Original Sin and...

[_subgenius]

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.

then please, provide this "easy" and "biological" explanation for examination.

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.

the "well being" of a group....is this an arbitrary notion?
Your slavery premise is absurd - "considered good...even though....they would view it bad.."?

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.

again..."well being" of the group?
to claim that a group, any group, simply considers something as "good" in as much as it is "good" does not seem like a coherent theory at this point.

[_SteelHead]

No one is moving the goalposts. I am giving examples against your spurious claims of transcendent, intrinsic, and/or universal morals. None such exist. Go see the definitions of those words.

You are making claims about universality, intrinsicness, and transcendence. All which imply a common trait across all humanity. The exceptions show your claim to be bunk. This is not moving a goalpost, rather debunking a false assertion.

Now produce a moral that is: intrinsic, transcendent, or universal.

[_subgenius]

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

CFR

Because most people know that pre-colonial Polynesian did practice "marriage", albeit manifested in forms like polygamy and polyandry...the concept was there. The cultural nuance of monogamy was what was at odds with western sensibilities. The facts of Polynesia seem to contradict your position and your proposition:

The hierarchical aspects of Polynesian society were permeated with religious meaning since the chiefs and other elites were regarded as divine and rich in mana. Tapu, mana, the arioi, and a hierarchical chiefly structure were interconnected as aspects of the sexual system. For example, in Tahiti, as elsewhere, hierarchy was mandated by the gods and manifested in all levels of social organization.

The tapu (taboo) system regulated social behavior. It was based upon an important religious element, mana, a fundamental principal of divinity and sacredness, that has been likened to electricity, prevalent among some Polynesian societies. Mana provided a relational and contextual structure, as well as demarcated sacred boundaries around class, time, events, space, and people. “Theoretically mana is an inherited potential, transmitted genealogically, with greater proportions going to firstborn children. It is therefore a matter of degree - a gradient ideally coincident with kinship seniority. Ultimately it stems from the gods” (Howard and Kirkpatrick 1989:614). Mana, however, must be demonstrated through acts and activities of an individual. Success demonstrated the strength of one’s mana, while failure signified weak mana (Howard and Kirkpatrick 1989:64). Mana was also associated with fertility, fecundity, and abundance - both reproductive and agricultural, according to Shore (1989:142).

So, here we read that even your Polynesian example recognizes the necessity of having a "divine" source for a system of morality.

citation:
http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/IES/f ... nesia.html

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.

perhaps you missed Madeleine's rather eloquent rebuttal of the first time you made this errant claim:
viewtopic.php?p=706463#p706463

i believe you may be missing the forest for the trees

[_subgenius]

No one is moving the goalposts. I am giving examples against your spurious claims of transcendent, intrinsic, and/or universal morals. None such exist. Go see the definitions of those words.

You are making claims about universality, intrinsicness, and transcendence. All which imply a common trait across all humanity. The exceptions show your claim to be bunk. This is not moving a goalpost, rather debunking a false assertion.

Now produce a moral that is: intrinsic, transcendent, or universal.

one problem, your examples are not actually examples...they are speculation and mistaken conclusions...see clarification of Polynesia provided....clearly research and accepted fact disagree with your "opinion" on the matter.

[Guest]

http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/BIB/D ... ontact.htm

VIRGINITY, PROMISCUITY, AND MONOGAMY

Aside from restrictions of class and family, there were few sex kapu for common people. Masturbation, sex between uncommitted individuals, paired individuals having lovers, liaisons, polyandry, polygyny, homosexual patterns of behavior, and such were all accepted practices (Malo, 1951, p. 74). Sex was considered to be good and healthy for all, young and old included. Virginity was considered to be a virtue only for female chiefs where genealogy was crucial. With this point in mind, ali’i —particularly the first-born of either sex, with special status rights— often were betrothed while they were quite young. Sometimes the age difference between the betrothed was significant. Handy (1952, p. 272) reported the acceptance of pairings in which the female was hardly of walking age and the male was old enough to be her grandfather, as well as pairings in which tiny males were betrothed to elderly matrons. Such young individuals obviously did not have to restrain themselves as their libido matured, but it also is possible that mechanisms, such as the Westermarck effect 8 ,dampened eroticism if the individual was betrothed at a very young age (see Shepher, 1971; Wolf and Huang, 1980).

