[Id and Ego seek]

(Original post by snozzle)
Without trying to Godwin this the Nazis killed people in cold blood and deemed it morally good thanks to their racial doctrines and blood and soil myths. In fact any 'just war' by definition legitimates murder. Clausewiche said that the best form of defense is attack, Hegels war of nations etc

So? Natural moral laws can be broken like civil laws, or can your argument be used to excuse me from believing civil laws exist?

I'm sorry, I don't see your point. How does that negate the existence of natural moral laws?

[PurpleMonkeyDishwasher]

"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law."

Kant's Categorical Imperative is probably the best way to explain seemingly 'intrinsic' morals and I do therefore believe such things exist.

[PurpleMonkeyDishwasher]

(Original post by Id and Ego seek)
I'm not arguing that our morality isn't man made lol
I'm saying some moral laws are apparent in nature where it is unable to have intellectual, governing consensus turning it into civil law (unless you want to argue animals have our sense of morality and community?). My example of 'Murdering your own species in cold blood' isn't debatable...

I'd say if we're arguing from a 'natural law' perspective then it is because it's not something that's universal across all species; there's a type of spider that eats its own mother once it's born or something for example. Even if you were to argue that spiders are arachnids and no other mammal kills another of its kind in cold blood, is that really enough to say its wrong for us to kill in cold blood? After all, we are waaaay different from any other species on the planet, we're capable of autonomy of action and rational will. You can't just say "because similar beings don't do x it's immoral for us to do x."

[snozzle]

(Original post by Id and Ego seek)
So? Natural moral laws can be broken like civil laws, or can your argument be used to excuse me from believing civil laws exist?

I'm sorry, I don't see your point. How does that negate the existence of natural moral laws?

I have shown that contradictory moralities have existed in different times/societies. You argument that one must be 'false' (or in violation of moral laws) is untenable as it is impossible to say which one is false without a priori knowledge. If this is a consequence of your naturalism then it implies some sort of historical prophecy regarding the development of morality.

[Id and Ego seek]

(Original post by PurpleMonkeyDishwasher)
I'd say if we're arguing from a 'natural law' perspective then it is because it's not something that's universal across all species; there's a type of spider that eats its own mother once it's born or something for example. Even if you were to argue that spiders are arachnids and no other mammal kills another of its kind in cold blood, is that really enough to say its wrong for us to kill in cold blood? After all, we are waaaay different from any other species on the planet, we're capable of autonomy of action and rational will. You can't just say "because similar beings don't do x it's immoral for us to do x."

A lot of animals practice filial cannibalism but that has an evolutionary purpose; this is a terrible cop out answer, but I honestly can't even explain that. I'm not really arguing that we do should do it because it's apparent in nature, like other natural law ethicists would, I'm just trying to understand the source of certain moral laws and principles without turning to God. Yes morality is subjective and we make our own laws, but I still can't explain altruism people do unconsciously because they don't have the self-reflection to understand their own social behaviour. Surely we don't really refrain from killing people we fear the consequences of the law? Kant really does explain this well, which is why I'm glad you quoted him, but he even basis his ethics on natural laws.

[snozzle]

(Original post by Id and Ego seek)
So? Natural moral laws can be broken like civil laws, or can your argument be used to excuse me from believing civil laws exist?

I'm sorry, I don't see your point. How does that negate the existence of natural moral laws?

It negates natural moral laws in a positivist sense since the Nazi morality was that killing 'sub-humans' and 'racial-enemies' was good and just.

Ok you could argue for Idealist or metaphysical 'universal moralities' but it is just speculation.

[PurpleMonkeyDishwasher]

(Original post by Id and Ego seek)
Kant really does explain this well, which is why I'm glad you quoted him, but he even basis his ethics on natural laws.

If you abstract the principle it doesn't have to have anything to do with natural laws but I agree in that it's more of an explanation of why we may not act in certain ways rather than something that tells us why we ought not to act in certain ways. Although there are many thing we are genetically predetermined not to do (such as fly for example) that we do anyway. I really do question if we weren't brought up to believe cold-blooded murder is wrong would we still think its impermissible?

