Original Sin and...

[_subgenius]

I propose that morality is developed from intrinsic notions of good and bad.

Is flying an airplane into a building good or bad?
I think you and I would say it was bad.
But not everybody would say it was bad.

Now which one is operating contrary to their intrinsic notion of what is good and bad, them or us?
Well, we would say "them" and they would say "us".

I guess that means notions of good and bad are not intrinsic.

you are confusing the subtleties and nuances of culture with the issue at hand.
Just because there are two seemingly different views of the same event does not mean that both of those views are correct.

However, both viewers in your example above share the same morality....fighting against evil and sacrifice for a just cause is "good".....senseless violence and the killing of innocent people is "bad".

Let's say you were brought up as the eldest son of a wealthy cotton farmer in Alabama in the 1700's.
Would you find slavery intrinsically good or intrinsically bad?
Well, I think your upbringing would determine wether or not you viewed slavery as a good or bad thing, not some genetically inbuilt sense of good or bad.

again, you are depending on cultural nuances for the determination of good and bad. If we consider your example of slavery then we must consider that there is a deduction required for it to be "good"...which was the case for it to become "bad" today. (ironically, many consider the "thou shalt not steal" commandment to about slavery, to be correctly translated as thou shalt not kidnap - all the other commandments are "capital" crimes, the jews just experienced slavery, etc..).
So, if one's culture determined slavery was good then how did that come about? chance? luck of the draw? At some point there was someone, a lot of someones, who were not being raised with the idea of slavery being "good"...yet you are proposing that it was considered "good" and morally correct. So, how did this transformation begin? If slavery is not intrinsically good then it is not intrinsically bad either...which means it is a fad that can come and go...that its origins and implementation is based on something incoherent...something unpredictable....something easily lost in time if there is no "tradition" to determine that fad as being either bad or good.
so which is it? slavery is neither good nor bad, but rather just a matter of social convenience?...ok, then.
Or
consider slavery as being intrinsically bad...consider that as being determined by the fact that it is natural, it is intrinsic, it is a transcendent truth that every single human being considers it better to be free than to be a slave (all things being equal) - that is to say, if a human being is not raised, not culturally influenced, as a slave nor as a free person they would naturally be inclined towards freedom and not slavery - is that a reasonable proposition?
Did the culture of slavery have slaves being raised hopeful that they would continue to be slaves? Given the generations of the slavery tradition, why would any slave contradict their circumstance if all they had ever known, culturally, was slavery? How could you convince a single slave to have the desire to be free? Why would they have a desire to contradict the only life and circumstance they have ever known?

Do you think Adolf Hitler's intrinsic sense of good and bad was the same as yours?

Yes i do think that, because knowing the difference between good and bad and choosing to do otherwise is not impossible.

[_SteelHead]

Sorry sub,
But in some cultures it was (and in a few places still is) perfectly moral to kill strangers and then eat them, and sale what you didn't eat at market.

The idea of universal, transcendent, intrinsic morality is a myth.

[_madeleine]

Sorry sub,
But in some cultures it was (and in a few places still is) perfectly moral to kill strangers and then eat them, and sale what you didn't eat at market.

The idea of universal, transcendent, intrinsic morality is a myth.

Jumping in uninvited. Even cannibalistic societies have moral rules for when it is OK to kill, or not. It isn't an all out kill and eat whoever and whenever you like. It is also rather ambiguous as to when it is OK to eat a human in our own society, ie, if you're in a life or death situation, and you eat your dead companion(s), people say "EW! I don't know if I could do that!" But, no one puts them on trial for eating a human corpse.

[_SteelHead]

Please provide an universal moral existant in all societies and cultures for which there are no execptions, nuances, or clauses..... Otherwise the term universal need not apply.

[_madeleine]

Please provide an universal moral existant in all societies and cultures for which there are no execptions..... Otherwise the term universal does not apply.

All societies have rules of normal behavior, which are built on the universal ideas of, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not kill, etc. Even if you do not view these universal rules, as described in an ancient document called scripture by some societies, they point to a universal understanding that some things are wrong, and some things are right. The same some things.

Within every society, the details as to when these things: stealing, adultery, killing humans, etc. are wrong, can vary, but they are all based on a universal understanding among all humans. Thievery, adultery, murder, etc. are wrong. That they don't match, in definition, exactly culture to culture, doesn't make them non-universal.

You cannot point to a culture where there are not rules that define what is wrong, and what is right, and you can't point to a culture where there isn't an understanding that thievery, adultery, murder, etc. are wrong. Even a cannibalistic society has definitions for when killing another human is an offense against the members of the society. Whether or not you call this "natural law", imbued by God into all creation, or a product of evolution, or a combination of both...they are there.

[_SteelHead]

All cultures have rules. The rules are not universal to all cultures. There is no transcendent, intrinsic, or universal set of morals.

And most morals of any society are thrown out the window as conditions demand.

There are notable and obvious exceptions to no killing, no stealing, and no fornicating. Some cultures were based on killing, stealing, and fornicating.

[_madeleine]

All cultures have rules. The rules are not universal to all cultures. There is no transcendent, intrinsic, or universal set of morals.

And most morals of any society are thrown out the window as conditions demand.

There are notable and obvious exceptions to no killing, no stealing, and no fornicating. Some cultures were based on killing, stealing, and fornicating.

My point is, they still, every one, have rules that are based on no killing, no stealing, no adultery. If it were not a universal trait of human societies, we could point to a society where there were no rules, whatsoever, of any kind, that limited in some fashion killing, stealing and adultery.

Exceptions to the rules, are themselves, rules that define when there is an exception. Even when the rules for exceptions seem ambiguous to the society itself, or to outsiders, societies allow exceptions based on certain criteria (rules).

[_Themis]

All cultures have rules. The rules are not universal to all cultures. There is no transcendent, intrinsic, or universal set of morals.

And most morals of any society are thrown out the window as conditions demand.

There are notable and obvious exceptions to no killing, no stealing, and no fornicating. Some cultures were based on killing, stealing, and fornicating.

My point is, they still, every one, have rules that are based on no killing, no stealing, no adultery. If it were not a universal trait of human societies, we could point to a society where there were no rules, whatsoever, of any kind, that limited in some fashion killing, stealing and adultery.

Exceptions to the rules, are themselves, rules that define when there is an exception. Even when the rules for exceptions seem ambiguous to the society itself, or to outsiders, societies allow exceptions based on certain criteria (rules).

I wouldn't say adultery, but sex in general. Even some animal species can have moral codes of right and wrong. Humans have the most complex, but it is all easily explained through biology. There is no need to have a supernatural source to explain them. They do vary greatly, and are based on the well being of the group or individual. Slavery is considered good by some groups, even though they would view it bad for them. The well being of a group may not expand to other groups.

Sex probably has the most variations of rules of good and bad. What may be bad for one group may be good for another. All that matters is whether it works for the well being of a group such that it does not significantly hinder their survival. Many different moral codes can work, even if some we wouldn't care for them.

[_SteelHead]

Polynesia when western culture first arrived had no taboo against fornication and adultery, as the western concept of marriage did not exist.

Infanticide is pervasive in history. As birthcontrol, as ritual sacrifice, to remove the deformed, etc.

Ideas of property and ownership outside of the western world were also quite different.

No killing, no stealing, and no adultery are in no means universal morals.

[_subgenius]

Please provide an universal moral existant in all societies and cultures for which there are no execptions, nuances, or clauses..... Otherwise the term universal need not apply.

now pay close attention class, here we read a great example of the logical fallacy referred to as "special pleading", or more commonly known as "moving the goalposts"
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/special-pleading