Most of the ways that Humans have ... ( Archived) (114)

Perhaps we can stop all the discourse and have a manage à trois?

Dio and Ambrose .. ..

A single unit of Morality .. not possible for entire mankind .. esp. wrt the state of affairs we are in everywhere.

I would think basically Love can be the only basic moral standard common all over and maybe kindness.
A lot of other emotions stem from our love for another .. be it person or thing or just pure being a loving person.

I cant say i dont believe in religion or god .. so whatever is said as right or wrong is cliche or outdated. I am still not confident enough of my grasp , knowledge and understanding of the entire greater force above us concept . So , i wouldnt negate vehemently , anything.

But i do not believe in laying down moral codes for power or dictation. Nor do i believe morality is some sort of certificate or standard by certains for norms. Being the emotional beings we are capable of being , the complexity of the human mind brings forth in life dilemmas much betond simple moral code yes or no.

*beyond.

First of all Dio and Ambrose I really enjoyed reading your thoughts on this subject ... Great to see you pretty much using different words to arrive to a similar idea ...

Riya my blossom!!! Welcome to the thread!!!

May I say that just because something doesn't seem possible at the moment, it means not that it won't be/can't be ...

The very fact of having a univeral unit of morality would preclude "the laying down of "moral codes" for power or dictation ... The very fact that the words codes, power and dictation are used in the same sentence as moral voids the word moral within that sentense because
- codes of behaviour are prescriptive and usually to do with control
- the use of power to uphold prescriptive codes is to do with control
- the use of a dictatorial system is to do with control

None of the above has to do with what is inherently good and 2 of them at least have nothing to do with the welfare of the people spiritually or otherwise

I quite like Ambrose's contribution to what would constitute a measure of morality
Also what StreesFree wrote about unconditional love and spirituality
What you are saying Riya pretty muchh fits with the 2 above!!!

Well, one of the reasons we need morality is that we don't in fact love one another; also, love is a motivation, not a rule. Yes, one could wish that people should act out of love toward one another, and that might work to some extent with our friends and relatives, but the fact is that we cannot love one another - therefore, we need a different standard. I believe that standard is fairness, for even if we all magically could love each other, we'd still need ethical standards by which to act on that love.

I don't think individual morality is that hard to define. If I harm someone else for my pleasure or my perceived benefit, that is wrong.
I think the issue becomes clouded when we start trying to apply the concept of morality to governments or societies. The problem is that we are trying to apply a human concept, morality, to a non-human entity.
Governments, societies, corporations are not people. They are designed for a specific purpose. Different rules apply.
I think many of our arguments about morality are really arguments about the purpose of government. I believe that the government which governs least governs best. Others disagree.

And that's where the fight begins.......

Hiya Onegoodguy!!

Bit puzzled by your statement that governments, societies and corporations ARE NOT people!!! It must be why it is so easy for them to point the finger and blame someone else!!!!

Truth is ... they ARE people!!!! Because "they" are not robots, therefore they must be people!! They might be a group of people and might hide behind a sreen (a bit like the wizard of Oz) but it is the umans bhind the screens that push the buttons!!

Therefore in my view the concept of a unit of morality would apply to ALL

I'm going to throw a cog in the works here or go out on a limb and mention natural selection, since some of you believe morality comes from nature. The only way I think that a universal morality could exist is if you natually selected people to live that way. Culling of people who showed a propensity for abhorrent behaviour, inconsideration, etc. and breeding people for their moral strengths.

Not saying I'd advocate that, but saying that it would be the only way to ensure even the basics of universal morality.

Therefore it is never going to happen that everyone will live by a code designed by man's rules, because culling, or natural selection, by it's very nature, violates moral tenets.

Hiya ginger!!!

I understand what you are saying. The point was to actually have a starting point "universal unit of morality" in the first place not whether everyone would abide by it. Because at the moment there isn't one ...