Original Sin and...

[Guest]

Oh! But just for fun, I will add that this universal trait for societies is considered to exist, in the view of evolution, because it enables the survival of the species and has in fact become instinctual. Humans cannot create societies that are lacking in social mores.

[_subgenius]

Again, not all societies define killing as immoral.

yes, they do

Not all societies view adultery as immoral.

yes, they do

Not all societies see stealing as immoral.

yes, they do

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.

proof and references have been provided, even to the point of correcting your "history" of Polynesia.

Let us simplify this...name one society/civilization/tribe/group-of-friends/person that has no moral system at all....that has no discernible opinion about sex, murder, property, charity, justice, etc.

we can wait for you to google it.

wait!
let us read what Mr Charles Darwin has to say:
"Turning now to the social and moral faculties. In order that primeval men, or the apelike progenitors of man, should become social, they must have acquired the same instinctive feelings, which impel other animals to live in a body; and they no doubt exhibited the same general disposition. They would have felt uneasy when separated from their comrades, for whom they would have felt some degree of love; they would have warned each other of danger, and have given mutual aid in attack or defence. All this implies some degree of sympathy, fidelity, and courage. Such social qualities, the paramount importance of which to the lower animals is disputed by no one, were no doubt acquired by the progenitors of man in a similar manner, namely, through natural selection, aided by inherited habit. When two tribes of primeval man, living in the same country, came into competition, if (other circumstances being equal) the one tribe included a great number of courageous, sympathetic and faithful members, who were always ready to warn each other of danger, to aid and defend each other, this tribe would succeed better and conquer the other."

"It is apparently a truer and more cheerful view that progress has been much more general than retrogression; that man has risen, though by slow and interrupted steps, from a lowly condition to the highest standard as yet attained by him in knowledge, morals and religion."

http://www.infidels.org/library/histori ... er_05.html

try to read this chapter and notice how Mr darwin argues, quite well, about the transcendental, or universal, qualities of how men "feel" shame and "feel" courageous....how these "feelings" are not taught...they are instinct. This is the foundation being laid for the subsequent cultural nuances (trees) that you seemingly can not get past. I am sure you will find many points within his writing that you agree with and that you disagree with...as did i...but the matter at hand is clearly supported by my position and not yours.

[_subgenius]

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.

point being...even though the qualification varied...virginity considered virtuous

and

"Paired" implies that there is a fundamental structure, and "polygamy" has already contradicted your proposition that "marriage"of any sorts did not exist among the Polynesians.
I mention "Paired" because it obviously means something...it means that there is basic notion present in their society...if there was an anarchy of relationships then "pairs" would not exist at all...apparently the Polynesians have attributed a certain "value" to being paired...and obviously that value is "good".

[_Bazooka]

Subby, this thread alone should be enough to show that intrinsic universal acceptance of what is good and bad, right and wrong, doesn't exist.

[_subgenius]

Subby, this thread alone should be enough to show that intrinsic universal acceptance of what is good and bad, right and wrong, doesn't exist.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity

[_SteelHead]

Sub,
I have produced ample evidence against an intrinsic, universal morality. You have produced 0 supporting your assertion. Time to put up.

Here is another counter example. Pederasty was common and acceptable in the archiac period of ancient Greece.

[_SteelHead]

Madeleine,
I am not arguing that societies do not have social mores. I am arguing that those mores vary from society to society and that there is no definitive set nor subset of these mores common across, universal to, transcending, whatever across all societies. I am also arguing that the mores of an individual inside a society may not always be that of the society, again refuting the idea of intrinsic/transcendent/universal mores.

[_subgenius]

Sub,
I have produced ample evidence against an intrinsic, universal morality. You have produced 0 supporting your assertion. Time to put up.

Here is another counter example. Pederasty was common and acceptable in the archiac period of ancient Greece.

again...you see nothing but trees.

having knowledge of good and bad is not mutually exclusive to making decisions about doing good or bad.

In other words, you reading a book passage which states that the pederasty was common and acceptble does not make a case for, or against, morality.
In fact you likely confuse the Greek endorsement of having a loving relationship with young boys with copulation...the former being viewed by them as positive and the latter not at all....for example Plato was a critic of sexual pederasty....and, in reality, its practice was recorded as being shameful and nasty in Aeschines, "Against Timarchos".
Romans also endorsed pederasty but banned penetration...
nevertheless, ancient times see many cultures pursuing this arguably "immoral" behavior...yet it is gone today...you mistakenly assume that all cultures at all times are able to understand their own nature...their own intrinsic value.
Just because good and bad are intrinsic does not mean that it manifests itself simultaneously to all civilizations.
Your premise of "individuals decide" and subjective-morality has been dismantled and remains incoherent.
Your refusal to acknowledge the information, references, and common sense conclusions already presented to you does not equate to a "0".

You inability to refute the information thus far is an affirmation of the truth. Your post about Polynesia was incorrect and that is ok, there is nothing wrong with actually learning something...surely that is intrinsic to you? or are you trying to decide, based on your culture, whether it is good for you or bad for you?

[_SteelHead]

Again sub, while you mis represent my position, which is in a nutshell "definitions of good and bad are not universal".

Prove otherwise. Provide one moral value that is universal to humanity.

[_subgenius]

Madeleine,
I am not arguing that societies do not have social mores. I am arguing that those mores vary from society to society and that there is no definitive set nor subset of these mores common across, universal to, transcending, whatever across all societies. I am also arguing that the mores of an individual inside a society may not always be that of the society, again refuting the idea of intrinsic/transcendent/universal mores.

varying is not the same as differing...Madeleine clearly makes that distinction and yet you refuse it, why? If anything "variations", by its very definition, prove that there is a universal set of mores.

and you are moving goalposts again

you are not arguing that an individual may be "different" from society but that any individual being the "same" as any other individual(s) is purely coincidental....you said yourself :
"Ultimately every individual decides upon their own morality, independent of the source. Be it god or society, you and only you as an individual are the independent arbitrator of action....." - viewtopic.php?p=705315#p705315

and in usual fashion you render that argument incoherent before the end of the same posting:

"Each individual ultimately decides for him or herself, under the influence of their society, culture, upbringing environment etc." - viewtopic.php?p=705315#p705315

(emphasis mine)

so ultimately which is it? "independent of the source"? or "under the influence of their society..."?