Perhaps you are right, (barring any theory of a holographic reality or virtual computer generate world that exists only for humans) --but nobody (human) would be around to care if it were a fact or not.LOL




I am taking the night off and reading some of your posts and responses on this thread so I will get back to you tomorrow.

P.S. Observers are necessary but that's an entirely different thread.

That is a subjective opinion AB based upon the qualities of sexiness that your mind attributes to the moon and sun. Hot, as I meant it, was a measure of surface temperature. Facts play a role in both. It is a fact that it is your subjective opinion that the moon is sexier than the sun, and it is also a fact that the moon's surface temperature is lower than the sun's. Both of those statements obtain a state of affairs in the universe(reality). The former, your subjective mental state of affairs and the other, an objective state of affairs.

If there were no you, there could be no state of your mental affairs, therefore, it cannot be true that "the moon is hotter than the sun" as you mean it - that is a matter of subjective opinion. It is true that that is your opinion and it is true that the moon is hotter than the sun(as you meant it) are two entirely different kinds of claims.

Conflating the two can be quite problematic.

Creativesoul has said:



This helps me to understand the difference between what you are calling "universal morality" and morals.

Question:
What do you mean by "universal?"



I would like to know more about these studies. Can you reference some?



If morals come from society, how (do you think) are they formed or created by that society?

I have more questions, but for later.

Extant in each individual case after identifying and subsequently removing the subjective particulars.



Di's earlier references suffice for now. I would rather retract that statement as to have the conversation get sidetracked by it. We have not even gotten to the identification process yet. Therefore, even with every sociological, psychological, and/or philosophical ethical/moral study in hand, there can be no comparison.

If you wish to compare for yourself at this time, I'm sure that there are moral/ethical studies available on the web. My claims have been few thus far.



Depends upon the society. Collective belief plays an important role, as do goals, wants, perceived needs, the will to survive, the power structure, religion, rationality, reasoning, knowledge, etc...

In short, they are determined by things that matter to those with the power to establish them.

But how they got there is of no interest, right?

I'm sorry, this does not register. How about defining Universal morality in simple terms for a simple brain like mine. Please. Or in the least, reword the above sentence so that I might understand what you are saying. Please.





Depends upon the society. Collective belief plays an important role, as do goals, wants, perceived needs, the will to survive, the power structure, religion, rationality, reasoning, knowledge, etc...

In short, they are determined by things that matter to those with the power to establish them.


Where does "Universal Morality" come in?

I would not call your brain "simple". Universal means in every case, without exception.



Prior to and during common language acquisition.

Prior to and during?

Before and while learning to talk?

Why do you think that? Do you have any evidence (or reason) to support that claim? An example would be nice.

Okay I understand how you are using the term.

Question: Really? Every case without exception?

Now I would like to know what you are refering to when you say "case."

In regards to the subject (universal morality) --every case of what?

I think that because when we look at ethical/moral codes of behavior and moral discourse from a meta-ethical perspective, it becomes apparent that there are objective common denominators. When further analyzing those, we find that moral/ethical codes and discourse converge upon behavioral expectation of oneself and others. When looking into behavioral expectations, we find that there are some with significant moral import which must be presupposed for human experience as we know it, including but not limited to, language acquisition.

It is an extremely complex subject matter that cannot be captured by a single example.

I am simply attempting to find out what you are talking about when you use the term "universal morality."

You asked in your O.P. where morals come from. Later you agreed that they come from society. (Society is basically a group of people living together.)

Therefore morals comes from people.

Then you said that morality and morals are not the same thing,
and that there exists a "universal morality."

You defined the term "universal" as meaning "in every case without exception."

Now I wonder what you mean by a "case."

Is a person or a society a "case?" Or should the question be: In every case of what?

If, for example, a person is a case, then every person has a natural sense of morality without exception. (since you say it is universal) This means that you are saying that every person (human) has a sense of what is right or wrong.

But is this really true? Some would argue.

So what is a case? What do you mean by universal morality? I am still extremely unclear about that.

I am really trying to understand what your claim is.

Also, if a sense of morality is in every human or every society, how did that evolve from a selfish self survival instinct?

How did universal morality become the state of affairs in human societies? I am more interested in where it came from than in where particular morals themselves came from.

--Like being more interested in who created math, than in who did those calculations.

Universal morality is a single set of behavioral expectation principles, a priori truths, facts and/or laws which possess significant moral import that underwrite all human thought, belief, knowledge and common language acquisition - without exception.



Standard usage of the term. All human minds are subject to universal morality. It is an existence claim that shoulders a burden.



For reasons of clarity alone, I would not call universal morality a 'sense'. For one, I tend to reserve that term for our physiological sensory apparatus. Although, I made it a practice years ago to use the term 'sense of ought' to begin the pursuit of what I have now call universal morality. That term(sense of ought) is still useful and appropriate when talking about adopted moral belief and how it/they become(s) internalized, and when comparing the individual 'sense of ought' to the collective(general societal agreement). However, it cannot be properly called universal in the same way that morality is.



Assuming there is a "selfish self survival instinct", further assuming that that is somehow counterproductive to the existence of universal morality, answering the question is a matter of pure speculation.