You are missing a forest all together. The repeated assertion of a claim without providing proof of the claim, does not make a claim true.

Please provide one universal moral.

[_madeleine]

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.

Marriage was desirable and fidelity is expected in Polynesian cultures. Though marriage is defined differently when compared to western definitions. See here: http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS ... ociet.html

Infanticide was allowable in some societies, based on their rules, usually a view that an infant was not a "person" until they reached a certain age. This doesn't change the fact they had rules against murder, ie, no killing.

At any rate, we seem to be going in circles! I'm just going from my limited education, SOC1010 course. I'm by no means an expert in the humanities. I think you should realize that differing rules doesn't indicate there isn't a universal ideal in ALL societies, that define what is right and what is wrong, and is based on universal human behaviors. All societies have murderers, thieves, sexual infidelities. That each society can define these behaviors differently, as "right" or "wrong", does not change the fact the rules that limit these behaviors, universally exist. It is this existence that I think you want to deny, but it's kind of like denying that all societies have people who eat food, while pointing out some societies are omnivores and some are strictly vegetarian, therefore, eating is not universal. What I'm saying is, "Look, we all eat."

[_SteelHead]

Again, not all societies define killing as immoral.
Not all societies view adultery as immoral.
Not all societies see stealing as immoral.

Your basis for argument is flawed. You are asserting without proof. Prove your basis. Eating is a necessity. Instincts are not morals. Correlation from one does not cross into the other.

[_subgenius]

http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/BIB/DIAM/pre_contact.htm

VIRGINITY, PROMISCUITY, AND MONOGAMY

Aside from restrictions of class and family, there were few sex kapu for common people. Masturbation, sex between uncommitted individuals, paired individuals having lovers, liaisons, polyandry, polygyny, homosexual patterns of behavior, and such were all accepted practices (Malo, 1951, p. 74). Sex was considered to be good and healthy for all, young and old included. Virginity was considered to be a virtue only for female chiefs where genealogy was crucial. With this point in mind, ali’i —particularly the first-born of either sex, with special status rights— often were betrothed while they were quite young. Sometimes the age difference between the betrothed was significant. Handy (1952, p. 272) reported the acceptance of pairings in which the female was hardly of walking age and the male was old enough to be her grandfather, as well as pairings in which tiny males were betrothed to elderly matrons. Such young individuals obviously did not have to restrain themselves as their libido matured, but it also is possible that mechanisms, such as the Westermarck effect 8 ,dampened eroticism if the individual was betrothed at a very young age (see Shepher, 1971; Wolf and Huang, 1980).

You are missing a forest all together. The repeated assertion of a claim without providing proof of the claim, does not make a claim true.

Please provide one universal moral.

how come your reference above mentions "paired individuals"?
how come the above mentions that virginity was consider a virtue?
how come you completely side-step the divine origin and link of the Polynesian moral structure?
and
how come you have yet to realize that you have actually lost this argument?

[_SteelHead]

Paired individuals allowed polygany, polygamy, and basically extra pairing relations where ever they want does not your concept of adultery make.

Virginity only considered a virtue for female chiefs. Read for comprehension please, and quit cherry picking.

[_madeleine]

Again, not all societies define killing as immoral.
Not all societies view adultery as immoral.
Not all societies see stealing as immoral.

Your basis for argument is flawed. You are asserting without proof. Prove your basis. Eating is a necessity. Instincts are not morals. Correlation from one does not cross into the other.

I hesitated to use a metaphor, since so many people take metaphors as a one to one comparison.

*shrug* I give up. :-) You can continue to believe that societies do not have universal traits of defining what is right or wrong about killing, sexual behavior or stealing. You can continue to ignore that this human societal trait doesn't have to be, but it is. When you can find that society with no social mores, whatsoever, I would be really interested to know what you found.

(Perhaps think about why there is something, instead of nothing??)

Have a good afternoon!