Your English might not be perfect, Marcus, but your thoughts are clear as are your only partially answerable queries.

Conscious moral pursuits are indeed an evolutionary achievement, to my mind.
Natural laws emerge from careful observations passing through the funnel of conjecture and thence reason.

---

"Tiger! Tiger!...my mistake...I thought I was William Blake" ~Ogden Nash

Objective means having true existence. And that's what this is all about. We can't mix up what actually happens with what should happen. Not so long ago, many people thought smoking was not bad at all for our health. And that didn't keep smoking from being bad.

That's the difference between a prescriptive and a descriptive judgment.


IT IS TRUE THOUGH, that if there are no objective values, there is not such a thing as ''WHAT SHOULD BE''. In that case, prescriptive judgments wouldn't have any sense.



And now, what I wonder, is if in that case, in the case where there would not be objective values, would be legitimate to talk about ''better'' or ''worse''? Wouldn't that just mean ''diferent''?


I'm eager to know your points of view.

marcus_aurelius, if there are no objective laws that order what wines taste good and what bad, as--you'll no doubt have observed--there aren't, does that mean it is meaningless to discuss the taste of various wines with friends? Many people share a taste in wines even though no law forces them to, it is because they are alike. Similarly only similarity, no objective law, is necessary to make it meaningful for people to discuss their opinions on ethics.

---

The opposite of hatred is love; the opposite of tyranny is love; the opposite of censorship is love; the opposite of evil is love; the opposite of politics is love; the opposite of war is love; the opposite of god is love.–– Salman Rushdie
Broadly speaking, it is held that getting money is good and spending money is bad. Seeing that they are two sides of one transaction, this is absurd; one might as well maintain that keys are good, but keyholes are bad. Whatever merit there may be in the production of goods must be entirely derivative from the advantage to be obtained by consuming them. –Bertrand Russell
Never believe a liar. Papa, angry people burn our home.

This is a very contentious topic marcus_aurelius.
We may discuss wine, and, what I like, you may not, so, as you have said, there is no good, or bad. All comes down to our individual taste.
The only time that value is equated to wine is that what the majority of people will pay for a readily available variety at any given time, or, what an elite group of people will pay for an exclusive variety.

Morals (and ethics) have no monetary value, so the value, or lack of value, is in each and every individual, and, 'there is a level of acceptance' that is set down.
There are laws that are written for certain levels of morality.
For instance, we cannot have a 'good' pedophiles, rapists, murderers,etc. these crimes are all committed by people deprived of moral values.
Some of these laws will never change, but, some acts, once considered immoral, are now deemed acceptable by some, homosexuality is one.
Good morals can be taught in the home, at school, church, and in the community.
Teaching is no guarantee that you will uphold these values. There are incidences in the church which prove this, [this is only for an example, not to be judgemental, or enlarged upon].
The environment that you live/work in may corrupt you if you 'do not have the will to adhere to those teachings'.
People of good moral beliefs and action come from all walks of life, and these people invariably have other common values such as being compassionate, having and showing empathy, respect for others,etc.
We are also have a sense of what is right and wrong [which the majority of us are born with] and that could be attributed to our evolvement as humans. For instance, most of us would be horrified at the thought of hitting, say, our grandparents, as it would be instinctive to want to protect them, but, there are people in this world who would willingly kill their parents if there was money to be gained from it.
A person's conscience plays an important role in how they apply their 'moral values'. It can either over-ride those values, or, it can also act as a deterrent!!!
Today I read in the newspaper where a person stole two mobile phones. Bad person? We know stealing is wrong, so was this person bad?
Well, the punch line is that he did have moral values. On the phones he found pornographic material, so, he went to the nearest police station and handed in the phones so the police could catch the person[s] responsible. Yes, he did get charged with stealing, but, his obviously strong moral values influenced his decision.

---

RULES ARE FOR THE OBEYENCE OF FOOLS AND FOR THE GUIDENCE OF WISE MEN

Relatively speaking, of course. Deprived of 'our' moral values is more accurate.

