# When do cultural habits become universal moral principles?



## winklepicker

I hope you'd agree that me and my wife having afternoon tea at 4pm is a fairly harmless cultural habit. On the other hand, I hope we'd all agree that mass murder (as practised by Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot etc) is just plain wrong - in all times and in all places, irrespective of cultural context. 

So there is a continuum with me having tea at one end and Stalin wiping out kulaks at the other: 

WP & his Missis drinking tea----------????----------Stalin killing kulaks.

The bit I'm interested in is the bit in the middle: 

Exhibit A: female circumcision. To me this is an abhorrent and cruel practice, unacceptable in any society anywhere. But if I was a West African woman, I might feel that this was a precious tradition and an essential part of my culture. If I was able to I would eliminate the practice. Would I be justified in doing so? 

Exhibit B: the burqa. To me, women covering themselves from head to foot is an alien practice. I'd like British Muslim women to follow British cultural practice, not Arab. But I wouldn't seek to ban it. Would you?

Exhibit C: Eating dogs in Korea. To me this sounds an odd thing to do - but looked at logically, it's no different from eating cows or frogs or snails. If people want to eat dogs, let them do so, say I. Do you agree?

Exhibit D: In the days of empire, missionaries went out and converted native populations around the world to Christianity - and wiped out the existing religions. Were they justified? How about converting the natives from cannibalism? Would that be justified? How about the conquistadores: following their cultural norms, or greedy genocides?

I suspect each of us has his own point at which a cultural practice becomes a detestable crime, which would imply that moral norms are not universal. Am I wrong?


----------



## cuchuflete

Based on the cultural habits of many participants in this forum, I think there is an extremely high likelihood of this thread exploding aimlessly into a big bunch of passionate declarations of the wrongness, moral repugnancy, and absolute unacceptability of xxxxxxxx and of yyyyyyyy.

Most people will pick the most heinous act in their personal pantheon of moral "thou shalt nots", and go galloping after it.

They will ignore the not too subtle thread topic, which is clearly stated in both the thread title and in the final sentence:


> *When do cultural habits become universal moral principles?
> 
> *
> I suspect each of us has his own point at which a cultural practice becomes a detestable crime, which would imply that moral norms are not universal. Am I wrong?


In order to avoid yet another series of tail-chasing debates about topics that have been addressed here over and over again (Yes, Use the Search function to find the threads!), I think it's essential to focus on the thread topic, and not debate a particular example of good or bad behaviour.


I will therefore invoke my unquestioned moral right and cultural habit and anything in between to
press the little red triangle in the upper red corner of each post, as often as needs be, to summon our slaves (Is slavery good or bad depending on the service provided?), the CD moderators, to come and sweep away any post that goes off in search of a needless debate or stentorian proclamation that _something or other_ "just *is*" a moral right because (fill in the reason of your choice.  As it is your post or mine that's apt to be deleted, we may use a very long list, including but not limited to, (1)pieces of paper with red sealing wax and country names, (2)religious texts and traditions (3)transient visits from aliens, etc.etc.).

Again, the thread topic is not my inevitably correct opinion of one of the examples 
Winkelpicker gave in his introduction, nor your inevitably correct and contrary opinion about the
example.  We already have lots of threads in which to declare and declaim on those topics.

This thread is not a debate with potential winners and losers.  It is an exploration of a theme.

Please enter the conversation as an explorer, rather than as a proselytizer, conquistador, or proponent of a pet cause.


----------



## cuchuflete

Just in case I wasn't clear in the ramble above, the thread topic is not Exhibit A or B or C or D. Those were given as examples of points on a continuum. 

 Posts that give more than passing mention to those matters will be deemed culturally and morally out of place, and may disappear.  


Moral:

*moral*

_concerned with principles of right and wrong or conforming to standards of behavior and character based on those principles;  (WordNet)
_
----------

1.of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.    2.expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work; moralizing: a moral novel.    3.founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations._Random House Unabridged/dictionary.com_


----------



## winklepicker

Thanks for that, Cuchu. Wise comments.

Waiter! A portion of peas and honey for this mod please!


----------



## maxiogee

When _my_ _family_ does xyz it is a cultural norm.
When _your family_ does xyz it is an interesting cultural anomaly.
When _their families_ do xyz it is a strange and unnatural practice.

When _one stranger_ does xyz it is an immoral behaviour.


----------



## cuchuflete

When does a cultural habit become a universal moral principal?  ( I made it all singular, so it would be easier for my small brain to tackle a piece of the big question.)

It all hinges on the realm in which something is "universal".

If, in a delimited geography or group of people, everybody or a very large majority does xyz in a particular way over a long period of time, that xyz is on a course towards becoming 'universal', and thus a moral principle for that place or group.  If the delimited geography is the planet we live on, and the delimited group of people is the entire population, there will be few xyz's that are done/not done by nearly everybody over a long period of time.  Hence there will be (are?) few moral principles that are accepted by all, and many that are accepted by 
some.  

Universality is variable, according to one's definition of boundaries.  See Maxiogee's post #5 for examples.


----------



## Nunty

I would argue that cultural habits become more like universal moral principles as the parent culture of the habit has greater and greater universal power. 

Let's take dietary practice as a relatively unemotional instance. Eating dead cows is abhorrent in some cultures and relished (pardon the pun) in others. The latter cultures have more power on the current world scene and that, I believe, is why a text might point out that the people in XYZedland don't eat beef, but doesn't bother to point out that the people in ABSeeland do. Similarly, some cultures eat ants and others don't. The latter cultures have more power, so it is considered (by whom? by those in power) unremarkable not to eat ants, and worthy of comment to do so.

(It is only Cuchu's admonishment writ in letters of fire and ice and hanging in the late afternoon sky, that keeps me from commenting on the utter moral repugnance of having tea at 4pm when all right-thinking people know it should be at 4:30!)

EDIT: I took so long to write this, that Cuchu himself already said it, and probably better, but I can't bear to see all that brain sweat go to waste, so I'm posting this anyway.


----------



## Outsider

Yes, I would like to know what is meant by "universal moral principles", too. That appears to assume that moral principles _must_ be somehow universal. Which doesn't seem very realistic.


----------



## winklepicker

Outsider said:


> Yes, I would like to know what is meant by "universal moral principles", too. That appears to assume that moral principles _must_ be somehow universal. Which doesn't seem very realistic.


 
Hmm. Well I guess I meant (to quote myself) "just plain wrong [or right - depending!] - in all times and in all places, irrespective of cultural context". And given the power to do it, we would intervene to end the practice.

If you could end genocide, would you do it? I hope everyone would say yes.
If you could end war, would you do it? I guess most people would say yes.
If you could end tea at 4 o'clock, would you do it? No? 
OK - my question to you is at what point on the continuum does the point become sufficiently a moral constant to justify you ending it if you could - whatever the feelings of the people who practice it?

Is female genital mutilation "just plain wrong in all times and in all places, irrespective of cultural context"? If so, are we justified in interfering with other peoples' cultural practices to end it?


----------



## DCPaco

According to recent theories in cultural studies, Universals don't exist--to assume that there is a universal is to try to essentialize and inevitably in essentializing, we create a margin--which is not part of the universal, resulting in an erroneous sense of universality. There is certainly some truth to stereotypes, but one should always be aware that there are always exceptions...I think the word "universal" is too totalizing.

Note:  There is already a very passionate thread on genital circumcision.


----------



## cuchuflete

Sister C.E.'s post made a couple of good references to power.  Others have spoken of widespread habits and customs.  I can't help but think of the distinction, often cited in these forums, between a dialect and a language:
A language is a dialect with an army behind it.   

So it seems to be with moral principles.  They are enforced.
Maybe they are also embraced, voluntarily, by a great mass of people.
Could we digress ever so slightly and try to find an example or two of
principles that are very widely, if not universally, accepted voluntarily rather than
promoted or imposed by "the powers that be"?  

Here is an example of a very widespread cultural habit that may or may not
have anything at all to do with a moral principle...you decide if there is a moral component:
Most people, regardless of climate, clothe the genitals of all but young children. 
Some, but not all, societies have taken that cultural habit, and made laws against
behaving in a non-habitual way.  What probably began as nothing but an effort to protect bits of
important anatomy is now nearly universal as a cultural habit.  Is there anything inherently moral
about this?  Are there other universal cultural habits like it, once voluntary and now
generally mandated?


----------



## Nunty

cuchuflete said:


> [...]Most people, regardless of climate, clothe the genitals of all but young children.
> Some, but not all, societies have taken that cultural habit, and made laws against
> behaving in a non-habitual way.  What probably began as nothing but an effort to protect bits of
> important anatomy is now nearly universal as a cultural habit.  Is there anything inherently moral
> about this?  Are there other universal cultural habits like it, once voluntary and now
> generally mandated?



Not exposing/drowning/breaking the necks of imperfect (female, having physical anomalies or whatever) babies?


----------



## winklepicker

DCPaco said:


> According to recent theories in cultural studies, Universals don't exist--to assume that there is a universal is to try to essentialize and inevitably in essentializing, we create a margin--which is not part of the universal, resulting in an erroneous sense of universality. There is certainly some truth to stereotypes, but one should always be aware that there are always exceptions...I think the word "universal" is too totalizing.




I don't think I'm expressing myself very well - sorry! I mean so abhorrent that you personally would intervene, if you could, to end it, regardless of the negative effect on the culture of the people practising it.

I was actually suggesting as well that there are no moral absolutes, and that each individual has his own 'breaking point'.



DCPaco said:


> Note: There is already a very passionate thread on genital circumcision.


 
Sorry - I was using it as an example because it is or may be on the border between cultural practice and abhorrent crime. Substitute the seal cub cull, or ducking witches, or headhunting - or whatever you like.

*Core question: When are we justified in intervening to stop another person pursuing what they see as a cultural practice and we see as an abhorrent crime?*


----------



## Nunty

winklepicker said:


> [...]
> 
> *Core question: When are we justified in intervening to stop another person pursuing what they see as a cultural practice and we see as an abhorrent crime?*



Sorry, I am confused now. Is this the same question as the thread title?


----------



## cuchuflete

Nun-Translator said:


> Not exposing/drowning/breaking the necks of imperfect *(female*, having physical anomalies or whatever) babies?