It is necessary for thought/belief formation and common language acquisition. That is shown through arguments of contingency/necessity.

"Where" universal morality came from is anyone's guess. It could be, quite simply, an adaption which was passed on and increased the survival rate of particular groups of humans and therefore continued being beneficial in it's own propogation. Where it came from is not of my concern however, at least not yet.



"Who created" presupposes too much.

Overall, I'm impressed with the diligence of your recent questioning.

I like the term "sense of ought" but I am left cold by the term "universal morality" as simply a logical observation without explanation.

I think "love" plays a roll in both. If you compare the cold blooded reptilians and dinosaurs that roamed the earth before humans to the warm blooded mammals who care for their young and establish bonds of apparent affection, your idea that this trait evolved out of a need for survival is a good idea but I am skeptical.

I think the dinosaurs survived quite well and for a very long time, a lot longer than humans. No one is quite certain how the dinosaurs all died, but they think it was a major earth catastrophe of some kind. Had that not happened, they would probably still be here. I wonder if they would have eventually evolved to sentience and developed some sort of morality. I doubt if they would have, and if they would, then I think they had plenty of time to have done it already. More time than humans have had at any rate.

So the big question becomes:

What is LOVE?

Then I've done a good job of explaining it thus far. Universal morality is emotionless. It is not subject to human emotion, rather human emotion is subject to it.

I don't see how that is possible.

(Note, that I do not consider human "emotion" to be exactly the same thing as "love." It is a by product of love.

And if that is how you define your term "Universal reality" I know why it leaves me cold.

It looks like to me you are attempting to explain or understand humanity from a totally logical point of view and ignoring the question of love.

I think there would be no "sense of ought" or universal morality without love or emotions.

In the absence of law or fear of punishment, why would a person feel that they ought not kill anyone who displeased them if they chose?

Because of empathy, mercy, love, (or are they being controlled by this thing called universal morality?)

So please see if you can support your claim that humans have a sense of ought or morality without Love or emotion.

And here is a question:

If a computer becomes self aware and sentient, alive but with no emotions, or ability to love, how would universal morality effect it?

I think a sentient IA computer's only "sense of ought" would be to follow its programming.

Okay ask the same question about humans. Is universal morality programmed into human DNA? If so,How did that happen? If not, from where does a human pluck universal reality out of the ether?

Also, if human emotion is "subject to" universal morality then wouldn't universal morality be an object? A thing or entity? Some sort of mind control or program?

Are you saying

"It's not my fault that I have a sense of ought because I am a victim of universal morality?

Do you feel that empathy or compassion is a weakness? (Perhaps inflicted upon us by Universal Morality?)

It is possible in the same way that universal rules/laws and principles are emotionless. It is not subject to our thoughts, our thoughts are subject to it... necessarily so.



I am identifying universal morality, not the individual/collective 'sense of ought'. They are not the same thing. A 'sense of ought' is developed through experience and changes accordingly. The former requires humanity for it's acknowledgment(the same as any universal law), the latter for it's very existence, which emerges from the existence of universal morality being added to subjective adopted belief about acceptable/unacceptable human behavior.



This questioning lead nowhere useful, it is purely a matter of subjective opinion and unsupported conjecture. It constitutes being a fatal flaw to many, if not most, moral arguments.

Based upon what is known, we cannot arrive at a conclusion of what one 'ought' to do or how they 'ought' to feel, one way or another without necessarily presupposing another 'ought'. That is, roughly speaking, called Hume's Law(guillotine). Therefore, the question cannot lead us in confidently establishing sufficient reason to hold that any answer is 'more correct' than another, because there is no answer of 'ought' from 'is' that does not violate Hume's Law.



You seem to think that I am claiming that humans possess some kind of moral compass which I am calling universal morality. That would be incorrect. I am claiming that universal morality exists independently of the human mind and that belief/thought formation and language acquisition are subject to it in much the same way that our thoughts are subject to the existence of other non man-made concepts like space and time. If the existence of something is not dependent upon the human mind, then it follows that it contains nothing which is.



I cannot answer the first, therefore there is no basis from which to answer the second/third. I can confidently say, however, that human's 'plucking' universal morality out of the ether is rather meaningless in the given context.

No.



A set of 'things', not an entity.



No.



No.



No. Empathy and compassion require knowing how another feels, or at least being able to relate.

A "concept" is dependent on the mind. (Even space-time)

If I am to classify "universal morality" with "space-time" and call it a "concept" then I will have to conclude that it does not exist independently of the mind.

Therefore you have failed to prove your claim, (or convince me) at least as far as I can understand you.



Too confusing.

Question:
Do you separate the "human mind" from "mind" in general? Do you separate the "human mind" from the "human brain?"

If so, are there other minds such as the "dog mind" or the "insect mind"?

(What you are calling "the human mind" I usually refer to as "human consciousness.")

Creativesoul said:



Oddly, this sounds a lot like a religion.

I might say,
"I hold that spirit exists. "Why" cannot be answered, for we have insufficient data.

Creativesoul said:


Yep, its a mystery.

I hold that it is spirit.

Why Creativesoul! You've found your God.