Morals

[Minimii]

Morals cant be universal. Without humans they wouldnt even exist at least not how we see them.
And what if through GM, usage of certain hormones or w/e we would be able to breed human species that wouldnt be capable of empathy, or wouldnt feel that mindlessly massacring people was wrong. Then it simply wouldnt be wrong.
Everything is relative. But in my mind we can still judge other cultures from our culture. We cant judge the people from other cultures behaving like their culture dictates however.

[SliK]

If actions can't be right or wrong how can we judge their cultures?
Do you mean on a strictly logical sense, basing your judgement on what is best for the species?
But then, what is best? Killing the weak so the race grows stronger, or caring for the weak so everyone is valued?

[Minimii]

If actions can't be right or wrong how can we judge their cultures?
Do you mean on a strictly logical sense, basing your judgement on what is best for the species?

Exactly.

But then, what is best? Killing the weak so the race grows stronger, or caring for the weak so everyone is valued?

No one can say objectively what is best. I can only say what i think is the best and do my best to achieve it. Someone else might think that something else is for the best and does his best to achieve that.
The one who manages to convince more people "wins".

[Willy]

Because we are human, we feel that massacring people is wrong. We have evolved as social animals that work together in order to survive, and our moral philosophies reflect this.

[Minimii]

Because we are human, we feel that massacring people is wrong. We have evolved as social animals that work together in order to survive, and our moral philosophies reflect this.

Not necessarily. Did Hitler feel like massacring jews was wrong? Or does a taleban soldier necessarily feel that killing every heretic on the planet would be wrong?
I feel that peer pressure, culture and the way we were raised has more impact than our genes or anything biological.

[Willy]

There will be outliers of course.. but most of us are programmed with a moral outlook stemming from empathy. Our laws, the way we act, peer pressure, culture, and the way we are raised are all reflective of this.

You can't objectively say what is best, but you can't objectively ignore this either.

[Minimii]

There will be outliers of course.. but most of us are programmed with a moral outlook stemming from empathy. Our laws, the way we act, peer pressure, culture, and the way we are raised are all reflective of this.

You can't objectively say what is best, but you can't objectively ignore this either.

This would still mean that only from average human's point of view something is bad or isnt, not objectively, there isnt things like "goodness" or "badness" floating around the universe .
Of course there is biological basis to every culture but there are lot of things that separate the morals of different cultures, eg who you see as a person with human value and something like that.

[Willy]

I understand what you are saying, there is no such thing as good or bad outside of human perception because it's of our invention. I'm assuming you are an atheist.. but yeah, I agree.

Would you consider this statement to be objectively true?: Anatomically, humans have two arms and two legs. If so, I would argue that some humans are born with one leg, or eight legs, and they should still be considered human. There will be outliers, but that doesn't change the fact that they are human. Same thing applies to morality, there will be people that aren't capable of feeling emotions.. but the majority of us are wired the same way.

[CrashBand]

there isnt things like "goodness" or "badness" floating around the universe.

Yes there is