Anecdotal evidence suggests that this may be less universal...with at least one large Asian nation supposedly trying to limit the number or proportion of female babies. Other anecdotal evidence suggests that in a number of "advanced" Western nations, ultrasound and other tests are used to determine, and potentially control, the sex of newborns by terminating the gestation of some.

The point is not to argue for or against any of these practices.  I mention them only to point out the apparent lack of universality of "taking whatever comes" in babies.  

Here's another side of the coin.  In the 1920s in the US, there was a powerful, but by no means universal, movement to make alcohol consumption illegal, supposedly on universal moral principles.  That led to legal prohibition of alcohol, but the widespread cultural habit of consuming it eventually overpowered the "moral principle" and the laws were repealed.  Does that give any insight into what really is a universal principle, replete with state enforcement, and what is not?


----------



## DCPaco

winklepicker said:


> [/color]
> 
> *Core question: When are we justified in intervening to stop another person pursuing what they see as a cultural practice and we see as an abhorrent crime?*


 

This sounds like an ethnocentric judgment call. Now I think one can intervene by allowing those people that wish to leave such a culture by opening your doors--political asylum of some sort; now, to invade a country and "liberate" a people due to a practice that some of them may find totally natural and welcome, is just as excessive I think. For example, in the Middle East, there are certain countries that hang their homosexuals. Now, it would be terrible to invade that country because of that practice because after all, they act upon a principle that they believe to be true--however wrong we may believe it is. The feminist argument about the women that are still veiled is null and void when one sees that there are veiled women on the streets of the USA—this means this is a choice to continue to follow a tradition; it doesn’t mean that they are an oppressed people. Some would say that to have your child’s ears pierced only a few days after their birth is barbaric; however, in some cultures it is perfectly natural. In the eyes of a modern day liberal, is this a violation? Yes, because it fails to take into account the child’s desire to have these holes in their ears. 

But we are ALL guilty in some way or another of imposing upon our children the norms of the cultures in which we live. Now maybe that is a universal. It is based on the desire to fit in and belong.


----------



## Outsider

winklepicker said:


> Hmm. Well I guess I meant (to quote myself) "just plain wrong [or right - depending!] - in all times and in all places, irrespective of cultural context". And given the power to do it, we would intervene to end the practice.
> 
> If you could end genocide, would you do it? I hope everyone would say yes.
> If you could end war, would you do it? I guess most people would say yes.


Unfortunately, there are plenty of examples in history of genocides which a significant part of the people did not end, and, to the contrary, eagerly took part in. If there is no moral consensus between human beings even in such extreme cases, I don't see how there could ever be. 



winklepicker said:


> Is female genital mutilation "just plain wrong in all times and in all places, irrespective of cultural context"? If so, are we justified in interfering with other peoples' cultural practices to end it?


Female genital mutilation seems to be a peculiar case of misinformation, to some extent. I say this as one of the misinformed. A while ago there was a discussion of this topic here in the forum. Some posters tried to equate female circumcision with male circumcision (so as to justify a condemnation of the latter). My knee-jerk reaction was "Oh, no, you are mixing apples with oranges!" This seems to be the common wisdom. However, some time later I happened to read a bit more about the topic and it seems that there is a good argument that what is usually called female circumcision is indeed perfectly analogous to male circumcision (I have no special moral objections to the latter, myself). 

Of course, I do not know if you were thinking of something else, since the phrase you actually used was "female genital mutilation". But the point I'm trying to make is that correct information is as important as good moral principles.

Here's a quote from Voltaire that rings very true: "Anyone who can make you believe in absurdities can make you commit injustices".


----------



## cherine

winklepicker said:


> *Core question: When are we justified in intervening to stop another person pursuing what they see as a cultural practice and we see as an abhorrent crime?*


Highlight's mine.

First, I'd like to ask: who's "we" ? does this "we" imply a univeral concensus ? does this concensus really exist ?
If you speak of individual "we", I don't see how can individuals intervene in other cultures to stop whatever "cultural habit" they see as a "universal *im*morality". And if you mean "we" as in "we, the civilized/powerful... cultures", then what makes you think that your being civilized -according to your culture's definition of civilisation- gives you the right to intervene in other cultures that you deem immoral, and who may well believe themselves very civilized according to their own norms ?


Now to get to my point : I don't think that any culture has the right to impose its own values upon another, nor recriminate another culture for what it considers immoral. Because, what's immoral to one, may be just fine to another (think cannibalism, for example).
I don't know how a cultural habit can become a moral principal, universal or not. But if we speak of universality, I think that a "local" habit can easily become universal in these modern times, with the widespread of means of communications. People learn about each others, and from each others. Each culture acquire news habits, let got of some of its own ones.
Will there ever be a univeral agreement about right and wrong ? Personally, I think this is against the human nature itself. We agree not to agree.


----------



## cuchuflete

winklepicker said:


> *Core question: When are we justified in intervening to stop another person pursuing what they see as a cultural practice and we see as an abhorrent crime?*



I agree with Cherine.  There is a logical fallacy in trying to combine the quoted statement with the
words from the thread title, "universal moral principle".

If one group, "we" may ever be justified in intervening to stop a clutural practice by another "we",
or "them" from the viewpoint of "we" number one, than there is obviously not any universality in play, unless you begin with the premise that some cultural habits—belonging to other cultures than your own, of course—not only do not "become universal moral principles", but are absolutely contrary to them.  Therefore, how can a moral principle be universal if it is directly contrary to
some culture's habits?  The sweet bird of reason would have to fly in ever smaller concentric circles until it flies up its own moral oriface principle for that to be true.


----------



## Thomsen

I think you can only speak in the very broadest strokes about universals because they are so broad.  Everyone believes that murder and theft are generally wrong.  No one believes that taking care of your children is morally wrong.  Culture is what happens between the lines.  It's how you do it I think more often than what you do.  Maybe the closest we could come to universal morals would be to go back to ancient man and see how he lived.  Basically, I think there are very _few_ things that could fall under the universal morality category and there will still be some cultures that deviate from even these as an anomaly.


----------



## cuchuflete

Few things elicit universal repugnance.  Cannibalism doesn't.  Some groups practice it.
Circumstances may vary:

1.  Years ago there was a furor about some expedition or crash survivors in
a frozen place.  Most died, and among the survivors, it turned out that some had eaten the flesh of
those who had succumbed to cold and starvation.  In short, they followed the (?)universal moral principle of trying to survive.  They didn't kill anybody.  That may strike most people as repugnant, but to have intervened to stop it would have been to kill
the cannibals.  That seems to violate another (?)universal moral principle.

2. Tribes fight. There are casualties.  One tribe may leave its dead opponents to decompose, while another may see its dead opponents as a food source.  The latter sounds pretty repugnant to me, but does that give me the moral right to intervene to tell someone else what they should or shouldn't eat after a hard day on the battlefield?  If not eating human flesh were a universal moral principle, rather than a very widespread cultural habit, then there would be no cannibals.  There are cannibals.  Therefore the principle is not universal.


----------



## xarruc

Morality is similar to religon. It is used by its believers to justify their actions. Just like religon it is used to explain something that cannot be explained - why do I find murder abhorrant? - because its immoral.

Aside from this and their misuse/abuse by devious people for their own ends, they share another natural tendency; to be forced on others.

The reason for this is simple. Because you have accepted this as your central tenets upon which to build your behavioural patterns and base your judgements you both believe it is inherently correct (and so by default all others are wrong) and fear other belief systems that may challenge your essentially unjustifiable belief system.

The question posed at the start of the thread. Then.

When your custom becomes enshrined in you to such an extent that you know longer know why you do it, then you need to justify it.

Why can't we abuse animals? Probably because we don't like to see cruelty. If we were forced to cruel, to hunt and fish and skin and butcher then we would have a tough time describing it as imoral. But as life is sanitised for us, or at least some of us, we suddenly have no problem to justify this illogical, unjustifiable (with reason) sentiment that somehow it's wrong to cause something to bleed or feel pain. We call it morality. Then we set about spreading it.

When does it become a universal principle of morality?

Presumably when the nucleus of like-minded moralists are linked close enough (geographically or otherwise) to not come into contact with anyone who thinks differently, and if they do, that that person is universally shunned. At this critical concentration the moralists suddenly declare that its not just what they believe but that _everybody_ believes to be imoral.

Et voilà we have a universal moral that thou shall not break.

Put it on our TV-screens, run a phone in debate and hey presto! Tony Blair's getting involved, putting it to rights.


The Japenese argue that the whale-hunting controvesy was the West-imposing their moral beliefs on the rest of the world.

The country folk in England argued that the townies had no idea about the reality of a fox hunt. They felt that the sanitised city life was being imposed on them.

The opponents cry that how could anyone be so barbaric, so cruel, so _imoral_.


The truth is that we seek confirmation in others. When they all agree and we're fully signed-up, anyone who thinks differently poses a challenge. Anyone who contravenes what we believe is against everything we believe in (and how often do you hear that phrase?), and must be destroyed.


* PS please don't anyone pick up on the animal debate. It's just an example that came to mind.*


----------



## palomnik

xarruc said:


> Morality is similar to religon.
> 
> I agree with xarruc on this point. Morality is similar to religion. In fact, it is a part of religion, in the widest definition of "religion."
> 
> In times before the modern era and the rise of secular society, there was relatively little debate about what was "morally wrong"; it was simply anything that did not agree with the moral code of Our Group. This attitude began to phase out gradually in Western society some time ago and is still gradually phasing out.
> 
> However, what is really ironic about this decline of the religious world view and the rise of a "secular" culture is that despite the fact that cultural values are recognized as "relative", we still persist in imposing our views of morality on the rest of the world. The best example of this that I know of is the Middle East. All too few people in the West appreciate the fact that they are disliked by the Muslim world precisely because so many Muslims sense that this secular world view is being imposed on them - and in the process attempting to make their religion "irrelevant" in the process.
> 
> What's my point? In removing the basis of religious "truth" as our judgment of morality and moving to what we view as a relativist society, we are in fact dealing in half truths. We are in fact still trying to enforce a moral code on other people, although we no longer realize that we are doing it.
> 
> I wonder sometimes if we are really better off in our modern world.


----------



## Outsider

palomnik said:


> In times before the modern era and the rise of secular society, there was relatively little debate about what was "morally wrong"; it was simply anything that did not agree with the moral code of Our Group. This attitude began to phase out gradually in Western society some time ago and is still gradually phasing out.


According to Karl Popper, it started to phase out much earlier, in classical Greece.


