Then would you mind repeating it again because I read the entire thread and I must have missed it.

What you think it is and what you think it "must" be did not explain what it actually is, if indeed it exists independent of the human mind.

So far, I have not seen anything that describes or defines what it is. (Let alone prove that it is objective and independent.)

If you think you already gave a clear, concise definition of it, then what I read must not have been clear or concise.

So, please repost the part that you claim is your clear concise definition. I'm sure I must have read it, but I did not recognize it as your definition.

I think most people would disagree with your second statement. If it is objective, then it should be very clear, hence easy to understand or identify.



It is my position that nothing has any meaning except the meaning that we give it.

If you are going to tell history that they have gotten the meaning of morality "all wrong" then you should find a way to explain it to them better than you are trying to explain it to me. Most people would not take the time I am taking to try to interpret your uttering about it.



If you are telling me that it might take volumes of explanatory uttering to finally get to a clear understanding of your new theory of what morality is, and you only post drips and drops of it, then it could take years before you have completed your paper on it.



I agree. I am not saying that morality is contingent upon our current established codes/belief, but rather a system that we use to establish those beliefs.

But I am not willing to accept that the system (morality) is independent of the human mind any more than math would be. If it were not for the human mind, mathematical systems would not exist.

I said I agreed with you in the context of your premise and I offered reasoning as to why I did, but you have rejected my ideas, so I am still in the dark about your claim and what it means.

I offered my definition and understanding of what it might be, and how it might be independent from the human mind because of the law of causality, but that was not acceptable for you.

I cannot conceive of a better explanation than the one I gave even after accepting (temporarily) your premise that "mind" is to be considered a product of the brain, and nothing else.

I also offered the idea of quantum entanglement that can offer a connection of a group of minds or a society, and you have not commented on that.

I have argued many times with you in the past over the idea that there is such a thing as "spirit" and you call that irrational thinking because there is no evidence to support such an idea.

And now you are making a claim that "something" exists objectively that is independent from the human mind or mind that you are calling "universal morality."

It sounds like you have discovered universal mind or even spirit and you don't want to admit it.

You very well may be right Jb, in that I may not have given a definition in this particular forum. I tend to hold numerous conversations about morality in several different forums simultaneuosly. So rather than focus upon whether or not I have, I'll assume that I have not and put one forth. With that in mind...

Morality is a set of rules, principles, properties, and/or laws which possess significant moral import(that are relevant to what constitutes being moral/immoral) that are not subject to human thought/belief, but rather that all moral thought/belief are necessarily committed to and therefore, converge upon.

It is important here to note that the above definition aims to describe what I found after having carefully examined moral/ethical belief, expressions, codes, etc. I mean to say that the above is a deductive conclusion, not an inductive premiss. In other words, I have not defined morality into existence, nor assumed it's existence as a premiss in my argument, but rather have deliberately sought out to identify what morality is and as a result have been able to formulate an argument for universal morality.



With all due respect Jb, I find that these kinds of responses make it rather difficult to stay on task here. This needs to be clarified, and I also find that successfully doing that often becomes rather difficult with you. It is not even a matter of contention that that which is objective is unaffected by human understanding. That is true by definition. That is what makes something objective. That is what it means. Therefore, I find that these little side-discussions often serve to undermine your ability to be able to understand my claims through bringing into question the most common meanings of terms which are rather uncontentious.

There is a matter of irrationality at play here as well. Things that are objective are not necessarily "very clear". "Very clear" refers to an element of human understanding. If something is called "very clear" by a subject, then it follows that s/he either has a good understanding about that, or at least thinks that they do. Someone can completely misunderstand objective things. That, and that alone does not mean that that which is being misunderstood is not objective. With this in mind, it becomes rather apparent that whether or not something is objective is not affected by how "clear" it is or seems to be to any particular person. That is a measure of one's understanding, not the objectivity of that which is being understood(or not).

A fine example of why/how this is or can be the case can be seen by glancing through history at how long the Copernican Revolution took.



