Natural Universal Morality

Starting with only one simple assumption, that life is of value and human/sentient life is of the ultimate value in this natural universe, leads to one simple universal moral code: Morality is the equal right of all humans to their life, liberty and property from being lost through force or fraud. You can argue against the assumption but to do so is to advocate for chaos. The inherent quality of these rights is derived from the good order we see in the natural universe around us, and the overwhelming preference for such order.

Morality shouldn’t be confused with the religious use of the word to which has thrown in massive quantities of subjective virtuous behavior that applies only to the individual. Morality should be the only basis for legislation, virtue should not be the basis for any.

eat or be eaten.

that is life.

-Imp

There’s something to be said for the sledgehammer approach. I’m saying eat only those who would eat you. In the meantime, try to set up a system where they don’t have a reasonable chance, but if they still keep coming, put 'em on ice.

i.e. if someone is breaking into your house, reach for the shotgun by the bed? My concern wouldn’t be so much for the the things in my house as for the safety of my family. I have never had my house broken into, so my complacency level is farily high. The wild west code hasn’t been instilled in me, but I’m sure if my home was invaded, I would change my view of the ‘kill or be killed’ premise. The thing that would upset me the most would be my view of mankind would be jaded because of the offense. Having your moral base shifted because another resorted to immoral actions to justify their existence. Being violated in that manner and having your psyche altered is worse than the offense.

Not all humans are the same. Some are more beast than human. i am not talking about economic status, just natural genetics. There are those humans that are more naturally beast. then you have those that have the genetic warpings that make them more monster than human. They both look human, speak like humans but, their thoughts are not humane or human in a moral or ethical sense. Can we honestly apply a universal morality to them? Kill or be killed, I agree with that to a large degree. I lean more towards seek out and eliminate problems before they start.

It only means that your emotional self would be forced to meet up with what your reasonable self knew all along–there are good people, there are evil, and there always will be no matter what we do. And it doesn’t matter whether they’re coming to kill you or take your silver, they’re taking part or all of your life. Only socialists believe you don’t have a right to defend your property because they’re too busy trying so hard to believe that it doesn’t belong to you in the first place.

Of course we can apply a universal morality to them. Why not? Serial killers know right from wrong. We can and probably should do our best at prevention, but we’ll never completely succeed, and more than likely, not even come close.

– Starting with only one simple assumption, that life is of value (to human/sentient life) and human/sentient life is of the ultimate value (to human/sentient life) in this natural universe (of those people you have met.) –
You have no means by which to soundly conclude that human life is of any intrinsic value to the cosmos. You have only our desire to stay alive, which does not, by any means, warrant the conclusion that life is intrinsically precious to anything/anyone beside ourselves.

Given your first premise I can understand he part about life, but how do the rights of liberty and property follow from your first premise that life is intrinsically valuable?

No. There is no need to make morality universal for there to be any at all. Morality can exist as subjective, or based on sentiment.

First off, like imp said, life can only feed on other life, hence life is canibalistic towards itself, if it is to survive. Secondly, preference does not warrant universality, i.e Just because most like staying alive does not make life precious, or intrinsically precious

There is no universal objective god thus there is no universal morality.

Although the government may pretend itself to be a global god through power and control it can be defied like anything else.

I didn’t say that. Human life is of value to human life because self-aware beings are the only ones who are able to realize that they are alive, by definition.

I didn’t say it was, and we are the only who are able to value their lives as precious.

Liberty is a condition where you aren’t under involuntary servitude to others, thus it goes to the quality of your life and your right to decide what determines that quality. And property is what you have invested a portion of your life to acquire.

If anyone can adopt any moral code as it suits them, then there is no moral code, only, as I said, chaos.

But sentient life, buy the virtue of its supremacy, can adopt a universal moral code that applies to itself. (I hope you’re not going to call my eating spinach cannibalism.)

Let’s take a vote. And if it is determined that all should be protected equally, you can’t then go back to the double standard that would, again, engender chaos.

[/quote]
Truth is a universal objective God, at least It has objective aspects.