----------



## xarruc

Lets take smoking as an example of something that is turning into a deadly sin.

Years ago just about everybody did it. Now increasingly few do. Smoking bans are being implemented all across the Western world. In 30 years it has gone from:

something I like - something I don't do - something I dislike - something I abbhor - something imoral - something illegal


What caused this - the answer is middle-aged, middle-class voters. They didn't like it. Their circles did it increasingly  less and found it more increasingly more offensive. They were reinforced in their negative opinions. Did the punters of the workingmen's clubs feel that way? But then do they constitute a good voting block? - No as they always vote socialist if they vote. One group has effectively pushed their values on another. Now smoking is bad because what right have you got to impose something on the health of others.


----------



## gaer

winklepicker said:


> Is female genital mutilation "just plain wrong in all times and in all places, irrespective of cultural context"? If so, are we justified in interfering with other peoples' cultural practices to end it?


I have only read this far, but I believe you just went back to exhibit A.

I see this as a fatal flaw in this discussion. I believe people will be unable to even attempt to answer your question without "picking an issue", and that will cause us to go in countless different directions.

But I'll read on and see what happens. 

Gaer


----------



## Kajjo

_When do cultural habits become universal moral principles?

_I believe that no universal moral principles exist at all. Morality is purely man-made, is a product of society and community. Different societies can produce all kinds of moral values, even if some of them might be more successful and occur more frequently than other principles.

Certainly, there are natural values of mankind: to survive, to belong to a community, to reproduce, to care for others. These values result in other secondary values, e.g. belonging to a community or family usually requires not to murder, not to steal, to help others in need. However, on this basic level there are always natural trade-offs: Better steal than starve, better murder than tolerate harm to your children, better help your family than others. Behaviour suited for survival is not based on absolute and universal principles, but on applying the right principle in the right situation. 

Societies invent moral principles to make living together more easy and peaceful on the large scale -- obviously not in every case for the individual members. I do not think that cultures should impose their respective morals and principles on each other, as long as these cultures do not limit the liberty of each other. It is very difficult to decide which morals are better, it is easy to decide which feel better to oneself. That should not be a basis to change cultures we usually do not understand deeply enough.

Kajjo


----------



## Thomsen

Kajjo said:


> _When do cultural habits become universal moral principles?_
> 
> I believe that no universal moral principles exist at all. Morality is purely man-made, is a product of society and community. Different societies can produce all kinds of moral values, even if some of them might be more successful and occur more frequently than other principles.
> 
> Certainly, there are natural values of mankind: to survive, to belong to a community, to reproduce, to care for others. These values result in other secondary values, e.g. belonging to a community or family usually requires not to murder, not to steal, to help others in need. However, on this basic level there are always natural trade-offs: Better steal than starve, better murder than tolerate harm to your children, better help your family than others. Behaviour suited for survival is not based on absolute and universal principles, but on applying the right principle in the right situation.
> 
> Societies invent moral principles to make living together more easy and peaceful on the large scale -- obviously not in every case for the individual members. I do not think that cultures should impose their respective morals and principles on each other, as long as these cultures do not limit the liberty of each other. It is very difficult to decide which morals are better, it is easy to decide which feel better to oneself. That should not be a basis to change cultures we usually do not understand deeply enough.
> 
> Kajjo


 
So, rarely if ever is the answer


----------



## winklepicker

Thomsen said:


> So, rarely if ever is the answer


 
OK. That seems to be the feeling of the meeting. If that's the case though, we have no right to intervene in anyone else's society.

So - no campaigning against Spanish bullfighting. No sanctions on Iran or North Korea - if they want to build nuclear weapons, that's up to them. No funding of rebel groups in South America (Chavez is off the hook). No arrest of foreign nationals for crimes committed in their own country, and no extradition. What the Indians say about the UK's Big Brother is an intolerable interference. And so on and so froth (sic). 

Can this be right?


----------



## ireney

winklepicker I think you are confusing things a bit.

Are moral principles universal? The answer of most forer@s including myself is No. That means that we don't have the right to try to imporse our moral code to anyone (at least, in some cases, anyone ourside our community; in other cases to anyone period). That does not mean that we don't have a right to voice our opinion about what bothers us and/or try to convince these "others" to stop doing what they're doing.

I'm afraid I didn't get the "No arrest of foreign nationals for crimes committed in their own country, and no extradition" part.


----------



## xarruc

So Winklepicker. Kajjo says that in his/her view it's wrong to impose one's views on others provided it doesn't they do not limit the liberty... and you reply with a list of things you would like to impose on others, of which the nuclear issue can be ignored as it does limit the librety... I don't see your point. You haven't justified why your selected universal moral principles are so or why you should have the right to impose them on others.



> I'm afraid I didn't get the "No arrest of foreign nationals for crimes committed in their own country, and no extradition" part.


 
Me neither.


----------



## Kajjo

winklepicker said:


> So - no campaigning against Spanish bullfighting. No sanctions on Iran or North Korea - if they want to build nuclear weapons, that's up to them.


You did not read my very important exception. Personal liberty has its limits were the liberty of others is influenced. I stated that I think we should not impose _moral values_ on other cultures, but of course we have the right to defend _our own interests_. Nuclear weapons certainly belong to the latter category.

Kajjo


----------



## winklepicker

xarruc said:


> you reply with a list of things you would like to impose on others, of which the nuclear issue can be ignored as it does limit the librety...


 
No I never! Look again - I endorsed none of them. I merely gave some examples of things we can't impose on other societies* - but which many people seem to want to.



xarruc said:


> I don't see your point. You haven't justified why your selected universal moral principles are so or why you should have the right to impose them on others.


 
See above!

The thing about foreign nationals was aimed at things like Pinochet's arrest in Spain. Capeesh?

Extradition is when we send someone back to their country to face trial for a crime committed there - but we've established that what people do in their own socities is no affair of ours. Haven't we?

* If we accept that there are no universl moral principles, that is.


----------



## cuchuflete

I join with whoever said that Winkelpicker is confusing things.

If there are few or no universal moral principles, then the basis for cross-border actions are and will be
based on other principles.  Full stop.

If, for example, an economically and militarily strong country--let's use Brasil as an example--decides to intervene in the politics or economy of a relatively small, weak neighbour such as Paraguay, it is very likely to
invoke "universal rights" or some other pompous and empty phrase.  The absence of any underlying universal moral principle, or any moral principle at all, will not impede entities with power from exercising it.

Both the parties directly involved in the hypothetical example and 'bystander nations' will invoke their respective notions of universal moral principles—which may or may not be _moral_, and are highly unlikely to be _universal_, and may not even include any _principles_ at all—to declare themselves either delighted or appalled by the actions.

Invoking the "rights" conferred by universal moral principles is much older than political kerrectitude, and fits comfortably in the PR bag of tricks of that trend.


----------



## maxiogee

Kajjo said:


> You did not read my very important exception. Personal liberty has its limits were the liberty of others is influenced. I stated that I think we should not impose _moral values_ on other cultures, but of course we have the right to defend _our own interests_. Nuclear weapons certainly belong to the latter category.
> 
> Kajjo


 
How does my having nuclear weapons and stopping you from having them come into this.
My having them and stopping you from developing them is imposing my values on you. And it is not 'defending my own interests. If I have them (and claim that they are a deterrent) then you're having them shouldn't bother me.
The people with a moral right to object are those who don't have them - and they rarely get listened to. The ones who get heard are those who alreayd have them, as a deterrent, of course. 

Those with X have no right to claim that they have a right to it but that someone else doesn't.


----------



## cuchuflete

maxiogee said:


> How does my having nuclear weapons and stopping you from having them come into this.
> My having them and stopping you from developing them is imposing my values on you. And it is not 'defending my own interests. If I have them (and claim that they are a deterrent) then you're having them shouldn't bother me.
> The people with a moral right to object are those who don't have them - and they rarely get listened to. The ones who get heard are those who alreayd have them, as a deterrent, of course.
> 
> Those with X have no right to claim that they have a right to it but that someone else doesn't.



This is a nice topic for its own thread.  It skips rapidly over the topic of this thread.

"The people with* a moral right* to object are those......"

Sure, according to someone's non-universal definition of a moral right.

"Those with X *have no right* to claim that they *have a right* to...."

Yet again, we have a declaration of who does and doesn't have *a right*. 

I may agree with your viewpoint and opinion, but such agreement is certainly not
based on any mutually agreed understanding of moral rights or moral principles.

Geopolitics is not based on moral rights, though the term is often used to justify or sell
a policy.  When NATO and the USSR tacitly agreed to the principle of Mutually Assured Destruction,
that was based on a set of expectations about human and national behaviour.  It had nothing at all to do with rights and moral principles.


----------



## maxiogee

cuchuflete said:


> This is a nice topic for its own thread.  It skips rapidly over the topic of this thread.
> "The people with* a moral right* to object are those......"
> Sure, according to someone's non-universal definition of a moral right.
> "Those with X *have no right* to claim that they *have a right* to...."
> Yet again, we have a declaration of who does and doesn't have *a right*.



To re-position the point I was making, the better to let you see what pertinence it has to the topic…

If the moral principles of X are such as to allow it to have/do QAZ, then they cannot morally assert that Y should not have/do QAZ.
If the moral principles of Z are such that they shun having/doing QAZ, then they may morally assert that Y should not have/do QAZ.

Moral principles are things which we ought to be able to be of the same value for everyone. If I can do it/have it, then so should you be allowed to (but not compelled to***); if it is right that should have it, then it is right that you should also.

*** the 'but not compelled to' is related to the afternoon tea concern. Just be cause we do WSX, doesn't mean others must also do WSX. Morality is of two sorts, personal and social. One's personal morality will usually echo, more or less, that of the society in which one lives. But I think it wrong to try to assert that everyone else ought to abide by one's standards and principles. Social morality is a matter for bargaining, negotiation and bartering.
Personal morality ought to strive towards the intolerant, social morality never ought so to strive but should be more aspirational.


