I'm unmoved by that. Nothing at all can be demonstrated. What's your point

Then what is the basis of knowledge?

I mean, are you just spouting philosophical sounding phrases because they sound cool, or do you really believe them? And if so, why? Just cuz?

The basis of knowledge is faith

And yes, I'm not a troll. What I say here, that I believe

So you believe every statement is just an article of faith and we're all just arbitrarily choosing among competing unsubstantiated statements?

Strange.

Thucy has gone full zen/Buddhist on us.

See this for full details: thread=1188209

All morality should be determined by averaging Putin, Thucy and krellin...

I categorized No Such Thing in Humans on the basis that the idea of morality was made up by humans.

I think that people who said humans were arguing for more of a social construct. A tool to keep the masses in order. That is a far cry from nonexistence. Putin said, "morality is like Santa Claus."

Being part of the count for Humans, I'd say it was more like we argued that what is held to be a moral code by society is really just what the majority holds dearest in its values. We argued that on a person-to-person basis, "morality" varies so widely that there is definitely not a universal moral code.

Well, I guess we could ask those who said "human" if they don't believe morality exists. Notice, the OP does not ask about a "universal" moral code, but merely a "moral code." I was more interested in the phenomena itself, not whether it was universal. The difference I feel, and we can ask those who answered "human" to agree or disagree with Putin, is that there IS a moral code. One that has been carefully, or not so carefully, constructed by societies and civilizations, be it on purpose or accident. Putin has said that there is no such thing as a moral code at all.

People are claiming that morality is diverse, but it really isn't. If you study the laws of the ancient civilizations, they all basically say the same thing. It is wrong to steal, it is wrong to murder, you should not have any woman that you want although the number you can have varies. If you claim that morality is diverse you're just talking about the nuances, not the root of it. And there is a moral code that is written into the human being. The proof you need is guilt and conscience. Furthermore, if you claim there is no universal moral code, then how can you condemn what the Nazi's did as wrong. What makes your personal moral code better than anybody else's?

Right, so please explain then, if morality is universal and 'written into human beings' why we have had so much conflict historically? Why do people resist living as subjects of other cultures if morality is the same across culture? And I'd say there are pretty big nuances between societies that claim, for example, that slavery is permissible and those that do not. From those who claim that women have no rights and those that claim women should equal power to men, etc.

Those aren't "nuances".

And even your example of murder, the notion of murder was originally very narrow, coming from a Norse word meaning to kill in secret. Plenty of things we'd consider to be 'murder' today were perfectly permissible in 'ancient civilizations'. Human sacrifice, for one.

"The proof you need is guilt and conscience. "

Guilt and conscience are learned and plenty of people lack both.

"hen how can you condemn what the Nazi's did as wrong"

Right, so we get at the root of the matter. Morality is the metaphysics of the hangman (thanks, Nietzsche). It's just an exercise for people who feel a need to stand in judgment of others. The Nazi actions would not be wrong if they had lived during the time of the ancients. Or hell, even in the time of the Mongols. Wiping out entire cities and everyone in it was more or less acceptable. Read Thucydides (the real one) and his account of the Peloponnesian war, and the slaughter of Melos by the Athenians.

The Nazi actions are considered wrong because they lost the war and modern international opinion is purportedly against brazen attacks on civilians (yet civilians keep being targeted in war).

KKK: Wrong to steal? This is a law, but not necessarily a moral. This one is about property rights. Is your property sacred, and in no sense is it ever condoned to steal? No. Ever hear of Robin Hood? STEAL from the rich because that was blatant theft. How often do you that character portrayed as wrong or a villain by society?
Wrong to murder? This thread has included a long discussion about societies that do or do not condemn murder. The end of which listed two instances of certain societies being fine with blatant murder.
Not have any woman you want? I have no clue where you're getting this. How many women through history do you think were married against their wills to men who simply wanted them?
Not everyone feels guilt. That is a defining factor of psychopaths.
"Furthermore, if you claim there is no universal moral code, then how can you condemn what the Nazi's did as wrong." Just because we may condemn their actions doesn't mean everyone condemns their actions.
"What makes your personal moral code better than anybody else's?" Never said it was.

So, can we at least agree that the vast majority, the exclusion being psychopaths, have SOME sort of morality. Even the Nazi's didn't like it if you murdered them. Or the Aztecs if you stole from their deity. The Mongols if you slept with their women. While there may be no universal constant "code," it is universal, approximately, that there is at least *a* "code."

If you have interactions within organized populations you're going to have rules to provide some kind of order to them, otherwise they wouldn't be organized.

I don't think much should be read into that.

Why not?

Because it leads to extrapolations that are not warranted.

For example, all games have ruled to organize their play. Does that entail that there are some deep, underlying, objective form of game rules that direct all forms of gameplay? Of course not. Systems of any kind require some kind of organizing principle otherwise they are not systems.

That's right. Nothing can be conclusively proved, so one must advance a faith before anything can be made sense of. My faith is simply that reality in fact does exist as it presents itself. I view this as a miracle. Nothing can be known, and yet something is presenting itself anyway, as a plausible being. Out of nothing, something. The first miracle. The only miracle.

