Is a thing or action or fact unjust if it came to be through injustice?

[Enoch the Red]

You've yet to raise a convincing argument for why a universal moral constant exists. You keep implying there is, and I keep trying to re-iterate its only a consensus of the current crop of humans. We've either killed, imprisoned, or ostracized the outliers, or they've done it to themselves.

You are arguing that astonishingly similar rules and laws have been formed by societies that are separated by vast matrices of space, time, culture, and language, but that those rules are not innately tied to the human beings that comprise these societies, but rather the societies themselves? If all these societies do share a common moral foundation that they arrived at independently of one another, does that not imply some kind of moral constant that works for organizing disparate peoples, societies, and cultures into a productive and functioning society?

Are you going to argue that avoiding pain/death and seeking pleasure are universal moral constants?

Do you think that as a human you were born a tabula rasa, without instincts, impulses, or imperatives?

[Illusions]

You are arguing that astonishingly similar rules and laws have been formed by societies that are separated by vast matrices of space, time, culture, and language, but that those rules are not innately tied to the human beings that comprise these societies, but rather the societies themselves?

I would class this convergent evolution of human morality. If a moral was universal we would all share it. It would be universal. If you'd like an example of how this is not so, take murder. There are obviously people who believe murder is not amoral, so the rest of us composing the majority opinion that murder is amoral either kill them, ostracize them, or lock them up in prison. The reason it isn't the other way around, with murder being accepted as moral, is that people who hold this viewpoint cannot maintain a functioning society of similar like minded individuals.

If all these societies do share a common moral foundation that they arrived at independently of one another, does that not imply some kind of moral constant that works for organizing disparate peoples, societies, and cultures into a productive and functioning society?

A selection against certain morals would no more mean that there is a universal morality, than selection against certain physical traits means a universal physical form.

Do you think that as a human you were born a tabula rasa, without instincts, impulses, or imperatives?

No, but we also are not all born the same, even with the same instincts, impulses, or imperatives. Again, are you going to argue that universal morality comprises the vague idea that all humans wish to avoid pain, and seek pleasure? Will you also argue that majority opinions of a society have no effect on how its individuals turn out?

[GGT]

Well if, for instance, these more-or-less universal rules arise from evolutionary psych then it's actually got nothing to do with society however much society appears central to them. Society becomes nothing more than the wall these platonic shadows are displayed on. The walls and the shadow appear to have a relationship, the latter appear and dance around on the former but it's an illusion, the wall is just a viewing surface.

Beautifully written metaphor, Fuzzy.

Evolutionary psyche was basically kill or be killed, define friend or foe, decide on Fight or Flight. "Society" were the first groups that formed relationships outside family circles, to do what individuals or family tribes couldn't manage on their own. They realized collaborative, collective efforts would help them survive frozen tundra, droughts or floods, predatory animal herds that could destroy them or their crops. Herd behavior then became part of human evolutionary psyche, even when early "society" was migratory. Those human herds or tribes eventually saw the potential in not migrating (by season, crop, or prey) and decided to plant roots, making small neighborhoods with borders, which turned into trading posts, early colonies, then cities...

Enoch, your "universal moral constant" still has that pesky old "territorial border" component. Only now those borders aren't so clearly defined.

[GGT]

....If all these societies do share a common moral foundation that they arrived at independently of one another, does that not imply some kind of moral constant that works for organizing disparate peoples, societies, and cultures into a productive and functioning society?

What moral foundation do all societies have in common?

[Aimless]

If any of you platonistas can help me resolve my dilemma I would be very much obliged.

As for shadows, a single object can cast many seemingly different shadows and different objects can also cast similar shadows. I'm not sure what we're supposed to do. Are objects more important than shadows?

[Aimless]

Well if, for instance, these more-or-less universal rules arise from evolutionary psych then it's actually got nothing to do with society however much society appears central to them. Society becomes nothing more than the wall these platonic shadows are displayed on. The walls and the shadow appear to have a relationship, the latter appear and dance around on the former but it's an illusion, the wall is just a viewing surface.

