There are fundamental moral principles, but they are hard for us to see and understand, though we do our best. Sometimes, it is pretty clear how they apply, and there's nothing to talk about. Other times, it's not at all clear, and reasonable people can disagree.

This being the case, there's just no point in talking about a universal moral code. There's just too much disagreement among reasonable people about what that code might be, and the work involved in anticipating what might happen is just not worth it.

In other words, there are many "universal" moral "codes". One of the great tragedies of history are the number of immoral battles fought to establish which of two purportedly universal moral codes should be dominant.

I believe there is a powerful inherant desire for morality within people, and would give that desire universality. But how we express and codify that desire, well, that's the problem.

So, my problem is with either the term universal or the term code. I can accept the idea of universal morality or of moral codes, but can't get to all three at once without envisioning world war III in the process.

Universal Code
 

I checked their website and it didn't say anything about a code. I hear Munich is good, though.

People also lock their cars when they leave them on the street. Just because it hasn't been stolen yet doesn't mean you don't have to take precautions.

I believe in a moral code. It would be nice if it applied more often than not, but I don't believe that any code can be applied universally.

To take your earlier precept: it is immoral to kill innocent people. What about bombs and artillery? Should we eschew their use because they also kill innoncents? On an even more basic level, who gets to decide who is innocent?

Morality is an aspiration, and, I believe, part of what makes us human. Call it instinct, call it soul, call it the UMC if you must. But the truth is that morality is always applied based upon a balancing of factors.

Morality cannot exist without a higher power
 

If you don't think that religious Jews think that morality is applied on a relative and not an absolute basis, I suggest you try reading a bit about the Talmud and the Mishnahs. Or simply contemplate the fact that the Jews don't really have a concept of Hell.

I don't recall the Ten Commandments having a stated set of exceptions or saying Thou shall not murder. I believe the commandment is Thou Shall not Kill.

The original hebrew was "ratsach" (I don't know how to do Hebrew characters here). Of course, none of us here speak a 5000 year old form of Hebrew, so whether the prohibition on ratsach means we should not "kill", "murder", "prey upon" or "tease mercilessly", I don't know. I believe there are scholars who can debate this question at great length.

See, e.g., Talmud; Mishnahs.

Thus, this board serves no purpose and we'd all do much better to discuss fisting on the fb.

Both. The murdering is an absolute no-no. Why? because its incurable. The stealing, the banging of the neighbor's wife... That's all up to the audience. That stuff can be fixed/insured, etc... Nobody dies from it. So while you ought not to do it, its not the end of the world if you do. That, in my mind, makes it a principle.

A can of warm keystone Light to anyone who says prohibitions against theft in modern criminal codes makes that commandment necessarily "code."

Wow. You'd have someone fixed for banging the neighbor's wife. How Sharia of you.

Shaaaaar--- aaaaarrrrrr-- aaarrrri- a, Ba-yay-beeee. Oh, wait, you probably didn;t mean the.... nevermind.

Morality cannot exist without a higher power
 

On this I know you are wrong. You should try reading a bit about the Talmud and the Mishnahs yourself. Ask any rabbi about moral relativity and they will tell you that morality is definitely not relative. There is one God, and his law applies to everyone. Different groups of people do not live under different law. What is moral and just in Botswana, is moral and just in souther Alabama. Jewish scholars may argue what is moral and what is not, but morality is not relative.

What the hell does this mean?

Where the Ten Commandments originally written in English? I have heard a few different Jewish scholars say that the word in Hebrew that is often translated as Kill is probably more apropriately translated as murder.

I never said the Ten Commandments had exceptions. When did I say that?

When someone posts to this board, they are implying they believe in a Universal Moral Code. If we all did not really think one existed this board would not make any sense. If morality is relative what is the point of this board? We are always arguing that something is right or wrong. But if morality is relative: something can be right and wrong at the same time. I could think aborting a fetus is murder and you could think it is not. You could think outlawing abortion is the right thing to do and I could disagree with you. But unless we agree that there is one right or wrong answer to all these questions arguing about it is absurd. If there is no UMC then everything we discuss could have many right answers.

Every single poster to this board believe in a UMC, has assumed there is a UMC when they have made their posts, but argues with me when I say there is a UMC. It is beyond ubsurd.

Every time you say something is wrong, or something is immoral you are assuming there is a UMC or your statement makes no sense.

If there are different "moral codes" who are you top say that "immoral battles" were fought to institute these codes. Every time you use the world immoral you imply that there is a UMC.

Yes mankind has been struggling with it for centuries but it is an important struggle to have.

You guys get so caught up in the word Code. But there is no difference between a universal code and universal principles. Universal morality implies a universal code. Actions can be either moral or immoral. If what is moral or immoral is universal, and there is an infinite number of factual circumstances to judge, then there is a infinite number of moral laws.

If you don't want to call it a code. Fine. But it seems like a pretty appropriate term to me.

That is why I call it a code because it is long a complicated. It is infinitely complex. But in every factual situation you can argue if it is wrong or right. Like we could argue about the firebombing of WWII. Was that moral? Some people think that it was OK because the bombing helped destroy the German war machine that was killing millions of innocent people, and would continue to kill innocent people. Other people think that killing civilians is never OK. If morality is relative, arguing about is uselss. What was moral for FDR might not be moral to you.

But if you think Morality is universal and not relative then you can critisize FDR and argue with someone whether or not the bombings were moral. Morality is complicated, and different fact situations require you to make exception to broad principles, but that does mean morality is relative. It just means it is complicated. For every fact situation there is an answer, no matter how complicated, which means it is not relative.