----------



## cuchuflete

I'm trying to follow your reasoning, and having some difficulty.  





maxiogee said:


> To re-position the point I was making, the better to let you see what pertinence it has to the topic…
> 
> If the moral principles of X are such as to allow it to have/do QAZ, then they cannot morally assert that Y should not have/do QAZ.
> If the moral principles of Z are such that they shun having/doing QAZ, then they may morally assert that Y should not have/do QAZ.
> 
> Moral principles are things which we ought to be able to be of the same value for everyone. If I can do it/have it, then so should you be allowed to (but not compelled to***); if it is right that should have it, then it is right that you should also.
> 
> *** the 'but not compelled to' is related to the afternoon tea concern. Just be cause we do WSX, doesn't mean others must also do WSX. Morality is of two sorts, personal and social. One's personal morality will usually echo, more or less, that of the society in which one lives. But I think it wrong to try to assert that everyone else ought to abide by one's standards and principles. Social morality is a matter for bargaining, negotiation and bartering.
> Personal morality ought to strive towards the intolerant, social morality never ought so to strive but should be more aspirational.



The logic you have presented is internally consistent, but requires me to accept some things I'm not convinced of:



> If the moral principles of X are such as to allow it to have/do QAZ, then they cannot morally assert that Y should not have/do QAZ.


  I,"A", have a sharp projectile. My erstwhile opponent, "B"
sharpens her projectile so that it is equivalent to mine.  We meet, and come to the agreement that it would be extremely unwise to engage in mutual projectile throwing combat, as a large portion of my family and of B's family would be killed or injured.  I accept B's having such a projectile, just as I have one.  There is no moral basis to the agreement, nor any discussion of rights.  It may be moral or immoral for either of use to have such potentially deadly projectiles.
Now along comes upstart "K", who is known for erratic behavior.  "K" starts to sharpen a projectile, with the obvious intention of having one just as sharp and potentially deadly as that possessed by B and myself.  I do not trust that K will abide by any mutual agreement, and based on past behavior, I perceive a risk that K will use the projectile, once fully sharpened, to intimidate me or other neighbours.  Further, I perceive a risk (my perceptions may be accurate or not.) of K
using a sharpened projectile to attack me in a dispute over jellybeans or market share for velcro™
exports.   For reasons that ignore morality entirely, I attempt to prevent K's sharpening efforts from proceeding.  

The above example does not contradict your views of what is, in theory, morally 'right'.  It points out that what occurs in the non-theoretical world may be on a different plane, in which such theory
is of scant usefulness.  Further, if self-preservation is a 'moral right', then your theory could be correct, and I would be acting in accord with another moral principle, while violating the one you have put forth. 



> If the moral principles of Z are such that they shun having/doing QAZ, then they may morally assert that Y should not have/do QAZ.


 This one is thin.  The moral principles of Z are that eating meat is morally wrong. Z maintains a vegetarian society.  Can Z assert that residents of Y should not eat meat?  

Well, of course they may assert it, but if they, Z, were to try to impose their moral principles on Y,
Y might very well, based on its own moral principals, tell Z to get stuffed, or invade Z's territory and throw salt in the fields, denying Z its cabbage crop. 

Z's moral rights do not extend beyond Z's borders, unless something going on beyond those borders violates Z's survival, or some other fundamental right, if there is such.


----------



## TRG

Kajjo said:


> _When do cultural habits become universal moral principles?_
> 
> I believe that no universal moral principles exist at all. Morality is purely man-made, is a product of society and community. Different societies can produce all kinds of moral values, even if some of them might be more successful and occur more frequently than other principles.
> 
> Certainly, there are natural values of mankind: to survive, to belong to a community, to reproduce, to care for others. These values result in other secondary values, e.g. belonging to a community or family usually requires not to murder, not to steal, to help others in need. However, on this basic level there are always natural trade-offs: Better steal than starve, better murder than tolerate harm to your children, better help your family than others. Behaviour suited for survival is not based on absolute and universal principles, but on applying the right principle in the right situation.
> 
> Societies invent moral principles to make living together more easy and peaceful on the large scale -- obviously not in every case for the individual members. I do not think that cultures should impose their respective morals and principles on each other, as long as these cultures do not limit the liberty of each other. It is very difficult to decide which morals are better, it is easy to decide which feel better to oneself. That should not be a basis to change cultures we usually do not understand deeply enough.
> 
> Kajjo


 
I cannot improve upon what the esteemed Kajjo has said, so I will simply endorse the above in its entirety.


----------



## maxiogee

cuchuflete said:


> I'm trying to follow your reasoning, and having some difficulty.


Well you will have, if you insist on reading my use of the word 'right' as "permit to act".


----------



## cuchuflete

maxiogee said:


> Well you will have, if you insist on reading my use of the word 'right' as "permit to act".



What good is a right, outside of a discussion forum, if it does not confer a permit to act, or at very least to paint an action in unctuously positive words?

If I have the "right" to eat, but no food, and starve to death, what earthly good has that "right" bestowed upon me?

Are you suggesting, perhaps, that much of human activity has nothing to do with rights?

If you are, you will find me agreeing with you.


----------



## maxiogee

cuchuflete said:


> What good is a right,



I'll be around the back doing some tidying until you've defined 'good' 

Clue: the answer should be somehow connected to morals.


----------



## Venezuelan_sweetie

> I'm trying to follow your reasoning, and having some difficulty.


No kidding! I'm having some difficulty, too. But not trying to follow anyone's particular reasoning, but rather, trying to understand the very first question that our dear winklepicker sent out, a couple of days ago.

For some strange reason, even after two days of reading over 40 posts of varied opinions, I still can't understand the very title of this thread. Let's break it down, can we?

It reads: "When do cultural habits become universal moral principles?" From the very first time I read it, I thought: "if you ask _me_, never!" This is my reason:

**Cultural Habits** --> From our own dictionary:
-*Cultural*: _Denoting or deriving from or distinctive of the ways of living built up *by a group of people*; "influenced by ethnic and cultural ties"- J.F.Kennedy; "ethnic food". _<Interesting that they match Cultural with Ethnic...>
-*Habit*: _a pattern of *behavior* acquired through frequent repetition; "she had a habit twirling the ends of her hair"._

Ok, so if I'm getting it straight, a *Cultural Habit* would then be a pattern of behavior shared by a group of people, which is distinctive of such group, be it a particular society, ethnia, family, country, continent, region, political wing... whatever. Fine.

But then, I ran into this opposed sentence, "universal moral principles". At that point, I was already getting a little confused, since I cannot really assimilate both concepts in the same sentence... Back to the dictionary, then.

**Universal Moral Principles**
*-Universal:* O_f *worldwide* scope or applicability;"universal experience" _
(All right, here we go with the tricky one)
*-Moral:* C_oncerned with principles of *right and wrong* or conforming to *standards of behavior and character* based on those principles; "moral sense"; "a moral scrutiny"; "a moral lesson"; "a moral quandary"; "moral convictions"; "a moral life" _
*-Principle:* (rule) A_ basic *generalization *that is accepted as true and that can be used as *a basis for reasoning or conduct*; "their principles of composition characterized all their works"_ // (precept) _rule of *personal conduct.*_

So then, a *Universal Moral Principle* would be a worldwide standard of behavior, based upon a generalization which leads to an absolute truth, or at least a statement absolutely accepted as a basis for reasoning or conduct.

Erm... Sorry, but how come we say that these entirely different things are, not only related, but also, we state that one is the basis for the other? Ok, then you really lost me...


----------



## winklepicker

Oh boy. I thought it was all so simple. I'll have one more go.

Is there any kind of moral principle that transcends social circumstances? By which is meant, is there anything that is morally wrong at all times and in all places? Or are all moral precepts actually just social habits?

If there are some moral constants(eg: genocide is wrong, therefore we are justified in making war on Hitler) how do we tell the difference and where do we draw the line? If they are just social habits, we have no right to intervene in anyone else's society.

Responders to this thread (to the extent that I've managed to communicate with them at all! - odd: I thought I was quite good at that!) seem to have concluded that there is no such thing as a universal moral principle: everything depends on context.

I commented that in that case a few things we commonly do are morally indefensible (extradition, economic sanctions, etc) since they interfere with other peoples' cultural habits.

The response to this seems to be that pragmatism rules: if you have a bigger stick than your neighbour, you can brandish it at him and cow him into adherence to your will - regardless of his culture. Might is right. I don't feel we have made much progress towards identifying 'moral' behaviour, but I'm uneasily aware that this may be because no one has a clue what I'm on about!

Dear foreros, if you feel you _do_ have a clue what I'm saying, please post and make me feel better!


----------



## Thomsen

Hi Winkle!

I think your thread was well received hence all the smart people posting.  Maybe the "communication" problem is rooted in the use of _Universal_.  When it comes down to it very little about humanity is universal except for those things imposed upon us by biological necesity.  I think if there were so many "universal moral principles" we wouldn't have to worry about imposing them upon others. 

But, semantics aside you have brought up a fascinating question which seems to me to be akin to:  When do we have the right to impose our moral principles upon others?  Is there such thing as the moral imperative to intervene or ignore other groups on the basis of their moral principles?

The answer for me: I have no clue.  I mean don't most of us believe in the UN Declaration of Human Rights?  But at the same time do most of us feel obligated to realize the goals of this document in the world?  I think morals and the other trappings of civilization can sometimes be a pretty thin veneer.  At other times though they present themselves with a stubborness that seems incredible.  I'll leave the debate to the philosophers.


----------



## cuchuflete

Winkelpicker said:
			
		

> I commented that in that case a few things we commonly do are morally indefensible (extradition, economic sanctions, etc) since they interfere with other peoples' cultural habits.



Very bad examples!  Economic sanctions were effective in moving South Africa away from Apartheid. Extradition is often very routine movement of a prisoner from one jurisdiction to another.  Please make yourself more clear with better examples of what you mean.

Is theft universally and morally indefensible?  



If you were quick to say yes, please inform Fidel and Hugo and others who have or intend to engage in expropriation. On good moral grounds, from their own viewpoints.....


----------



## Kajjo

maxiogee said:


> My having them and stopping you from developing them is imposing my values on you.


Well, the point I wanted to make is that self-interest out of defense, out of economical advantages, greed, hate or whatever has nothing to do with _imposing your moral values_ onto others. It might have to do with _imposing_ but not with _moral values_. 

This thread only discusses the right to impose moral values. We do not discuss other influences like power, economy or fear, even if these might be the driving force -- as we all know that morals often are only cited to justify primary reasons.

Kajjo


----------



## Kajjo

winklepicker said:


> Is there any kind of moral principle that transcends social circumstances? By which is meant, is there anything that is morally wrong at all times and in all places?


I believe there is no such principle. Does anyone has an idea of a potential exception...?



> Or are all moral precepts actually just social habits?