I'm not sure how I feel about the evolutionary psychology angle even though I've tried to use it myself in the past. We've evolved to lie when we can, to cheat (in different ways ) when we can, to oppress when given the chance, etc etc. Most of the proposed evolutionary approaches to morality I've seen suggest that human morality is grounded in consequentialism or deontological reasoning, possibly in empathy. I'm not sure if any of these come even slightly close to an absolute and universal morality.

[Aimless]

I would class this convergent evolution of human morality. If a moral was universal we would all share it. It would be universal.

This isn't necessarily true. Something may be universal (hypothetically speaking) without our knowledge/understanding/acknowledgement of that thing being universal. See much of biology, physics, geology, etc!

[Illusions]

This isn't necessarily true. Something may be universal (hypothetically speaking) without our knowledge/understanding/acknowledgement of that thing being universal. See much of biology, physics, geology, etc!

Then you have to prove that every single one of the 6.5 billion+ humans all share a common moral for it to be universal. Aside from a vague seek pleasure, avoid pain, I don't believe one exists. Any indication of shared common morals on a societal level would be due to certain collections of morals being better fit for the survival of those societies that adopt them, than other morals. For instance, a lack of a society that upholds murder, rape, and stealing as moral would not be due to the fact that people who view murder, rape, and stealing as moral don't exist, but that such a society is not established on a foundation that would allow it to exist for very long. Mainly this would be due to all the murdering, raping, and stealing that would occur.

[Aimless]

Then you have to prove that every single one of the 6.5 billion+ humans all share a common moral for it to be universal. Aside from a vague seek pleasure, avoid pain, I don't believe one exists. Any indication of shared common morals on a societal level would be due to certain collections of morals being better fit for the survival of those societies that adopt them, than other morals. For instance, a lack of a society that upholds murder, rape, and stealing as moral would not be due to the fact that people who view murder, rape, and stealing as moral don't exist, but that such a society is not established on a foundation that would allow it to exist for very long. Mainly this would be due to all the murdering, raping, and stealing that would occur.

I'm not opposing the gist of your argument, I'm only addressing your assertion of what things would necessarily be like if there were such a thing as an absolute and universal moral law. If such a thing were even remotely analogous to more or less absolutely true universal things in eg. biology, physics, whatever then we would not all of us necessarily share it. This goes back to Enoch's and Fuzzy's shadows

[Aimless]

Forgot the pic

[LittleFuzzy]

I'm not sure how I feel about the evolutionary psychology angle even though I've tried to use it myself in the past. We've evolved to lie when we can, to cheat (in different ways ) when we can, to oppress when given the chance, etc etc. Most of the proposed evolutionary approaches to morality I've seen suggest that human morality is grounded in consequentialism or deontological reasoning, possibly in empathy. I'm not sure if any of these come even slightly close to an absolute and universal morality.

I'm not advocating that approach. I just used it to highlight the misuse/misinterpretation I felt Illusions was making wrt Society, via an incredibly old Greek metaphor.

[Illusions]

I'm not advocating that approach. I just used it to highlight the misuse/misinterpretation I felt Illusions was making wrt Society, via an incredibly old Greek metaphor.

Would you like to go into more detail? I'm well aware of Plato's Allegory of the Cave, however its unclear the misuse/misinterpretation you're referring to in regards to my claims on individuals, morality, society, etc.

If such a thing were even remotely analogous to more or less absolutely true universal things in eg. biology, physics, whatever then we would not all of us necessarily share it.

Maybe you can list some of these things that are universal, but not not shared by everything to which they apply.

[Aimless]

The arrangement of the solar system, the laws of physics, pretty much every single scientific fact prior to its discovery, laws of probability and statistics,...,...

[LittleFuzzy]

Would you like to go into more detail? I'm well aware of Plato's Allegory of the Cave, however its unclear the misuse/misinterpretation you're referring to in regards to my claims on individuals, morality, society, etc.