[snozzle]

(Original post by PurpleMonkeyDishwasher)
Kant's Categorical Imperative is probably the best way to explain seemingly 'intrinsic' morals and I do therefore believe such things exist.

As I understad it Kant was trying to make morality subservient to reason not explain it per se, but even Kant thought we were not governed wholly by reason but by passion too.

[Id and Ego seek]

[QUOTE=PurpleMonkeyDishwasher;376 86849]If you abstract the principle it doesn't have to have anything to do with natural laws but I agree in that it's more of an explanation of why we may not act in certain ways rather than something that tells us why we ought not to act in certain ways. Although there are many thing we are genetically predetermined not to do (such as fly for example) that we do anyway. /QUOTE]
It's ironic really that our vast intelligence and development has negated natural law, as snozzle pointed out.

(Original post by PurpleMonkeyDishwasher)
I really do question if we weren't brought up to believe cold-blooded murder is wrong would we still think its impermissible?

I want a PhD in experimental psychology just to study this and have it turn out to be the most unethical study, bar Brandon's, aha. But I really think so; well, if you don't teach a child killing is wrong directly, but expose him to society, it will soon learn to follow social, cultural norms and would learn killing with impermissible.

[snozzle]

(Original post by Id and Ego seek)
It's ironic really that our vast intelligence and development has negated natural law, as snozzle pointed out.

Well that is it I think. Only in the recent past in primitive tribal societies was morality/taboo/totem etc seen like a natural law of the physical world, then at some point we became reflective on these phenomenon and realised we created them. So morality went from being essential to nominal. Similar things have happened to religion which many argue is just a higher form of totemism. I think this imposes a strain on people as it is a lot of responsibility to bear, we want to immerse our selves back into that primal horde where we existed before we were kicked out of the Garden of Eden.

[PurpleMonkeyDishwasher]

(Original post by snozzle)
As I understad it Kant was trying to make morality subservient to reason not explain it per se, but even Kant thought we were not governed wholly by reason but by passion too.

Yeah I just tried to edit my post after thinking it through but realised it was too late so I may as well clarify here. I'm probably backing up on myself a bit but I think the principle of 'natural equality amongst men' that Kant alludes to can be used to derive morals. And can also be used to explain why cold-blooded murder is wrong. As we (people) all have the capacity for rational will and autonomous action and are all evidently biologically equal (or similar enough to differentiate us significantly from any other species), it is intrinsically wrong to permit an act against another moral person whilst simultaneously inhibiting the same act against oneself.

Obviously this can open up a debate of why all people should be treated equally but if we were to assume all people ought to be then it at least prohibits cold-blooded murder.

[Altaïr]

It's only morally right or wrong in your head.

[Kiss]

Nope.

[Piprod01]

(Original post by lifeisgood.)
I know religious people act on the premise that God and his scriptures and what-not are true, and their morality stems from there. That is to say that a Christian/Muslim/Jew would be able to give you a straightforward yes/no answer to the question "is action X morally correct?", providing they had perfect knowledge of their respective scriptures.

However, since there is no consensus on whether or not God(s) exist and (for the sake of not getting into the religion vs atheist debate) we cannot assume either side is absolutely true...

Is morality just a complex set of rules and norms society has agreed on for mutual benefit? Or does there exist a form of universal morality that is intrinsically "correct"?

It's an age-old debate but I want to make this particular discussion as accessible as possible. So try to minimise the pedantic "isms" and just chip in your own view!

I know at least one Christian who'd disagree that morality is from from god.

If I'm to take the question purely on the title, I'm inclined to say "yes". By that I mean that if we know what our moral stances are, and what our moral goal is, there really are good/bad ways to go about trying to achieve it.

[limetang]

It depends on whether or not you think there is such a thing as objective morality.

[anarchism101]

Sort of, but it can only be man-made. Morals are basically obligations to behave a certain way. Obligations can only exist between people. Ergo, morals can only be man-made.

[05tollec]

I believe that murder is wrong is a statement that is, and I really wanted a different word here, correct because it is an analytic statement like all bachelors are male. What I am not saying is that this makes the statement true.