No, I think moral principles are just not universal, neither by place nor time nor situation. They can be strongly felt principles, i.e. they could represent much more than just a social habit for individual persons.

Kajjo


----------



## winklepicker

Kajjo said:


> I believe there is no such principle. Does anyone has an idea of a potential exception...?
> 
> No, I think moral principles are just not universal, neither by place nor time nor situation. They can be strongly felt principles, i.e. they could represent much more than just a social habit for individual persons.
> 
> Kajjo


 
I don't disagree, Kajjo, and i have some sympathy for your view. But if all moral principles are relative aren't we rather at sea? Sure, I'm a drug-pusher, but that's my cultural habit - you can't prosecute me for it.


----------



## cuchuflete

winklepicker said:


> I don't disagree, Kajjo, and i have some sympathy for your view. But if all moral principles are relative aren't we rather at sea? Sure, *I'm a drug-pusher, but that's my cultural habit - you can't prosecute me for it.*



As Kajjo and I have pointed out more than once, actions are often driven by something other than moral principles.  If you are a drug-pusher, or eat peas with a knife, and this violates local custom,
you may be prosecuted for such heinous acts, without regard to your cultural habits.  Your actions may be deemed offensive to the cultural habits, morals, economic convenience or whim of the surrounding, more powerful culture.  There may be a total absence of moral considerations.  The other drug-pushers into whose territory you have crossed may buy themselves a judge.    They may share your cultural habit, and still prosecute and persecute you, with no regard to moral principles.


----------



## Nunty

I think it was in another thread that someone coined a lovely expression that applies here, I think: We've thrown the octopus over the hedge. This discussion is all over the place. Tentacles everywhere - what a mess. 

If we are talking about "universal moral principles", that is not the same as enforcement by a social institution.

If we are talking about power politics (and I think we are), let's just 'fess up and say so.

As it stands--and I just reread the thread from the beginning--all I see are tentacles. Is there a central theme here? Are we still relating to the question in the thread title?


----------



## cuchuflete

I too just re-read the entire thread, and it seems that the thread starter member has at least two questions in mind, only one of which is made clear in post #1:

1. When do cultural habits (if ever....commented cuchuflete) become universal moral principles?

2.





> I suspect each of us has his own point at which a cultural practice becomes a detestable crime, which would imply that moral norms are not universal. Am I wrong?


The thread starter clarified a little with this:  





> Hmm. Well I guess I meant (to quote myself) "just plain wrong [or right - depending!] - in all times and in all places, irrespective of cultural context".* And given the power to do it, we would intervene* to end the practice.


Reading between the lines, I think the question on the thread starter's mind goes more to justification of intervention.  To which I would offer Sister's....



> If we are talking about "universal moral principles", that is not the same as enforcement by a social institution.
> 
> If we are talking about power politics (and I think we are), let's just 'fess up and say so.




In the interest of beating a dead horse (surely in contravention of somebody's moral principles), I'll offer yet another example.

Mrs. and Mr. Winkelpicker like to coat their knives with honey, the better to eat peas with said implement.  This is an accepted
cultural practice in their village, county, country, tribe.   For the rest of the world, it is deemed to be filthy, ill-mannered, offensive, and—most importantly—contrary to commonly accepted *moral* principles.   Does this sad state of affairs endow anyone from beyond the bordes of the Winkelpicker abode a right to intervene, to put an end to the practice?

1- Yes
2-No

1-Yes, but not on the basis of any _universal moral_ principle, as the practice is neither immoral nor rare in the Winkelpickers'
neck of the woods.  Intervention is the imposition of a foreign principle, done because the interveners can, and therefore choose to believe that they should, intervene.

2-No, it's just power politics, but that has not stopped such interventions in the past.


----------



## TRG

This may not exactly address the question, but I believe it's relevant. The question presumes there is some such thing as a universal moral principle or ultimate truth. If there is such a thing as ultimate truth, then it must come from somewhere. Ultimate truth could not reside on the contemplations of mere man, because people's values and morals have been evolving since day one. If you do not believe this then you must not know that part of human past are such things as human sacrifice, cannibalism, and slavery nor could you be familiar with names such as Adolph Hitler or Tomas de Torquemada. Furthermore, as we continue our moral evolution what is to say that it couldn't stop or even go backwards. Nothing, although it's hard to imagine what could cause it. If you want ultimate truth then you perhaps must look beyond the human realm. For many people and for a very long time, the answer is to look to God. There lies a concept that you may be able to say holds universal truth. Your challenge then is merely to understand God. A task, I daresay, that is beyond the capability of most of us, but it is the attempt that matters I suppose. I am not myself religious in any way, but I realize that for many it is valuable and important. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why.


----------



## cuchuflete

With no sarcasm or other undermining of TRG's thoughtful post intended, he has looped back to the precise dilemma:  What is universal?   Understandings of "God" are clearly not.  Therefore, if "God" is the sole useful source of a definition of what is 'universally moral', then nothing is, as understandings of "God" are very far from universal.  Rather, they are fragmented and contentious.


Aside: One's 'understanding of God' need not have anything to do with religion.  We have had an excellent discussion of that in another thread started by  *.,,*


----------



## maxiogee

TRG said:


> This may not exactly address the question, but I believe it's relevant. The question presumes there is some such thing as a universal moral principle or ultimate truth. If there is such a thing as ultimate truth, then it must come from somewhere. Ultimate truth could not reside on the contemplations of mere man, because people's values and morals have been evolving since day one.



Right, but if this 'X' is beyond our contemplation, then to know it it must be revealed to us in some way - because we're not going to find it by ourselves.

So far there have been many who have claimed that they have had revelations - but the universality of these revelations seem to be either limited or disputed, if not totally irrelevant to the lives of some of those to whom those to whom it has been revealed have brought it.

How then are we to know it when it is revealed? How can it be recognised as truly 'ultimate', in view of the fact that false prophets will claim validity for their 'X' as vehemently as a true one will?


----------



## Kajjo

TRG said:


> The question presumes there is some such thing as a universal moral principle or ultimate truth.


We should keep to the point: The question asks whether there are universal moral principles. The existence of an "ultimate truth" is not necessarily connected to such a question.

From a purely scientific, evolutional point of view there _might_ exist moral principals that are part of every human being. However, I believe there are not, as reasoned above.



> If there is such a thing as ultimate truth, then it must come from somewhere. Ultimate truth could not reside on the contemplations of mere man, because people's values and morals have been evolving since day one.


Again, let's talk about moral principles and not about absolute truth. Again, such principles _could_ have been the result of evolution, the current state of mankind. Even if during evolution the principles changed, they could have a certain, fixed status today.



> If you want ultimate truth then you perhaps must look beyond the human realm.


If we want to characterise human traits and scociety's moral values, we should focus on humans and society. Looking beyond means relying on belief instead on facts. This could be a means to elucidate one's beliefs, but not to elucidate human behaviour.

Kajjo


----------



## TRG

maxiogee said:


> Right, but if this 'X' is beyond our contemplation, then to know it it must be revealed to us in some way - because we're not going to find it by ourselves.
> 
> So far there have been many who have claimed that they have had revelations - but the universality of these revelations seem to be either limited or disputed, if not totally irrelevant to the lives of some of those to whom those to whom it has been revealed have brought it.
> 
> How then are we to know it when it is revealed? How can it be recognised as truly 'ultimate', in view of the fact that false prophets will claim validity for their 'X' as vehemently as a true one will?


 
God could reveal the ultimate truth to anyone or everyone at any time or people can hope to know ultimate truth in the next life. I'm not sure that answers your question, but it's all I can say.



Kajjo said:


> We should keep to the point: The question asks whether there are universal moral principles. The existence of an "ultimate truth" is not necessarily connected to such a question.
> 
> From a purely scientific, evolutional point of view there _might_ exist moral principals that are part of every human being. However, I believe there are not, as reasoned above.
> 
> Again, let's talk about moral principles and not about absolute truth. Again, such principles _could_ have been the result of evolution, the current state of mankind. Even if during evolution the principles changed, they could have a certain, fixed status today.
> 
> If we want to characterise human traits and scociety's moral values, we should focus on humans and society. Looking beyond means relying on belief instead on facts. This could be a means to elucidate one's beliefs, but not to elucidate human behaviour.
> 
> Kajjo


 
I am in agreement that human beings do not come with built-in universal moral principles. The question is, "When do cultural habits become universal moral principles?", so it presumes the existence of universal moral principles, which I have characterized as "ultimate truth". A principle could only be universal if everyone, every single person on the earth, subscribed to it. This will never happen, so the short answer is never. The only way this could happen is by the intervention of an all powerful being. A universal moral principle could never come about by man, it would have to be something that transcends man. This would be God. So, if the question is as you stated, "whether there are universal moral principles", the answer is only if there is a god, and maybe not even then.


----------



## John-Paul

I think we have to stick with answering the question. The handshake is a good example. I don't know who started the habit, but now, the shake of the hand means a deal has bean made and we don't need a contract because we trust each other. Democracy in a way was a cultural habit once, just an easy to way to make decisions with a group of people. Was religion a habit, or theatre, music? Talk about universal moral principles, that's a bit of Shakespeare isn't it, or Beethoven. Helping the poor was a habit once, by a few. Taking care of the needy. The whole freedom of speech thing - in many cultures it was a habit to repress that, and it still happens. Fighting was is a cultural habit - just take a look at the Romans, and that has become the universal moral principle. It's all about which side you're on, isn't it?


----------



## gaer

My viewpoint:

Those who believe in nature/nurture, and nothing more, will always have one basic viewpoint about this question and all topics that touch upon it: We are born with no absolute sense of right and wrong. Everything is relative and is based upon our human genetic makeup (nature) —which does seem to hint that we are all more alike than unalike)—plus our conditioning (nurture). Our conditioning (family, culture, etc.) may have an infinite amount of factors, but they are all explainable, potentially, with enough knowledge and experience.

The closest such people can come to accepting any kind of "universal moral principles" is to agree upon these principles as "one-world", with a world-culture that is more alike than difference, extending over the whole planet.

While it is possible that such a world-culture may exist sometime in the future, much to the delight of some and to the horror of others, it certainly does not exist now.

So there are no universals in the area of morality, no matter how defined.

End of discussion.

On the other hand, those who believe that there is some kind of universal power, spirit, force, connection that we might call God, Allah or The Great All—no attempt at humor here—will suggest that Right and Wrong, although we may not be able to define them or even understand them, nevertheless exist.