The fact that you're mentioning things like your claims regarding individuals at all tells me you did not bother seriously reading my earlier post. The only claim of yours I discussed in my post at all was regarding Society, and at that I was only posting wrt the evolutionary psych angle suggested earlier, as my counter-example.

[Illusions]

The arrangement of the solar system, the laws of physics, pretty much every single scientific fact prior to its discovery, laws of probability and statistics,...,...

How are these things universal, but not shared by everything to which they apply? To be bluntly honest this list is ridiculous, because:

1) The arrangement of our solar system is not something universally applicable.
2) The laws of physics apply to everything. There is nothing in our universe exempt from them.
3) If its a scientific fact whether or not we knew about it would be inconsequential to its universality.
4) Laws of Probability and Statistics govern numerous different things.

The fact that you're mentioning things like your claims regarding individuals at all tells me you did not bother seriously reading my earlier post.

I did read it, however I was a bit confused by your evolutionary psychology claims, since I didn't make any, but now that I've read it again, I'm assuming you're referring to outside claims made by evolutionary psychology in regards to morality?

The only claim of yours I discussed in my post at all was regarding Society, and at that I was only posting wrt the evolutionary psych angle suggested earlier, as my counter-example.

Evolutionary psychology would explain why certain morals are more "popular" or shared, but would not negate the fact that we have people who believe its moral to murder, rape, steal, or whatever. So for instance we can't claim that its universally held that murder is amoral, because we have people, a large number of them in prison, who don't feel that way.

[Loki]

Are you seriously making the claim that people never engage in acts that they themselves consider to be immoral? I'm willing to bet that most people in prison for murder either acknowledge that murder is wrong or don't believe the act they committed was murder. There are of course psychopaths out there who don't hold any morals, but you can't judge society on the basis of people who operate outside of its norms.

[Aimless]

1) The arrangement of our solar system is not something universally applicable.

Of course it is. No matter where you go in the universe the arrangement of our solar system will be the way it is (with provisions made for the laws of physics) and that arrangement will be true for more or less everyone. Yet until fairly recently our knowledge and understanding of this arrangement was flawed or at least very limited. Even if you wish to be stubborn about this, in most of the universe, planets orbit stars--not the other way around. And how long have we known that?

2) The laws of physics apply to everything. There is nothing in our universe exempt from them.

Which doesn't stop us from being ignorant of them, misunderstanding/misinterpreting them, or denying them. How long have we really known that falling objects accelerate at the same rate? About the size of the universe? About how it was likely to have originated? About the weirdness of the quantum world? Etc.

Enoch's position seems to be that there are facts or laws of morality that are universally applicable and from which no moral agent is exempt. If he is right, then there are certainly ways for moral agents to nevertheless deny or not recognise that claimed truth.

3) If its a scientific fact whether or not we knew about it would be inconsequential to its universality.

I think you're losing track of this particular line of discussion:

This isn't necessarily true. Something may be universal (hypothetically speaking) without our knowledge/understanding/acknowledgement of that thing being universal. See much of biology, physics, geology, etc!

Then you have to prove that every single one of the 6.5 billion+ humans all share a common moral for it to be universal.

I'm not opposing the gist of your argument, I'm only addressing your assertion of what things would necessarily be like if there were such a thing as an absolute and universal moral law. If such a thing were even remotely analogous to more or less absolutely true universal things in eg. biology, physics, whatever then we would not all of us necessarily share it. This goes back to Enoch's and Fuzzy's shadows

If it's a scientific fact then our knowledge/understanding/acknowledgement would indeed be inconsequential to its universality. That seems to be Enoch's point: a hypothetical universal absolute moral fact or law would be thus regardless of whether or not we know of it.

4) Laws of Probability and Statistics govern numerous different things.