@kingcyrus: I'm not a Buddhist. Thanks for reading though

I find it hilarious that the common reaction to me saying nothing is known is not "that's not true" it's "why would you believe that?" The truth does not wait on our whims. I believe it because it's true

There is a moral code but obviously Human Beings break it. Otherwise we would be perfect which we are clearly not. So any example that shows were humans a moral code cannot show that there isn't one. And yes, our morals become laws. If it wasn't believed that murdering is wrong, then it wouldn't be wrong. Robin Hood was not famous because he stole. That's not why people liked him. It was because he symbolize standing up to the monarchy. The viking example said you cannot kill a man in secret, because a duel is fine. A duel is not murder; it is like a miniature war between people. That is an example of a universal moral code. Another example is Hammurabi's code "153. If the wife of one man on account of another man has their mates (her husband and the other man's wife) murdered, both of them shall be impaled." Then there is the Jewish commandment: That shall not killed (murder). So, yes, different civilizations had different ideas of what murder is but they all agreed that it was something where you killed a person without a fair fight and that it was wrong. And somebody missed the point when I said you can't have whatever women you want; I meant numberwise. You aren't supposed to have every single girl you have lustful feeling for. Maybe you are allowed to have four or one but you cannot have them all.

You claimed that the Nazis were considered wrong because they lost the war, however the Athenians murder of the Melos people is considered wrong and they won. Furthermore, if your claim is correct that the Nazis are only considered wrong because they lost, then why didn't everybody in Nazi Germany think it was okay? Clearly, as they tried to save some of the Jewish people they thought something was immoral.

Everyone is born with guilt and conscience. They can learn to avoid it or ignore it. But they are born with it. The first time you still you will feel terrible. The first time you kill you will feel terrible. Perhaps maybe not the 100th time due to habituation, but the first time you will.

"There is a moral code but obviously Human Beings break it." The human beings that "break" it are not violating a self-developed moral code. It would conflict with one that is universal, so it clearly is absurd to say that a universal one exists. Your argument relies on "guilt and conscience," but there are several people in this world who would feel no remorse for murdering another person.
"If it wasn't believed that murdering is wrong, then it wouldn't be wrong." This is part of the order thing. Society does not want a drop in population whatsoever, so murder is a crime.
"Robin Hood was not famous because he stole. That's not why people liked him. It was because he symbolize standing up to the monarchy." Did anyone persecute him for his blatant theft? You are characterizing him as a good man, so you prove my point by not condemning his stealing.
"You aren't supposed to have every single girl you have lustful feeling for." Once again, this is not universal. Several monarchs throughout history literally had every woman they lusted for. King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines, and you're telling me that he did not have anyone he wanted?
"however the Athenians murder of the Melos people is considered wrong and they won." But was it considered wrong at the time? No. They justified it by saying it was an act of realism.
"then why didn't everybody in Nazi Germany think it was okay? Clearly, as they tried to save some of the Jewish people they thought something was immoral." Because of World War One. The times were changing. They were meh about civilian casualties in war. Also, there were German citizens that hated Jews with every fiber of their being.
"Everyone is born with guilt and conscience. They can learn to avoid it or ignore it. But they are born with it. The first time you still you will feel terrible. The first time you kill you will feel terrible. Perhaps maybe not the 100th time due to habituation, but the first time you will." False. Utterly false. There are stories of children killing other children without feeling the slightest remorse. Psychopathy isn't developed, you're born with it. Also, kleptomaniacs are entirely unable to refrain from stealing. What about beggars and scavengers too? Street rats? People who need to steal to survive. They don't feel guilty from stealing.

@Putin, I don't think that was a great example. Because all board games have rules because they were created with those rules. They had a "god" (designer) who implemented those rules on that board game.

@Thucy, how would you describe your belief system? I did not try to cause offense by saying you were Buddhist. The way you describe your philosophy/faith/worldview sounds Buddhistic (is that a word?) to me.

@TrPrado,

But what about David? I know, slightly different. But he had a lot of wives and concubines as well. But it was still wrong for him to kill Uriah and take Bathsheba into his home.

KC: The rules for the board game took time to developed by a group of people over time, and they were probably changed a few times to perfect it
Thucy is a pantheist.
The King Solomon example was more directed to the idea that "You aren't supposed to have every single girl you have lustful feeling for." The David and Bathsheba example is more about other things, mostly murder.

Granted. But the point is, they were developed for a reason. I don't think this corresponds to Putin's Santa Claus analogy. Without the rules, the game wouldn't work. It would not be a game. Try playing Diplomacy without rules. It isn't Diplomacy. Rules in board games are designed by necessity, and that necessity remains with them. Rules are part of the game; without them, they are not the game. Hardly fictitious fabrications.

What exactly is the difference between Buddhism and Pantheism? They seem awfully similar to me.

Well, I think it also points to the fact that you can't take another man's wife.

Thucy, you write " Nothing can be known, and yet something is presenting itself anyway, as a plausible being. Out of nothing, something."

Or... Someone (God) is presenting himself through the universe around us, which he created out of nothing. Definitely a miracle.

"however the Athenians murder of the Melos people is considered wrong and they won"

The Athenians did not win, the Pelopponesians did.

"Furthermore, if your claim is correct that the Nazis are only considered wrong because they lost, then why didn't everybody in Nazi Germany think it was okay? Clearly, as they tried to save some of the Jewish people they thought something was immoral."

I don't follow. The atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is by and large not considered wrong by the majority of the American people.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/04/hiroshima-nagasaki-atom-b_n_251108.html

There was always a vocal minority who opposed it, and a minority who continue to find it reprehensible (myself included) but yet we don't hear nearly as much about the conduct of the United States as we do Germany.