http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3810&context=fss_papers

…fascinating piece and very thought provoking.

I believe that there ARE moral absolutes. A prime example: whether you live or die is an absolute. A successful life requires actions that are positive and productive toward your life and life in general.

Here’s a test that I suggest. Does action X support individual rights or not? If my decision to do X does not deny others their own individual rights, then it is moral. If it denies others their rights, it is immoral.

Morality is not against your right to seek happiness. Rather, it informs you that to seek you happiness you must not violate the individual rights of others to do the same.

Conflicts that arise in a country that respects individuals rights are settled in a legal system that’s based on the same moral concept.

Mainly I was drawing on the memory of my own childhood, though I also think I saw it in my son when he was young. Of course in the very early stages, a child doesn’t even understand the concepts of self and others, so if empathy is inborn, it must take a while to switch on.

I’m only guessing but I’d think the meanness of not sharing toys would have to be learned – unless they’re living in a full-blown hippie commune, the kids will be exposed to the idea that they have private property. And the meanness of the act isn’t so bad – they’ve protected their toy from possible damage or theft, the other kid is a little frustrated, but hardly mortified. Adults do this to each other all the time, though it’s less obvious because adults also get trained not to ask for much. I was thinking more of the sadistic thing a lot of kids get into later, hurting somebody just for kicks. We’re surely not born with that.

Arthir says:

> I suspect we all begin our lives feeling empathy and wanting to make others happy

Do you have any experience with children? My experience is that children often don’t want others to play with their toys even if they don’t want to play with them themselves. Kids can be mean from the first moment they meet other kids.

It’s hard to find universal rules, but yes, I suspect we all begin our lives feeling empathy and wanting to make others happy, and that’s perhaps the cornerstone on which adult morality is built. I guess a psychologist could explain a lot about how some young people end up the other way round, i.e. taking delight in harming others, particularly the vulnerable. Presumably it has a lot to do with how others are seen – friend or foe. What’s noticeable is that natural empathy can be reversed so completely by environmental factors.

@Bryant:
I apologize if you misinterpreted my point as stating that the moral values of various religions are not truly moral. That is not my point at all. My point is that the moral values learned from these religions are not human instinct. Empathy for others is.

@Rigito:
Whoah…. I’m a married man! 😉

The very essence of moral law is dependent on the free will of the individual. If man did not have free will to disobey moral law, there would be no reason for it to be articulated. Your suggestion that the infidelity of numerous religions is a sufficient disproof for the place of Sacred Scripture as the authority of morality does not follow logically. Perhaps you might be trying to say that men and women outside of Christianity have lived good and charitable lives, and you’d be correct. However, Scripture as the source for moral guidance does not mean that all of its truths are exclusive to it alone. There are many truths found in Divine Revelation that can be observed by reason in nature, although in sparse quantity, as the faculty of human reason is rather limited. For example, if I act outside of “empathy and consideration for others” it does not automatically discredit the universal call towards such a disposition.

God bless,
Bryant

The original question is not whether certain actions are right or wrong under a specific moral or societal value system. The question is: Are these moral values based on universal instinct (fact) or are they learned from our community and culture (opinion).

Your point about the Muslim vs. the European woman makes a very strong case against universal morality. Obviously there cannot be a universally moral dress code if different cultures accept different styles of dress.

The only moral value I do believe is universal is that of compassion or empathy toward our peers. Thanks for the comment. 😉

However, when stealing is simple, life loves to get complicated. People have to make difficult choices in very different circumstances. Doing something is not just “doing something”, it’s doing it in some circumstances, after having considered it, after having doubts,… Okay, that’s not very clear. I’ll try to give an example.

A muslim woman would never wear a mini-skirt. A european woman would. Is it immoral for the first one and okay for the other one?
I think for both of them, it’s wrong to dress inapproprietly. The question is “what is appropriate?”, which depends on the circumstances. Just like a bikini is okay at the beach and wrong at the office, the same skirt can be okay in Europe and inappropriate in the Middle-East.

I agree with your first point about human conscience. I sort of addressed that a little differently by stating:

“Broken down to the most basic constructs, morality is simply the system by which living beings treat one another. Moral beings hold a sense of empathy and consideration toward others…”

I also believe this point has ties to the human conscience.

As far as your second point is concerned, I completely disagree. How could the Bible be the univeral answer to morality if numerous human religions do not follow it?

i disagree with that opinion.
i would like to say that for this world called planet earth there is a moral value or rule – internally its called the human conscience and outwardly (just in case peoples consciences are seared) its called the Bible esp parts where it teaches us about right and wrong.