In short, to use an example, an atheist and the Dalai Lama will have utterly different viewpoints about the whole idea of "universal morality". The first will deny that it can exist. The latter, I suspect, will see the whole matter in a very different way, viewing the first as ignorant or unenlightened.

Gaer


----------



## maxiogee

TRG said:


> God could reveal the ultimate truth to anyone or everyone at any time or people can hope to know ultimate truth in the next life. I'm not sure that answers your question, but it's all I can say.



There may, or may not, be a God.
There may, or may not, be a next life.

Neither of those are contingent upon the other.

There may, or may not, be morality in a next life.
That is not contingent upon their being a God.

But we are dealing with the here and now. We may not be human in a next life and concern for those we leave behind here may be beyond our abilities.

-------

I like the idea that God could reveal the ultimate truth to everyone. Could, but hasn't chosen to do so, to date.


----------



## eduarodi

winklepicker said:


> I hope you'd agree that me and my wife having afternoon tea at 4pm is a fairly harmless cultural habit. Not necessarily. It isn't a harmless cultural habit when it is used to manipulate you. Having a very large number of people doing the exact same thing at the exact same time may be very useful for some people both in politics and in publicity.
> On the other hand, I hope we'd all agree that mass murder (as practised by Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot etc) is just plain wrong - in all times and in all places, irrespective of cultural context. That, we can agree on, yes.
> 
> So there is a continuum with me having tea at one end and Stalin wiping out kulaks at the other:
> 
> WP & his Missis drinking tea----------????----------Stalin killing kulaks.
> 
> The bit I'm interested in is the bit in the middle:
> 
> Exhibit A: female circumcision. To me this is an abhorrent and cruel practice, unacceptable in any society anywhere. But if I was a West African woman, I might feel that this was a precious tradition and an essential part of my culture. If I was able to I would eliminate the practice. Would I be justified in doing so? I should have to be an African woman to give you a better answer, but since I am neither, I agree with you. Yet, this isn't a universal concept. Some people may agree on behalf of a higher benefit.
> 
> Exhibit B: the burqa. To me, women covering themselves from head to foot is an alien practice. I'd like British Muslim women to follow British cultural practice, not Arab. But I wouldn't seek to ban it. Would you? I don't see how their keeping in touch of their own background can be of any danger to the Occidental World. If there was any link between the burqa and terrorism, I'd be willing to cut it off from the very beginning. But not being the case, I wouldn't see the point. I'm more upset about some habits of some people from my own country, and I'm not willing to ban them.
> 
> Exhibit C: Eating dogs in Korea. To me this sounds an odd thing to do - but looked at logically, it's no different from eating cows or frogs or snails. If people want to eat dogs, let them do so, say I. Do you agree? Yes, I do, in theory. You may be disgusted at the idea of eating dogs yourself. I, as a vegetarian, am disgusted at the idea of eating any of those animals you've mentioned. But I would never move a finger to ban other people from doing it.
> 
> Exhibit D: In the days of empire, missionaries went out and converted native populations around the world to Christianity - and wiped out the existing religions. Were they justified? How about converting the natives from cannibalism? Would that be justified? How about the conquistadores: following their cultural norms, or greedy genocides? In all of these cases (well, maybe not in the case of cannibalism) the point is that people are forced to act in accordance with a subjective ideal. I mean, God may be a very respectable concept, but some people don't believe, and that's their right. The cultural superiority of the Europeans over the native Americans, in the 16th. century onwards, is also absolutely debatable. As for cannibalism, I don't know how objectively wrong that concept is. I mean, what if you were starving in an isolated island? Would you give me your word you would never do it? I know I couldn't make any promises...
> 
> I suspect each of us has his own point at which a cultural practice becomes a detestable crime, which would imply that moral norms are not universal. Am I wrong? Well, if you are, then I am, too.
> 
> See you.


----------



## Kajjo

TRG said:


> The question is, "When do cultural habits become universal moral principles?", so it presumes the existence of universal moral principles. [...] A principle could only be universal if everyone, every single person on the earth, subscribed to it. This will never happen, so the short answer is never.


No, I do not agree. As far as I understood the title question, this threads revolves around the existence of a moral code common to all people. You tried to make your life simple by postulating that a "universal moral principle" does not allow individuals to differ or to willingly deviate from their principles. 

Imagine our own culture: Murder and rape are not accepted at all. It happens anyway. There are some perpetrators who feel other aims are more important in that instance of the offense. Please, just project this scenario to the whole world: Are there moral principles that are valid for all currently existing cultures? 

The participation of God is not necessary in this thread at all.

Kajjo


----------



## cherine

TRG said:


> God could reveal the ultimate truth to anyone or everyone at any time or people can hope to know ultimate truth in the next life. I'm not sure that answers your question, but it's all I can say.


He can, be He didn't and doesn't. I think it's up to us to discover this "ultimate truth" whatever that may mean  , and not waiting for a transcendental power to reveal it to us.


> I am in agreement that human beings do not come with built-in universal moral principles. The question is, "When do cultural habits become universal moral principles?", so it presumes the existence of universal moral principles, which I have characterized as "ultimate truth". *A principle could only be universal if everyone, every single person on the earth, subscribed to it. This will never happen, so the short answer is never.* The only way this could happen is by the intervention of an all powerful being. A universal moral principle could never come about by man, it would have to be something that transcends man. This would be God. So, if the question is as you stated, "whether there are universal moral principles", the answer is only if there is a god, and maybe not even then.


Highlight's mine. This is exactly what most of the participants in this thread are trying to say in different ways. I don't see what more there's left to say about this.
As for God's intervention... well, even God isn't a universal principle. Not everyone in this universe believe there's a god/God, so there's no way we can hope there will be ever a universal agreement between all people upon one matter.
Unless you're trying to say that the absence of a universal agreement is, in itself, a proof of the absence of a god in this universe. Then I disagree with you, because I don't think that the creator of a _*diverse*_ universe would make us all think and/or act the same way; thus contradicting the very diversity of His creation. 


gaer said:


> So there are no universals in the area of morality, no matter how defined.
> End of discussion.


I fully agree with you on this.


> On the other hand, those who believe that there is some kind of universal power, spirit, force, connection that we might call God, Allah or The Great All—no attempt at humor here—will suggest that Right and Wrong, although we may not be able to define them or even understand them, nevertheless exist.


I believe in God, but I also believe that there's no such thing as "universal" anything. I don't think there's a single thing that's agreed upon, or considered, the same way by all the human beings.


----------



## TRG

Kajjo said:


> No, I do not agree. As far as I understood the title question, this threads revolves around the existence of a moral code common to all people. You tried to make your life simple by postulating that a "universal moral principle" does not allow individuals to differ or to willingly deviate from their principles.
> 
> Imagine our own culture: Murder and rape are not accepted at all. It happens anyway. There are some perpetrators who feel other aims are more important in that instance of the offense. Please, just project this scenario to the whole world: Are there moral principles that are valid for all currently existing cultures?
> 
> The participation of God is not necessary in this thread at all.
> 
> Kajjo


 
I'm not sure I understand the question then. Are we talking about the adoption of moral principles (codes of behavior) on a country by country basis where the adoption is by majority rule? So you would say that if all the countries of the world have adopted some law by majority rule that it would then be considered a universal moral principle?  What does universal mean?


----------



## Venezuelan_sweetie

Seems like you guys had a lot of fun in here during the weekend... 

There are very interesting opinions floating around, but this one really called my attention: 





Kajjo said:


> (...) Imagine our own culture: Murder and rape are not accepted at all. It happens anyway. There are some perpetrators _who feel other aims are more important in that instance of the offense_. Please, just project this scenario to the whole world: Are there moral principles that are valid for all currently existing cultures? (...)


I agree with this. Just, let's think it over. Would you say raping and killing are cultural habits where you are from? I'm sure most of us would reply with a loud and clear "Noooo...!", perhaps even with a gesture of repulsion on the face. But, is it not true that in most of our countries, there are considerable amounts of individuals practicing such horrid things? (Notice, I'm using the word "_horrid_". Doesn't it sort of show my point of view on the matter right away? Sure the perpetrators don't find those things "horrid", or at least find reasonings to justify them)

My point is, no matter what the accepted moral principles in our cultural milieu are, we will always choose which habits and principles we want to have. True, the natural trend is to embrace those that are accepted by our community (most people want to _*fit in*_, right?), but once again, we do have murderers and rapists all over the world, despite commonly accepted moral principles, legal restrictions, social rejection, or whatsoever our culture offers in order to discourage the perpetrators from those actions, don't we?

So, the way I see it, no matter how fair and valuable we may consider our cultural habits, moral principles, or other points of view that lead to certain behaviors, the deal is that they are not standard, not even inside our own cultural realm. Don't you think that's already a proof of how impossible it is, to find something universal within the moral principles field?



cherine said:


> As for God's intervention... well, even God isn't a universal principle. Not everyone in this universe believe there's a god/God, so there's no way we can hope there will be ever a universal agreement between all people upon one matter. (...) I believe in God, but I also believe that there's no such thing as "universal" anything. I don't think there's a single thing that's agreed upon, or considered, the same way by all the human beings.


I'm a believer, too. And I share your point of view in the "universal" matter, as well. Perhaps this would leave my point clearer: if we cannot hold the same view of God (not even agreeing in the *existance* of one -or several), we cannot share the same international language, we cannot have identical laws for every country, we cannot embrace the same type of government, we cannot belong to the same political wing, we cannot handle economy in the same way, we cannot even spell things the same way in English (AE vs. BE spelling), then why in the world are we arguing about worldwide moral principles, or at least principles that favour intervention in other people's business? (Note: _people_ in its collective sense).

When do cultural habits become universal moral principles? Well, maybe the day national languages and regional dialects disappear, and we all speak the same language, worship the same God(s), are ruled by the same Governor, have no national frontiers and live happily ever after. Meanwhile, my principles are my principles, I respect yours, and expect you to respect mine --with no mutual intervention.


----------



## Kajjo

TRG said:


> I'm not sure I understand the question then. Are we talking about the adoption of moral principles (codes of behavior) on a country by country basis where the adoption is by majority rule? So you would say that if all the countries of the world have adopted some law by majority rule that it would then be considered a universal moral principle?  What does universal mean?