If you think that female circumscission is always wrong you think that morality is not relative. If you think that female circumscission is OK to save the life of the women, that does not mean you think morality is relative, you just think the rules have to be really complicated to address all the possible factual situations. If you think it is OK in Georgia to have female circumscission to save the life of a women, but not in Rwanda then you are a moral relativist. But if you think the rule applies universally, even though such a rule is an exception to the all female circumsicission is wrong rule, you are not a moral relativist.

Who do you think is disagreeing with you, and on what grounds?

All I can say is, if this is what it takes to fill the moral void of Clinton's legacy, I can't even imagine what it's going to take to fill the moral void of the Bush years.

Can you take the pebble from my hand?
 

Caught in the language, are we? There is a moral urge and instinct that finds expression; it is common to most of the human race, but there clearly are exceptions. Are there moral rules, principals or codes that transcend time and place? Such as the 10 commandments?

Sure. Thou Shalt Not Ratsach.

Unfortunately, none of us know what Ratsach means.

One of the limitations on this discussion is that we (well, most of us) are trained in the law, and not in philosophy.

Political experience and training encourages quick and facile responses to even the most difficult questions.

Legal training encourages somewhat deeper thinking, but also teaches heavy reliance on precedent, controlling authority, and arguments by analogy -- so we all struggle with topics like this one where there isn't such a clear structure for the argument.

The bottom line is that this whole discussion is just a (slightly) more sophisticated version of those endless, late night, "why are we here" bull sessions from high school or college. It goes nowhere, resolves nothing, and is not all that interesting.

I mean really, Spanky: "Every time you say something is wrong, you presuppose a UMC or your statement is meaningless."
That is complete horseshit.

Even if we were all trained and skilled in philosophical discourse, we would merely be equipped with better tools to go around in circles at a slightly deeper level. So let's not.

S_A_M

Of course, back then, bull sessions were also undertaken in a more conducive state.

Or, in other words, Wow! Oh, man! Like, Wow!

Apropos of nothing, have you used this guy as your avatar yet?

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/...aincaveman.jpg

No! Next up!

Morality cannot exist without a higher power
 

There is one God and His law applies to everyone. That is not the same as saying that we know what that law is, or that the law is immutable.

You have said a number of times that it is permissible to kill at times. And yet, the commandment admits of no exception. Even if one grants that the commandment proscribes only murder, then that means only that one cannot kill with intent.

Can you take the pebble from my hand?
 

Please. It's what hangs under the hindquarters of a male Rat.

Are you claiming your crucifixion of Jesus was an accident?

1) I never said I agree with the commandment. I have said that it is wrong to kill innocent people and there are exceptions to that rule.

2) As far as that commandment goes Jewish Scholars have argued for centuries about where is applies and where it does not. Just like the Constitution gurantees freedom of speech, the courts have ruled that you can't yell fire in a crowded theater. Jewish scholars have treated this commandment the same, and have debated when exceptions apply.

I have been ridiculed many times on this board for believing there is a UMC. Penske was critisized many times on this board for using the term UMC.

Even in this thread you refused to acknowledge a UMC, saying that there were only principles.

The discussion of a UMC came up before, and multiple people on this board argued with me at lenght whether or not it exists.

But if you know acknowledge there is a UMC, then I won't have to subjected to comments like "who are we to impose our values on the middle east", "it is crazy to think a democracy can work in the middle east" etc.

Please cite to where on this board you have been subjected to those comments.

That is complete "Horseshit". When you same something is wrong, you are assuming that we both agree what is right or wrong. If you say something is illegal, we can only argue whether something is illegal, if we both agree to the same laws. If there is more than one legal system we are using, then we can't debate the concept of what is illegal. If you are using the Saudi Arabian laws, and I am using the US legal system, something could be illegal and legal at the same time.

If you tell me something is "wrong" or "immoral" the implication is there are set rules to what are right and wrong and that we both are using the same rules. Otherwise what is wrong to you may be right to me. When you are telling me something is immoral or wrong you are assuming there is a moral code that we both have in common.

That is not complicated, and once you think about, it is obvious.

Morality cannot exist without a higher power
 

If by immutable, you mean it doesn't change. Then yes it is immutable. I never said that under Jewish philosophy we automatically know what it is, but the idea is that we all have a conscience that if we are true to then we can figure out what Gods laws are.

Jewish Scholars have been debating the Code for years, but they all agree that is unchanging, applies in every situation, and is universal.

You assume words like "wrong" and "immoral" have meaning beyond "illegal", but who gives those words this status?

Grasshopper, remember, words are words. Speaking, meaning, and doing are as different from each other as red, blue and yellow.

Someday, perhaps, you shall take the pebble from my hand. But not today.

Hank Chinaski is Crucifixion Denier
 

You can try to pass it off in us as often as you like, but it was your ancestors not mine who nailed him up. Even your nazi sympathizer Pope has acknowledged that fact.

Hmm, if I didn't know better, I'd swear you just said that these things are relative.

Morality cannot exist without a higher power
 

You are wrong about this.

Which ones. There have been many comments saying four things

1) Constant references to the UMC and what a stupid idea it is. Such references being made when we are discussing other subjects.

2) Comments directly criticising the UMC when we have been debating is directly (up to this point I think Penske and Hank - and maybe one or two other conservatives are the only other posters who have ever agreed there is a UMC).

3) comments saying that who are we to impose our values on the middle east

4) tying to create a democracy in Iraq or other middle eastern countrys is a bad idea because democracy is not suited for that region.

One, two and four mulitple times. Number three not so much recently. Do I really need to look this stuff up. You think my memory is faulty. Either I live in a complete fantasy world, or looking these up will be as easy as looking for debates on whether the war was a good idea, or whether Bush lied. Although I admit, I have never used the search function and have never looked for old statements so I don't know how easy it is.

Morality cannot exist without a higher power
 

That's just wrong.