This is not true, therefore I disagree. I do not think that it beasr upon the topic at hand, although it very well could. If you think that it does, we can explore this further in context. If not, we can let it go as well.

The point is/was that in order to be able to successfully communicate with people who hold common thought about a topic(morality in this case), one must use common terms, at least to begin with.



That's an interesting thing to say here, given the context. It is better left alone, rather than go into to it any further. I'll only say that the vast majority of the terms I use are being put to use in conjuction with their primary meanings, and that that particular claim was just recently made here.



The topic of morality is immense, and people come at it from lots of different angles. Most of my participation here in this thread has largely been about simple rules of thought/logic that are not necessarily a contentious matter in other discussions. Of course, I was aware of that coming into this, so it is not necessarily a 'problem'. The point is that gaining a clear understanding of how morality has been approached throughout history takes volumes and volumes in and of itself, along with very deliberate and careful consideration.



You're assuming that morality is a man-made system. That assumption can only lead to morality being contingent upon the human mind. I reject that assumption, not only here in this forum, but anywhere I come across it. That is the historical mistake. The earlier example offered by AB invoked mathematics. I followed suit, not to say that morality is equivalent to math in it's origin, but only to show the similarity in the relationship between math/calculations and morality/moral belief... nothing more.

I could say more in response to some remarks made above, but I feel we would be going in semantic circles.

I will wait until you post something that I can actually relate to where the definition of universal morality is concerned.

Remember, that I am not a member of the scientific or academic community. I am a simple average person with a high school degree and a creative mind.

Well, let's talk about that definition...

Do you find that that definition fails to describe what morality is, or must be in order to be properly called "universal morality"?

I am not bringing into question your background. That does not matter to me. If it did, I would not engage with you. You're every bit as worthy as anyone else... including myself.

Sides at, I like ya!



Edited to add "not"...

oops!

The definition:






Its a very difficult thing to imagine being separate from the mind, especially when "right and wrong" seem so obviously to be mental judgments if all we have to work with is mind.

A moral (as apposed to mental) judgement seems to require, as you say, 'more' than 'mind.' But I'm not convinced that it can happen independent from mind. (Some people say it requires feeling or heart.)

Head, heart and mind.
Body, mind, spirit.
etc...

A computer or AI unit can't make moral judgments where there are not a clearly defined list of contextual rules or laws for doing so. But there may be too many variables to program such a unit to make proper moral judgments.

Okay if morality is this set of rules, laws, principles, properties, etc. they must be housed 'somewhere' if they are 'something.' The answer to that must then be that they are housed in the "universe."

In what manner are they constructed, housed and held firm?

We can know that things exist independently of our minds. It is rather hard to imagine that "right and wrong" could somehow exist in that way. In order for that to be the case, 'rightness' and/or 'wrongness' would have to somehow be properties of the universe and/or it's contents, in order for there to be moral truths/facts. That is one of the manners which some moral realists approach the topic. It is an approach that I disagree with, although I am prone to call myself a moral realist.



I think you've misunderstood me, Jb. I find no reason whatsoever to hold that any human judgment of any kind can happen independent of the mind. Morality, while being a necessary part of moral judgment, cannot be judgment in and of itself and be considered to be independent of the mind.



Well, I cannot answer that question any more than I could answer the same question about any other rules which govern behavior.

On second thought Jb, I think it would be immensely helpful to discuss where meaning comes from...

The question is not who is more moral, atheists or christians. The greater question is why there are morals at all. I submit that an atheist may be very moral, more so (seemingly) than many Christians.

He just doesn't have any good reason to be. Ultimately, atheism leads to nihlism as Nietzsche pointed out. If there is no God then why in the name of the one who doesn't exist should I do anything but please myself? Get away with anything I possibly can?

Even the greatest minds of atheism have struggled with this problem. For instance, I admire Singer. He has the courage of his convictions. He takes things to their natural conclusion promoting not only abortion but the right to kill your own children (up until they can live on their own) because the only intrinsic value a child has is the value a parent puts on him or her. He says many other things that would horrify most god-hatting atherists. But he is intellectually honest.