Well, I would not focus on countries but on cultures. If in _every_ culture the moral imperative would be to cover your genitals, I would call that a universal moral principle (it is not the case, of course). The term _universal_ is bound to cause misunderstandings and might not be the best term. 

As far as I understood the title question of this thread, we could rephrase it as: "Are there moral principles that are shared by all human cultures?" We should also clearly distinguish morals from democratic laws, behaviour of dictators or temporary situations in certain countries. This question is not about "how it is done at the moment" but about "how people really feel about certain moral issues". We should further exclude aspects of power, control, economy ... we look at morals at the moment.

Kajjo


----------



## Kajjo

Venezuelan_sweetie said:


> No matter how fair and valuable we may consider our cultural habits, moral principles, or other points of view that lead to certain behaviors, the deal is that they are not standard, not even inside our own cultural realm. Don't you think that's already a proof of how impossible it is, to find something universal within the moral principles field?


No, I do not think so. We should clearly distinguish the _existence_ of a moral code from the _compliance_ to this code.

First, many "sinners" (in the sense of violating the moral code set by their own culture) are aware of acting against their own moral code or at least against the society's moral code. They act on behalf of greater, more urgent interests, e.g. money, power, sex. They consciously break the moral code for whatever reasons, but they do not deny the existence of morals. Many of them feel guilty, many repeat the sin anyway. Secondly, even if some individuals of a society do not accept certain moral values for whatever reasons, this does not take away the morals from the society.

Morals are in permanent change, and if very many people question certain moral commandments, these issues do change over time. For example, having sex before marriage turned from forbidden to accepted behaviour.

Again, as I stated before, I do not believe in the existence of universal moral codes, but my opinion is not based on philosophical or religious grounds, but on the heterogenity and variety of human cultures and morals. Natural behaviour is not based on absolute and universal principles, but on applying the right principle in the right situation. The idea of absolute principles is contrary to reality and survival, as well as contrary to permanent change and adaption.

Kajjo


----------



## Venezuelan_sweetie

Kajjo said:


> They consciously break the moral code for whatever reasons, but they do not deny the existence of morals. Many of them feel guilty, many repeat the sin anyway.


 It depends...


> Secondly, even if some individuals of a society do not accept certain moral values for whatever reasons, this does not take away the morals from the society


Interesting. However, I agree only in part. Have you ever had the chance of having a talk with a pederast? A considerable amount of people would consider that behavior absolutely and unquestionably wrong --but not necessarily the perpetrator, or even the victim, if the behavior has affected him/her in a certain way. 

Even though we take some certain values from our own context, I just think that moral values/principles are too deeply ingrained within ourselves to be accepted and considered proper by everyone else. Why should they, anyway? Sure, I hold some values that I wish more people shared, like respecting other people's lives and right to express themselves, the importance of spending time with one's children, taking marriage bonds seriously, the order of priorities in life, or others, but that doesn't mean that I would seek for 'converting' others to my side of the pool! Also, there might be some certain values that you and I share, but does that mean those values are universal, or even standard?

Who decides which are the "right" values, then? Who is entitled of drawing the lines and setting those standards, then? I'm sorry, but accepting those lines can actually be drawn and must be accepted sounds a little risky to me...


> Morals are in permanent change, and if very many people question certain *moral commandments*, these issues do change over time.


 Moral commandments? As in, a *rule*? Well, either I'm noticing a slight contradiction in here, or I just don't quite share your view... Which would be no surprise, since I don't regularly share my views with other people. I'm rather a black sheep, who is pleasantly safe from being sheared...  


> For example, having sex before marriage turned from forbidden to accepted behaviour.


 Typical example, yet so confusing. The moral view on that matter is not quite standard. A widely accepted behavior in your homeland, perhaps, but yet, the *moral* view is not the same for everybody, nor I believe it would ever be...


> Again, as I stated before, I do not believe in the existence of universal moral codes, but my opinion is not based on philosophical or religious grounds, but on the heterogenity and variety of human cultures and morals.


 Exactly my point. That's what I had on mind, back in my first post (on Friday).

There are some other things I would like to add, but I believe this is already too much for one single post...


----------



## Kajjo

Venezuelan_sweetie said:


> Have you ever had the chance of having a talk with a pederast?


Exactly. _Many of them feel guilty_ means: Some do not feel guilty. I thought I covered that implicitly.



> Also, there might be some certain values that you and I share, but does that mean those values are universal, or even standard?


Certainly not. In some cultures a specific moral code might be standard, which is in another culture unthinkable.



> Moral commandments? As in, a *rule*? Well, either I'm noticing a slight contradiction in here, or I just don't quite share your view...


I just meant it as a specific point of the moral codex of a society. Examples could be "always cover your genitals" or "abstain from pre-marital sex". Morals commandments should be seen as part of a culture, not as part of individuals. Morals are about "How do others expect me to behave? How will others receive my behaviour?". 



> I'm rather a black sheep, who is pleasantly safe from being sheared...


I guess there are people around who like black sheep -- or wool.

Kajjo


----------



## Athaulf

Kajjo said:


> Well, I would not focus on countries but on cultures. If in _every_ culture the moral imperative would be to cover your genitals, I would call that a universal moral principle (it is not the case, of course). The term _universal_ is bound to cause misunderstandings and might not be the best term.
> 
> As far as I understood the title question of this thread, we could rephrase it as: "Are there moral principles that are shared by all human cultures?" We should also clearly distinguish morals from democratic laws, behaviour of dictators or temporary situations in certain countries. This question is not about "how it is done at the moment" but about "how people really feel about certain moral issues". We should further exclude aspects of power, control, economy ... we look at morals at the moment.



I would argue that there are indeed some basic norms of behavior that are universally accepted throughout the world. The ones I would definitely recognize as such are those related to the notions of personal property and trade. People will always defend their possessions (unless intimidated or overpowered, of course) and consider those who don't respect other people's personal possessions as thieves and robbers deserving of punishment. They will also have the same basic notions of what constitutes a fair trade (as opposed to fraud, extortion, etc.). 

For example, I'm pretty sure that anywhere in the world, if you try to snatch someone's purse (or whatever else is locally used to carry valuables) or burn someone's house, you'll get pretty much an identical reaction. Also, whenever people from entirely different cultures make their first contact, they are capable of instantly establishing trade, even before they've learned more than a few words of each others' languages. Thus, it's pretty clear that some basic notions of a fair exchange of possessions must be universal throughout the world.

It is of course a controversial question whether there are any other such universal norms. But either way, I think that the standpoint of total relativism of all norms is not defensible -- not because I would postulate some unquestionable norms as a part of my belief system, but because I find it to be empirically false, since there indeed seem to be some norms, however basic, that are universally accepted in practice.


----------



## cuchuflete

Athaulf's points are accurate in terms of universal, or extremely widespread social practices.

Does that make them "moral principles"?  I think not.  They may be universal, or so close to that that we might have to scramble to find a few minor exceptions.  I think they fall very comfortably into the category of cultural habits.  The thread title asks when these may come to be classified as moral principles.  Wide diffusion doesn't make something moral in my thought process.  By that logic, eating and defecating would be moral.


----------



## Venezuelan_sweetie

Kajjo said:


> Morals commandments should be seen as part of a culture, not as part of individuals.


 Still don't like the word "commandments", but let's just take it, for the sake of the discussion  The rest of your sentence is precisely what I believe in. Perhaps that's why some of us cringe whenever we find endless (and pointless?) threads about generalities...  


> I guess there are people around who like black sheep -- or wool.


 Oh, you bet! But in the beliefs matter, it would resemble what we call a "witch hunting"... You know, prosecuting what you fear, and fears being as that Hollywood quote goes: "You always fear what you don't understand" 


Athaulf said:


> I would argue that there are indeed some basic norms of behavior that are universally accepted throughout the world. (...)


You make an interesting point in here. Thanks for the thoughtful remarks, Athaulf. I'll take some time to consider them, I promise.



> I find it to be empirically false, since there indeed seem to be some norms, however basic, that are universally accepted in practice


 I don't know if the fitting word here is "norms", but I'll be back with an answer soon


----------



## Kajjo

Athaulf said:


> I would argue that there are indeed some basic norms of behavior that are universally accepted throughout the world. The ones I would definitely recognize as such are those related to the notions of personal property and trade. People will always defend their possessions (unless intimidated or overpowered, of course) and consider those who don't respect other people's personal possessions as thieves and robbers deserving of punishment. They will also have the same basic notions of what constitutes a fair trade (as opposed to fraud, extortion, etc.).


I tend to agree somewhat. However, I am curious how you argue about the following issues:

1. Fair trade is seen quite differently.  Imagine ten people working hard for a day, each one doing the best he can, but all differing quite a lot from each other. Should all earn the same? I believe there are pretty varying opinions here, e.g. by Christian faith, communistic ideology or capitalistic meritocracy. Is "fair" really being seen equally by all cultures and all people? Does the social environment influences what someone believes to be fair?

2. You could argue that every mother will protect their children from bodily harm. However, there is such a variety of different "rites of passage" or "receipt in community" in which the child is actually hurt or mutilated, and such rites are absolutely accepted, even if other cultures view them as horrible. Many basic, natural feelings might be overridden by cultural and moral values.



> I think that the standpoint of total relativism of all norms is not defensible


I agree somewhat. See Post 27. 

Kajjo


----------



## maxiogee

winklepicker said:


> I hope you'd agree that me and my wife having afternoon tea at 4pm is a fairly harmless cultural habit. On the other hand, I hope we'd all agree that mass murder (as practised by Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot etc) is just plain wrong - in all times and in all places, irrespective of cultural context.
> 
> So there is a continuum with me having tea at one end and Stalin wiping out kulaks at the other:
> 
> WP & his Missis drinking tea----------????----------Stalin killing kulaks.



You are holding the end of a piece of string in each hand.
In your left hand you have you having afternoon tea at 4pm.
In your right hand you have Stalin killing kulaks.

You ask us if the strings are joined somewhere.

I think that you are right in calling your tea ritual a harmless cultural habit.
I don't see anything either 'harmless', or 'cultural' or 'habitual' about Stalin's killing of the kulaks.

You have hold of two unconnected pieces of string.


----------



## Kajjo

cuchuflete said:


> Athaulf's points are accurate in terms of universal, or extremely widespread social practices. Does that make them "moral principles"?  I think not.  [...] By that logic, eating and defecating would be moral.


