Humans necessarily enact trust long before they are capable of apprehending the notion. We can know this for several different reasons.

1. We must trust our physiological perception in order to form thought/belief.
2. We must trust the teacher of common language in order to acquire common language.

Those are two very different 'kinds' of trust. The former, while it is related to universal morality, is an extremely strong claim in and of itself. The latter is as well, and in addition to that, it possesses the most moral significance at face value.

What do you think about that Jb?

Ah, sorry to be so long in returning. There have been a few natural disasters at my doorstep. So if you're still interested, I'll try to be a little more prudent in the near future.

You don't live in Japan do you?

I agree with both of your trust statements.

1. We perceive. What reason would we have to mistrust our perceptions? (especially at a very young and innocent age)

2. When we learn language, we learn it as a function of communication and observation. Here again, trust pretty much a natural thing. What reason would we have to mistrust our teachers?

But I don't know why you feel that either of these statements are "extremely strong claims."

Also, I don't see the connection of either to objective or universal morality.

I feel that trust is natural and it is distrust that is learned.

Close enough.



Their strength is in their necessity. One cannot form thought/belief without first trusting their perceptual faculty. Likewise with language acquisition and trusting the teacher of that language.



Right there is the connection Jb. If morality is universal, then it also must be objective. If trust is a necesary element in any and all moral codes/moral belief and morality is separate from those, then trust constitutes being an objective universal common denominator. Trust is not a man-made concept.

Agreed.

Morality was originally derived from innocence but as humanity has progressed so has the source of morality.

A humans moral compass is proven to be directly linked to the wear and tear on the belt of that persons father.

Morals come from watching episodes of Leave It To Beaver.

Worse yet, Little House on the Prairie.

Yeah, what a terrible thing...

to be good for goodness' sake.

Are you talking about little house on the Prairie?

Its terrible because, for me, its too damn preachy.

And Michael Landon is(was) such a hypocrite, he abandoned his first family for a younger version. He is as dysfunctional as everyone else.

Morals come from God.

Creative,

Well we covered trust, and we agreed. What about truth? That should be an interesting one. Also, I don't understand what you mean by "human warrant" or "universal behavioral expectation" or how that can be outside the human mind.

(Trust, truth, universal human warrant, universal behavioral expectation)

Truth, also, comes from God.

God is not a man that he should lie.
Numbers 23:19

Creative,
I know you are very busy and I have been patiently waiting to continue with this discussion about universal morality (objective morality) point by point, so that I can gather it all up and see if I can understand or agree with your claims.

Do you have more?

Hey, Jeanniebean:

I think Creative stated above that morality and truth come from God.

Shiki

Then you simply have not read this thread.

Shiki is reading the thread. Yep, he did post that on page 14.

Environment you're around mostly. Thats all. There is no wrong or right, universally. You choose your priorities from whoever told you what to expect from this game of life. You pick your multiple choice answer, Morality is relative. & knowing is half the battle.

TruckTurner writes:

"Environment you're around mostly. Thats all. There is no wrong or right, universally. You choose your priorities."

So, if your priority is to blow up a school, then that is OK? Nah. Stick with God. You'll never go wrong.

I disagree.

Universally, yes, there is right and wrong. Outside this universe, you can do as you wish. Nobody will care.

Inside of a person's own perceptions he can delude himself as much as he wants into believing that right and wrong are completely up to him alone to decide and that no one else actually exists but him so it does not matter. But unless he is completely insane he will have a natural sense of what is truly wrong.

I do agree that a lot of what is considered "wrong" by some religions groups or societies is a matter of opinion....but there are some things that are naturally considered wrong on the deepest level.

What Creative and I are discussing excludes the assumption made by a lot of people that morals have to do with their religion or God. If you believe that, I understand. That is your belief and opinion, and it is the simplest answer. But as this is the Science and Philosophy forum, this is not a discussion about any religious assumptions or beliefs.

Atheists are not devoid of morals so they don't understand that simple answer. Therefore a deeper look into the subject is underway.

I hope this helps.