Yes and our understanding of those numerous different things would be limited by our limited understanding of those laws

Evolutionary psychology would explain why certain morals are more "popular" or shared, but would not negate the fact that we have people who believe its moral to murder, rape, steal, or whatever. So for instance we can't claim that its universally held that murder is amoral, because we have people, a large number of them in prison, who don't feel that way.

To summarise, some hold that those things are immoral regardless of the ignorance/obstinacy/evil of murderers, rapists etc. Ie. that their opinion is inconsequential. Never mind that there are murderers and rapists and thieves etc who deep down inside know and believe that their actions are immoral.

[Illusions]

If it's a scientific fact then our knowledge/understanding/acknowledgement would indeed be inconsequential to its universality. That seems to be Enoch's point: a hypothetical universal absolute moral fact or law would be thus regardless of whether or not we know of it.

Then you're going to have to create a hypothesis as to what it is, why there are people who do not share it, and what causes it, in a way that is scientifically testable.

To summarise, some hold that those things are immoral regardless of the ignorance/obstinacy/evil of murderers, rapists etc. Ie. that their opinion is inconsequential. Never mind that there are murderers and rapists and thieves etc who deep down inside know and believe that their actions are immoral.

I 1) Find it doubtful that all people who commit acts regular people consider immoral also consider the action immoral 2) If you hold it true that a collection of people who hold that immoral actions are immoral universally, I'm sure we can find people who feel the same way who hold conflicting morals 3) You are again going to have to offer up a solid hypothesis as to what a universal morality would constitute and what causes it, other than "We can't be sure there isn't, and we haven't proven there isn't" and then point to scientific facts as evidence of your rightness. Or if you'd like to, you can debate it philosophically.

Are you seriously making the claim that people never engage in acts that they themselves consider to be immoral?

No, I'm not making that claim. My claim is that morality is not universal.

I'm willing to bet that most people in prison

So most, but not all?

there are of course psychopaths out there who don't hold any morals, but you can't judge society on the basis of people who operate outside of its norms.

However I can use it to state that there isn't a universal morality.

[Aimless]

Then you're going to have to create a hypothesis as to what it is, why there are people who do not share it, and what causes it, in a way that is scientifically testable.

... how about the limitations of human knowledge? Differences in experiences? Differences between brains? Why can two people come to different results when adding together the same fractions?

I'm honestly not sure where you're coming from because the things you're asserting as necessary... well, aren't. Not based on anything that's been said here anyway. The predictions you're making are incorrect, so the approach you're proposing for testing these hypotheses is inappropriate.

I 1) Find it doubtful that all people who commit acts regular people consider immoral also consider the action immoral 2) If you hold it true that a collection of people who hold that immoral actions are immoral universally, I'm sure we can find people who feel the same way who hold conflicting morals 3) You are again going to have to offer up a solid hypothesis as to what a universal morality would constitute and what causes it, other than "We can't be sure there isn't, and we haven't proven there isn't" and then point to scientific facts as evidence of your rightness. Or if you'd like to, you can debate it philosophically.

No no no. What I'm saying is that, regardless of whether or not there are universal absolute platonic moral facts/laws, the claims you're making are not necessarily correct. People can definitely have conflicting morals, just as we've in the past had conflicting theories in science. Does that mean that scientific facts do not exist?

The point here is not that Enoch's morals exist, and the question isn't even what those morals are. The key point is simply that, if they do exist, no matter what they actually are, reality could still look the way it does to us today. That is of course one of the more frustrating aspects of these worldviews

So most, but not all?

Why would it have to be all? I'm fairly sure you're committing an argumentative fallacy here but I'm not sure which one

[Illusions]

... how about the limitations of human knowledge? Differences in experiences? Differences between brains? Why can two people come to different results when adding together the same fractions?

Why can two people come to different results when adding together the same fractions? Because one of them is wrong. Are you honestly pursuing this line of thinking? If by different you mean 1/2 and .5 being visually different, but not mathematically, then you're being absurd still. You're also going to have to jump down to the end of this post, and re-evaluate what "universal" means, because it does mean it applies to everything.

