this club.....

One of the good things about reading threads like this is that the more I read the more I understand (or get even more confused - the latter being my fault). So it seems to me that perhaps morality is derived from necessity.