Moral - objective? relative? personal?

[Hnv1]

so what are your views on moral and ethic? do you believe in an objective moral (a realist) or maybe relativist version from cultural standpoint? or any other of the different meta-ethical claims?

I personally see it a logical positivist's way, moral claims are "meaningless" in the objective sense, they cannot be true or false. there is objective moral one can address as this entity is clearly not material and unlike numbers and such cannot be clearly defined or used. I would say moral is psychological human sense to try and calculate are conduct with other humans but in no way can a moral question have a solid singular answer

[MisSkeptic]

What a coincidence! Earlier today I was reading about Pope Benedict XVI criticism of relativism's denial objective truth, and the denial of moral truths in particular, as the central problem of the 21st century.

As an atheist, and a critic of conservatism, I don't believe in morals. In my opinion morals, culture, faith etc. are all conceived by the minds of mankind. There have been no divine revelations in history, all cultures are created by the way different peoples perceive themselves, and so forth.

[Hnv1]

What a coincidence! Earlier today I was reading about Pope Benedict XVI criticism of relativism's denial objective truth, and the denial of moral truths in particular, as the central problem of the 21st century.

As an atheist, and a critic of conservatism, I don't believe in morals. In my opinion morals, culture, faith etc. are all conceived by the minds of mankind. There have been no divine revelations in history, all cultures are created by the way different peoples perceive themselves, and so forth.

so how do you perceive a moral restraint like "do no commit murder", if it's not universal can we judge or more accurately enforce our relative moral on a culture where murdering women is accepted? what place do moral intuitions play in a relative theory when it appears there are several basic axioms of human intuition that are at play across the board?

[MisSkeptic]

Good question. For the most part, as humans, we ourselves control our own impulses and thoughts.

Say when someone kills someone we will recognize it as a crime in most parts of the world. And the individual or group of people responsible for the crime would most likely go to court, then to prison after the sentencing process is finished.

The reason be because most societies, past and present, are very similar. Just like all people are very similar. We laugh, we get depressed, we get sick, and what not. So it's no surprise to me rules, customs, and traditions are very similar in different societies.

Which is why I think most people control what they do. Maybe some people out there want to run that person off the road who cut them off, or someone would steal some money. But it's the thought knowing these actions can hold major penalties for us in the near future.

Now some people are mentally ill and don't understand, for a number of reasons, rules and customs of society. Say if someone is disabled and they act obnoxious in public, etc. You can see where I'm coming from.

But there are some who just don't care and usually end up behind bars if their actions become known to law enforcement.   

[Mehmentum]

Its obvious to me that there are no objective morals.  200 years ago many people thought slavery was morally okay.  Just 10 years ago most people in this country thought that gay marriage was immoral.  Its also fairly easy to come up with situations in which its not obvious, or where there is a lot of disagreement about what is the moral choice.  

This tells me that morality isn't a set of immutable standards, but a tool people use to function in society.  The tool, our ability to morally reason, was given to us by evolution, but not the actual moral principles.

In times of plenty, our moral reasoning tells us to be inclusive, invites us to share and be generous.  In times of hardship, people will do what it takes to survive.  They'll distrust and despise 'outsiders'.  They'll steal and perhaps even kill to save themselves and their loved ones.

I think this is part of why our morality has progressed over the years.  As standards of living has increased, people have gotten less desperate and more accepting.

[Hnv1]

Its obvious to me that there are no objective morals.  200 years ago many people thought slavery was morally okay.  Just 10 years ago most people in this country thought that gay marriage was immoral.  Its also fairly easy to come up with situations in which its not obvious, or where there is a lot of disagreement about what is the moral choice.  

This tells me that morality isn't a set of immutable standards, but a tool people use to function in society.  The tool, our ability to morally reason, was given to us by evolution, but not the actual moral principles.

In times of plenty, our moral reasoning tells us to be inclusive, invites us to share and be generous.  In times of hardship, people will do what it takes to survive.  They'll distrust and despise 'outsiders'.  They'll steal and perhaps even kill to save themselves and their loved ones.

I think this is part of why our morality has progressed over the years.  As standards of living has increased, people have gotten less desperate and more accepting.

1. How can you create a moral judgement then? can you judge a different moral ground of a another society like this?
2. if moral is evolutionary is it teleological good? or can say a moral standpoint of society 1900 be the better one and ours a flawed "mutation". is there a single line of progress here or many lines? is there a correlation between technological\social advance and moral one? in an evolutionary moral doctrine do you have a right and wrong at a specific point of time or can you only judge in retrospect?

Regarding plenty\hardship perception I must say I think it's reversed. the most Egalitarian societies are more primitive and have less material wealth whilst when there is plenty people become avaricious. The surplus creates the greed. Also societies in hardship are centred around family\clan autarky structures that create a higher degree of trust from an industrial society
your theory maybe correct only for extreme unnatural situations like the holocaust.

final note is that there is a bit of a moral paradox here so to say, only in hardship and strife can you see the most moral acts, a society of plenty will create less intensive situations that will require a strong moral act