Well, I believe Athaulf's points are quite interesting insofar as there actually appears to be a continuous spectrum between instinct, natural reaction and possible moral principles. In many cases the moral principles contradict the natural response to certain events. 

Athaulf is certainly wrong if he believes that the reaction to "someone burning down another one's house" is the same around the world. Defense and revenge are the natural reactions, no mercy for the perpetrator. Moral principles set barriers -- both to the ffense and the reaction. And this reaction and the moral principles it's based on, strongly differs from culture to culture.

You are right, Cuchuflete, that we need to define what we call "moral principle". As so often: lack of definition.

Kajjo


----------



## Athaulf

cuchuflete said:


> Athaulf's points are accurate in terms of universal, or extremely widespread social practices.
> 
> Does that make them "moral principles"?  I think not.  They may be universal, or so close to that that we might have to scramble to find a few minor exceptions.  I think they fall very comfortably into the category of cultural habits.  The thread title asks when these may come to be classified as moral principles.  Wide diffusion doesn't make something moral in my thought process.  By that logic, eating and defecating would be moral.



But now we get to the  problem of the ever-elusive definition of what gives moral content to norms. From the apparent universality of some basic norms, one could hypothesize that this is not due to accident. Maybe the urge to follow and enforce such norms is inherent to most human beings just like the urge to eat; maybe the lack of such norms makes life impossible so that a society not enforcing them is doomed to perish very soon. If either of these hypotheses is true, I think that it would be at least somewhat justified to consider such norms as a universal moral code (very rudimentary, vague, and incomplete, to be sure, but still non-empty). As for your last remark, the difference is that eating has no inherent connection with judging people's actions as justified or unjustified, which is what morality is mostly about. 

In my opinion, this is the best possible attempt to find a basis for morality in anything other than religion or metaphysical speculation (the latter being equally fictional and superstitious if one takes a skeptical point of view). Of course, the word "moral" itself is often taken to imply a religious or metaphysical basis, but in that case, "universal morality" must be an oxymoron, except perhaps if someone wants to argue that most of the people in the world live grossly immoral lives because they don't share the devotion to his religious or metaphysical system (which some indeed do).


----------



## Athaulf

Kajjo said:


> I tend to agree somewhat. However, I am curious how you argue about the following issues:
> 
> 1. Fair trade is seen quite differently.  Imagine ten people working hard for a day, each one doing the best he can, but all differing quite a lot from each other. Should all earn the same? I believe there are pretty varying opinions here, e.g. by Christian faith, communistic ideology or capitalistic meritocracy. Is "fair" really being seen equally by all cultures and all people? Does the social environment influences what someone believes to be fair?



The more complex the social and economic arrangements are, the more they are based on norms that are evidently not universal, but rather culture-specific. The basic norms I had in mind are very rudimentary and directly apply only to simple, straightforward situations. Before I explain their relevance for your example, I'll summarize my argument once more for the sake of clarity.

When certain sorts of disputes and confrontations occur, an uninterested observer will often form a judgment about which side is defending its legitimate interest and should be supported in its struggle, and which side is a wrongdoer who should be feared, avoided, despised, or perhaps even physically punished. This is essentially a moral judgment, since we're talking about a disinterested observer who has no stakes in this concrete dispute. When it comes to many different sorts of disputes, typical neutral observers from different cultures will form radically different judgments in this regard (for example, imagine the reactions in different cultures to a confrontation between parents and their child who is trying to avoid an arranged marriage); this is certainly a very strong argument in favor of relativism when it comes to those issues. But in certain types of disputes and confrontations, judgments of neutral observers will not vary across cultures. 

Imagine a situation where A and B arrange a voluntary trade as individuals of equal status and subsequently, it turns out that A has defrauded B by giving him something far less valuable than what was promised, skillfully and deceitfully disguised at the moment of trade. I don't think that there is a single culture anywhere in the world where a typical neutral observer would form a judgment other than that A was unfair; if nothing else, such actions would everywhere result in A being shunned as a fraud in practice.   This might not be much, but it does show that at least some rudimentary norms aren't subject to variation across cultures -- compare that with the above example of an arranged marriage.

Of course, when social, economic, and political relations become complex, they are increasingly based on social conventions. What conditions of employment and renting are considered fair, who is right in non-trivial property disputes of various kinds, what claims one can have over things outside one's immediate physical control, etc. -- the answers to such questions indeed vary greatly across cultures. But I would say that those basic, rudimentary universal norms are still important even in modern, extremely complex societies. People still base their everyday behavior on the expectation that everyone around will follow them, and get greatly distressed or even react violently whenever they are broken. I don't think that this is different from the situation anywhere in the world, despite the fact that the culture does seem to greatly influence the feeling of what is fair in more complex arrangements. 

Furthermore, since you mention the example of communism, I would add that in my opinion, this ideology has resulted in very similar failures across a wide range of countries with very different cultures exactly because its theory makes certain assumptions fundamentally contradicting those basic universal norms. This leads to another important point: many people have preached ideologies contrary to the universal human norms, but no society, or even a relatively small group of people, has ever implemented them in practice except as a disastrous failure. But now we are getting to a different controversial topic.



> 2. You could argue that every mother will protect their children from bodily harm. However, there is such a variety of different "rites of passage" or "receipt in community" in which the child is actually hurt or mutilated, and such rites are absolutely accepted, even if other cultures view them as horrible. Many basic, natural feelings might be overridden by cultural and moral values.


The modern view of children is certainly a novel curiosity when observed from a historical perspective. There is no doubt that most of the norms in this area in any society are pure social construction, even when it comes to situations raising extremely intensive emotions. For example, losing a child is today considered as an enormous tragedy from which many people never recover, whereas even in the fairly recent past, losing half of one's children before they would reach adulthood was entirely usual and expected. Or to point out a far greater extreme, the theocratic authorities in the old Israel had to resort to campaigns of repression to prevent people from voluntarily engaging in rituals of child sacrifice to Moloch. 

Generally, I would say that it's natural for people that they want to shape their children into what is considered proper and esteemed in their social surrounding; for this goal, they normally don't spare efforts and resources. But it certainly isn't naturally (i.e. biologically) given that this shaping has to have the form of gentle, loving, and tender care that parents are supposed to provide nowadays; in many cultures, this process is extremely savage and cruel, as you point out. Thus, this definitely isn't an area where I would expect to find any norms that don't vary greatly across cultures. But note that I have previously emphasized that the set of universal norms is undoubtedly incomplete in the sense that it doesn't provide any answers to many important questions, this being only one of many such questions.


----------



## Athaulf

Kajjo said:


> Well, I believe Athaulf's points are quite interesting insofar as there actually appears to be a continuous spectrum between instinct, natural reaction and possible moral principles. In many cases the moral principles contradict the natural response to certain events.



I would say that when socially constructed moral principles contradict the natural responses, it usually leads to those principles being widely, if not completely disregarded in practice. Nobody ever turns the other cheek unless intimidated into submission. 



> Athaulf is certainly wrong if he believes that the reaction to "someone burning down another one's house" is the same around the world. Defense and revenge are the natural reactions, no mercy for the perpetrator. Moral principles set barriers -- both to the ffense and the reaction. And this reaction and the moral principles it's based on, strongly differs from culture to culture.


What strongly differs is the exact mechanism by which the perpetrator is supposed to be dealt with after the act; what I had in mind are the reactions of victims on the spot and the judgments of people who observe the concrete event. A fully relativist standpoint would imply that we could expect to find a culture in which the perpetrator of a whimsical house-burning is normally honored and respected, and the victim condemned in case of resisting him; that we might find a place where someone who assaults a capricious arsonist to stop him in the act would be viewed with fear, condemnation, and disgust identical to those shown in our culture towards someone who assaults random people in the streets.

Of course, when it comes to the required procedures for applying the defensive force and (especially) for extracting revenge, there are huge differences between cultures. But the very fact that one party will be universally recognized as victim and another one as the wrongdoer cannot be ignored. However rudimentary and incomplete, it does establish an empirical disproof of total relativism in certain matters.


----------



## TRG

It would seem that Athaulf is speaking of survival instinct which is not so much of a cultural phenomenon as an intrinsic behavior that every living species has. You do not acquire this behavior as a result of your membership in any group, you are born with it. This makes it hard to explain pacifists then doesn't it. I suspect that not too many pacifists have ever been put to the test of choosing between their life and that of someone else.


----------



## agliagli

Thomsen said:


> No one believes that taking care of your children is morally wrong.


 
Hum... this was not always the case, even in Western history, was it?  

It takes some time, I think, to settle new values and make them reach a common agreement within the SAME cultural area. How much time will it take to reach a universal agreement?   I wonder...


----------



## winklepicker

TRG said:


> I suspect that not too many pacifists have every been put to the test of choosing between their life and that of someone else.


 
Some, though. I'm thinking of Quaker stretcher bearers in World War One. They wouldn't kill, but they put their own lives at risk - and died in droves.


----------



## Kajjo

Athaulf said:


> I would say that when socially constructed moral principles contradict the natural responses, it usually leads to those principles being widely, if not completely disregarded in practice.


No, I do not think so. Very many moral principles and cultural habits contradict natural responses, e.g. nearly all sexual morals or many rites of passage. In many cultures those habits are followed quite closely. Our modern world tends to privately ignore much more than other cultures do. However, you are certainly right, that probably in all times and all cultures there have been more rules than compliance.

I would suggest to separate moral principles from natural responses like the desire to  belong to a group, to protect your family, or even more basic to survive, to eat, drink, have sex. Morals are in a certain way _opposite_ to such basic requirements: Morals regulate how a society behaves as a whole and how an individual fits into such a society. _Individuals_ trespassing  rules is sort of normal under such conditions, the _majority_ makes the codex work and sinners receive a means of punishment.

Kajjo


----------



## Nunty

Are moral principles the same as rules? I don't think so. Rules may be based on moral principles, but I think the latter come first and are of a different order.


----------



## Kajjo

Nun-Translator said:


> Are moral principles the same as rules? I don't think so. Rules may be based on moral principles, but I think the latter come first and are of a different order.


You are right. Rules are a way to express moral principles. The notion and comprehension that killing is wrong, qualifies as a moral principle. The rule "You shall not kill!" expresses this principle in an easy-to-grasp way. In religious context you call these rules commandments, because you believe they originate from God. Anyway, I just used the word "rule" to describe a single issue of a complex moral codex.

Kajjo


----------