Also Math is not comparable to human morality. Morality is opinion based, math is not.

People can definitely have conflicting morals, just as we've in the past had conflicting theories in science. Does that mean that scientific facts do not exist?

I don't know where to start to explain how terribly laid out your logic with this sentence is.

The key point is simply that, if they do exist, no matter what they actually are, reality could still look the way it does to us today. That is of course one of the more frustrating aspects of these worldviews

Then this "debate" is meaningless and rather stupid because you could also posit that gravity is in fact invisible pink unicorns pushing things together in a manner that looks exactly like how our understanding of gravity works, and reality could still look the way it does to us today. Are you going to argue this too?

Why would it have to be all? I'm fairly sure you're committing an argumentative fallacy here but I'm not sure which one

You do understand what "universal" means, correct?

F--k this is frustrating.

[Aimless]

Why can two people come to different results when adding together the same fractions? Because one of them is wrong.

Yes, precisely, and the only way you can say that one of them is wrong is if there is a Right Which is what people like Enoch (I presume) believe: you might think that rape is right, but you'd be wrong.

Also Math is not comparable to human morality. Morality is opinion based, math is not.

So you say, but the point is that you can't necessarily use what people believe or do as proof of what is. You're addressing a worldview wherein morality is not opinion-based. You saying "nuh-uh" isn't going to be able to shake that position, nor should it be able to.

I don't know where to start to explain how terribly laid out your logic with this sentence is.

I believe you, and the reason you can't is partly that you don't understand what either of us are saying

Then this "debate" is meaningless and rather stupid because you could also posit that gravity is in fact invisible pink unicorns pushing things together in a manner that looks exactly like how our understanding of gravity works, and reality could still look the way it does to us today. Are you going to argue this too?

That's entirely true and it's a problem eg. for the scientific pursuit of knowledge. I have a problem with such statements because I prefer parsimony, not because I believe such approaches are inherently wrong. Of course invisible pink gravity-unicorns wouldn't work exactly this way.

You do understand what "universal" means, correct?

Er, do you?

[Illusions]

Yes, precisely, and the only way you can say that one of them is wrong is if there is a Right Which is what people like Enoch (I presume) believe: you might think that rape is right, but you'd be wrong.

In order for your belief to be factual, you would have to prove that there is a universal morality outside the scope of human opinion. I can back up my belief simply by polling the existing human population and finding disagreement.

So you say, but the point is that you can't necessarily use what people believe or do as proof of what is.

I can use human behavior as proof if its human behavior I'm researching. If for instance you stated that there was a universal icecream flavor preference over other flavors, and that it was chocolate, and I found a sample of people who like strawberry better, then your claim would be wrong. What you are claiming is that there is, because those people who like strawberry better than chocolate are wrong, and that preference for chocolate is woven into the very fabric of the universe.

You're addressing a worldview wherein morality is not opinion-based. You saying "nuh-uh" isn't going to be able to shake that position, nor should it be able to.

It should be able to, in the same way that someone stating that gravity does not operate via invisible pink unicorns should be able to, unless someone offers either proof or a testable hypothesis that states otherwise.

I believe you, and the reason you can't is partly that you don't understand what either of us are saying

I understand it, but I don't think Enoch is arguing the same thing as you are. What I think you are arguing is of the most whimsical, child-like level of logic and deduction possible. Maybe we should just all revert to solipsism and be done with it...

That's entirely true and it's a problem eg. for the scientific pursuit of knowledge. I have a problem with such statements because I prefer parsimony, not because I believe such approaches are inherently wrong. Of course invisible pink gravity-unicorns wouldn't work exactly this way.

As opposed to the mystical pursuit of knowledge? I just waved a napkin around, from the rustling sounds it produced its telling me that you're wrong.

Er, do you?

I can tell you it involves words like "all" and "everything", so all - 1, or everything - 1, is not universal. So for instance you can claim (someone with knowledge of such societies, tell me if I'm wrong) "It is universally held among modern Western societies that murder is amoral." but not "It is universally held among human beings that murder is amoral."