Most (all?) structured societies sanction specific members to murder others on their behalf. If killing others were universally immoral it wouldn't happen under any circumstance; clearly it does.

To some theoretical extent paedophilia and rape are also relative. An isolated tribe in the depths of the Amazon will have a different moral perspective to 'us' about reproduction with a thirteen year old. Vast numbers still view women as inferior, and non consensual sex is (tragically) routine, the spectrum of moral values in this regard is diverse.

As uuaschbaer has said, good and bad morals boil down to which deeds an individual –for individual gain – can get away with in the context of the supporting society. A supporting society could be anything from a band of thieves to the most utopian nation, morality still comes down to the individual's place in a society.

To be clear, I'm simply putting forward the case for moral relativism and certainly not advocating murder, rape and paedophilia.

---

Arguing with a creationist is like playing chess with a pigeon. It'll knock over the pieces, crap on the board, and fly back to it's flock to claim victory.

This is a very interesting topic - but one that will produce many different (but not necessarily opposing) views.

My opinion is that most 'morals' or 'moral laws' are tied up in the society - in some cultures, poligamy is acceptable and even expected, in some monogamy is insisted upon, in others polyandry is possible.

There are some that seem more 'universal' - "thou shalt not kill" has been mentioned - but there is the 'famous' situation of "a psycho is about to blow up a bus full of school kids. I can stop him, but only by killing him. Am I right to kill him?".

To my mind, there are a very few, very basic and broad, ethical 'laws' (though one cannot really have 'laws' in ethics, which is the subject of correct judgement). There are two versions of the old 'Golden Rule'

1. Try to treat others in the same way you would like others to treat you.

2. Try not to treat others in any way they could not accept easily.

But above even these is the 'Zero' maxim:

0. At any point of decision, choose the possibility that causes the least damage and does the most good, to; people (spiritually, mentally and physically), animals, plants, Nature in general, the planet and the universe.

This last, to my mind, is ethics. The willingness to follow rules and môres is morality.

---

Though lovers be lost, love shall not, and Death shall have no dominion. - Dylan Thomas

You can see apparent acts of selflessness throughout nature although I doubt many would think of them as moral (Walt Disney afficionados aside). It is only when social creatures are intelligent enough to recognise that fellow social creatures have the same needs and aspirations as themselves can a selfless act be deemed as moral. Perhaps the first (perhaps the only) moral rule is 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you'. I suspect it, or something like it has been voiced by others in history. The details of what is generally considered moral depends on the circumstances of ones upbringing. Since much of this may be the pure happenchance of geographical location, it is likely that a truly moral person may need to challenge the values of their society (attitudes to homosexuality, equality of women, caste systems or other social constraints). Perhaps it is necessary to stand up and protest once in a while to be a fully moral being.

---

"Millions long for immortality who don't know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon" Suzanne Ertz

---

FounDit says ..."An interesting topic. If there were no humans on the planet, there would be no values. Therefore, values cannot be objective since they would, of necessity, have been invented by humans".

I can't understand this statement and cannot accept it. Imagine a world without humans. In such a world would a mother bear allow a wolf to kill her cubs? Would not the values of natural law be well established here in the practice of stealth and courage.
Do correct me if I am wrong please.

You have just completely devalued your comments by adding that closing, condescending, stupid remark.

Let me try again and see if you can explain your position without rancour:

Would not a mother bear value the lives of her cubs? Would not a wolf value its life and therefore use stealth in its attack? Are these not values?

jacobusmaximus,

I regret that your value system encoded my response as condescending and stupid. I did not intend it that way at all.

I was genuinely expressing my condolences for your lack of ability to understand me.

If you will notice, the OP concerns itself with Moral Values. Bears and wolves have no morals, nor could they invent them; they also have no moral values.

As I stated, they have only instinctive values, those of survival and no more. They know neither good nor evil; right nor wrong, i.e. moral values.

If you wish to state that survival itself is a value, fine, but it is not a moral value.
Also note that it is you, the human, who defines it as a value, not the bear or wolf.

I can not state the matter any more plainly.

If you still do not understand my position, I fail to see how I can help you.

---

A great many people will think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. ~ William James ~