There is just isn't any way to justify any morality without God that rises above survival of the fittest or Nietzsche's Uberman.

Okay, I hold that the location of the law of gravity is held within the universe; however it may vary under different conditions throughout. It must be 'constructed' or made apparent and held firm within the body of relationships of matter and anti-matter or whatever else exists in the universe that might effect it.

I hold that space-time is housed within the universe. (However it may vary throughout all the matter, black holes etc.) It must be constructed and made apparent and held firm by the same laws and relationships applied to matter, anti-matter etc.

These are laws. The same goes for the laws of cause and effect etc.

It is in this way that I ask the question, in what manner are the laws, principles, properties and rules of Universal Morality is located and made apparent.

Now what do you mean by "meaning?" ( LOL )

You're correct. That is not the question at all. Neither is the second, though. Morals, being lessons about right and wrong, are necessary for social creatures with knowledge of self-direction. Humans are social creatures with such. Therefore, that is why morals exist.

The question being considered here is what constitutes morality.



No, it doesn't. Nietzche's philosophy did not work out too well for him either... did it?



The "greatest" atheist minds most likely realize that it is not a problem...



That is a very limited view. It is easily proven that God is unnecessary for morality.

It is made apparent by how it affects/effects human thought/belief, including but not necessarily limited to moral thought/belief. It is 'housed' in the universe. I'm just not sure what all this has to do with anything.

I think this question is one of the reasons for the endless discussion about objective morality.

If there is no God or spirit, or force of good or love behind his actions, then an atheist must find another more logical and rational explanation for why he is moved to make sound moral judgments and why he seems to know instinctively right from wrong.



As far as that goes, if you can mentally and rationally justify killing your own children, then you could also mentally and rationally justify genocide on a people who are starving and unable to live and thrive on their own.

The problem with his reasoning, is that it does strike a chord in most if not all people as being abhorrently wrong no matter how rational he can prove it to be. Being intellectually honest about what he thinks is right, wrong or rational is not a credit to him who concludes a thing like that. That's my two cents.



Change the term "God" to "Love" (compassion for others) and I might be in more agreement with that statement.

Sort of like the existence of the particle that cannot actually be seen or measured but is known to exist because of how it affects/effects other things?

I guess one could say that. Sort of like things that are properly called universal laws/principles.

Simple. If it is not within the human mind or brain, it has to have its existence somewhere if it is to be considered objective. ("something")

You are saying that it is objective simply because it "holds true." I'm not sure if that is enough. When would it not hold true?

What if for some reason all future children were born psychotic with nothing but survival of self instincts and no feeling or ability to feel anything like love or compassion for anyone else? Where would these laws of Morality be then? Who and how would they effect/affect?

The act of doing the 'right' thing because it is logical, rational and most importantly, in your own best self interest is not what I consider being moral or acting morally.

Love must be part of the equation, and I am not speaking of a need to be loved. I am speaking of the ability to love others with no thought of self interest.

If love is part of the equation of morality, then love must exist outside of the human mind/brain. Love then, may have to be redefined as something other than our need or desire to be loved. It must be a bond that holds the universal process together.

Does morality exist within the animal kingdom? Well, maybe I think.

A dog will eat a dead horse but he will not eat another dead dog, not normally.

Some dogs are genetically better for training as attack dogs and other dogs seem to sense that it is 'wrong' to bite people.

Even dogs that are good trained attack dogs, sometimes seem to sense that it is 'wrong.'

Case in point: I was padded up in order to feel what it was like to have a trained Doberman attack me and bite my arm. (padded) The dog did as he was told. Afterwards, as I sat in a chair, the dog came up to me and placed his head on my lap. He looked at me very sad. He had never approached me before and I had be around him quite a lot as I was training my own dog. But this time he came to me for comfort. I patted him on the head and accepted his apology and he was very happy. After that, he left.

I felt that he was trying to express to me that he was sorry he had attacked me. I could not think of any other reason for him to have done that. He did not require my attention and had never wanted it before.

Where does love come from?