[Aimless]

1. Begging the question

[Illusions]

1. Begging the question

In what case?

[Aimless]

In what case?

For starters:

In order for your belief to be factual, you would have to prove that there is a universal morality outside the scope of human opinion. I can back up my belief simply by polling the existing human population and finding disagreement.

This is only correct if you presuppose that the standard of evidence you offer--polling the existing human population in search of disagreement--is sufficient proof, which in turn presupposes that morality is not absolute and universal. However, if morality were absolute and universal then it wouldn't matter what the polling results were--a Believer would still be able to say that those who disagree are simply wrong.

I can use human behavior as proof if its human behavior I'm researching. If for instance you stated that there was a universal icecream flavor preference over other flavors, and that it was chocolate, and I found a sample of people who like strawberry better, then your claim would be wrong. What you are claiming is that there is, because those people who like strawberry better than chocolate are wrong, and that preference for chocolate is woven into the very fabric of the universe.

In addition to begging the question, you're also changing the question. No-one's saying all humans believe the same things, nor are they saying all humans behave in the exact same way. The underlying claim is that there are moral facts/laws that exist and are true irrespective of what humans believe or do. Ie. if someone says "rape is right" we can in theory say "you're wrong".

What Enoch seems to have done is to claim that we can take similarities between societies throughout history as evidence for the existence of universal and absolute moral facts/laws. Fuzzy touches on this by referring to Plato's ideal forms and the shadows on the cave wall. You rightly point out that we can't take our observations of human behaviour and reported human beliefs as proof of universal moral facts or laws--there are other possible explanations eg. that societies with dramatically different moral systems would perhaps simply not be able to exist as societies. I don't know if that's true (I think they may perhaps be able to exist as very crappy societies because you just need to be "good enough" in this world), but I accept your argument in principle. However I don't believe that in itself disproves absolute and universal morals, at least not ones that are just.

It should be said that, while Believers attempt to use observational evidence from time to time, such evidence is not the basis of their beliefs in these matters. If it were, then their beliefs would be entirely contingent and possibly also arbitrary. Instead they usually assert these beliefs as being self-evident, or necessarily apparent as being true to any rational and just person.

It should be able to, in the same way that someone stating that gravity does not operate via invisible pink unicorns should be able to, unless someone offers either proof or a testable hypothesis that states otherwise.

It should not be able to, esp. not when you pick the wrong predictions/hypotheses and require the wrong tests. Moreover, the notion that science and ethics require different approaches isn't exactly a strange one in either science and ethics. Do you know many scientists who seriously claim that the scientific method can tell us--in principle--what's right or wrong rather than to tell us what is--provisionally--true or false? Who claim that the scientific method can tell us what goals we should seek?

I understand it, but I don't think Enoch is arguing the same thing as you are. What I think you are arguing is of the most whimsical, child-like level of logic and deduction possible. Maybe we should just all revert to solipsism and be done with it...

*shrugs* You can if you like, but this isn't solipsism. I do however share some of your frustration with these idealistic positions, because I don't think that they're tenable and I don't think they lend themselves well to rational discussions even on their own terms. One of the problems I'm having with the questions in the OP is that I can't see a way for this belief in an absolute universal morality to be tenable on its own terms, at least not the versions I've come across. From what I can tell, the foundations of its principles and of its practice are all problematic.

A solipsist--that fabled and probably non-existant creature--wouldn't be much of a believer in absolute universal morality except in a very limited sense and possibly only if he approached morality as Kant did. Viewed as an extreme skeptic in general (rather than as a non-believer in other minds or in an external reality) the solipsist may perhaps be able to claim, with a straight face, that all claims about/approaches to moral questions are equally valid--but the degree of validity would nevertheless only be "provisional". How do you reconcile that view with telling people that they're absolutely wrong? You don't--you can only tell them (automatons or figments of your imagination) that they're provisionally wrong. It would be just as easy to reconcile solipsism with a belief in a completely relative/subjective/contingent morality.

Solipsism is frustrating, non-rational and unproductive but let's not make it something it's not.

Re. logic and deduction, I don't think your approach here is completely logical, nor do I think you can lay any claim to deduction given that your approach has so far consisted mostly of induction. I would suggest that logical deduction would be a more suitable approach and that logical deduction would not support the position [I'm pretending] Enoch holds [until he corrects me].

Please understand that even if I disagree with your reasoning and with your claims I do not agree with the viewpoint you're attacking. I would however like to be right for the right reasons and I don't think your reasons are the right reasons. At the moment my intuition is that the right reasons would have to have something to do with the incorrectness of the claims and arguments used to justify a belief in a universal and absolute morality, or with that belief's problematic nature.

As opposed to the mystical pursuit of knowledge? I just waved a napkin around, from the rustling sounds it produced its telling me that you're wrong.

That's absolute nonsense. You can instead accuse the believer in IPGU of being non-rational or non-parsimonious, or even provisionally wrong for reasons x y z for the purposes of mu. Your enemy here isn't mysticism but rather an extreme and rarely-asserted approach to epistemology. It's not used to justify a belief in any particular conception of reality; rather, it's used to justify a general disbelief or to limit all knowledge as being "maybe true" to begin with.

I can tell you it involves words like "all" and "everything", so all - 1, or everything - 1, is not universal. So for instance you can claim (someone with knowledge of such societies, tell me if I'm wrong) "It is universally held among modern Western societies that murder is amoral." but not "It is universally held among human beings that murder is amoral."

1. Changing the question--no-one has claimed that all humans believe the same things. One person has (I think) claimed that the general agreement between humans that eg. slavery is wrong may be seen as evidence that slavery is wrong, but that same person would (I think) also say that slavery would be wrong even if everyone in society believed it to be right.

2. Let's say I live in Sweden and Sweden has a national law that says "it's a crime to hit people in this country" and then I hit a person in Sweden. Have I committed a crime? By law, I have. I can say that it isn't a crime to hit people, but I would (legally) be wrong. I can say that the hitting-people-law does not apply to me, but I would (legally) be wrong. Inside Sweden that law would be absolute and it would apply to everyone in all of Sweden despite my powerful -1. Extrapolate "Sweden" to "universe".

[Illusions]

I'll make this short, because I'm getting tired of this:

If you are going to state that morality is (or can be an) absolute and universal, for instance it is not formed of human opinion, but is an innate part of existence like the laws of physics, you're first going to have to posit where this absolute and universal morality comes from (or where it can) and then prove it (or state how we would go about proving it), in a manner that cannot be used to also justify that other things that appear to be human opinions, like icecream flavor preference, are not in fact absolute and universal.

[Aimless]

I'll make this short, because I'm getting tired of this:

If you are going to state that morality is (or can be an) absolute and universal, for instance it is not formed of human opinion, but is an innate part of existence like the laws of physics, you're first going to have to posit where this absolute and universal morality comes from (or where it can) and then prove it (or state how we would go about proving it), in a manner that cannot be used to also justify that other things that appear to be human opinions, like icecream flavor preference, are not in fact absolute and universal.

If you want to make that parallel then you must first claim something like this: although some humans may prefer other flavours of ice-cream, vanilla is the right and just flavour while raspberry is simply evil and wrong. It's not the simple preference that is absolute and universal--it's the rightness of preferring vanilla and shunning raspberry. However, you are correct to raise the question of where such values can come from without eg. an outside arbiter of right and wrong such as God. Some believe such values can be arrived at through reasoning, which probably can't be said for the Vanilla Axiom.

I disagree with the worldview that morality is absolute and universal and possible to be derived purely through reasoning.

The comparison with the laws of physics is not intended to demonstrate that morality is like the laws of physics. It's just intended to explain that something can be both universal and fairly absolute without requiring the acknowledgement of us clods.