CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Personally I feel that as humans we can communicate with each other so therefore we do not need to result to violence to get our points across and I believe our ultimate goal is to survive. That being said since all humans' goals is to survive we should work together to do so. I believe that my previous statement is the moral we should all possess.
so going back to your question
the thing that would create a universal standard on morality, is the thing that teaches the world that working together is the key to survival and that thing is coming soon in the depletion of oil and other resources.
Just because you believe that the ultimate human goal is to survive doesn't make it true. First world countries are surviving, they're pas that, now their main goal is power. A serial killer's morality will be different than your always, and no amount of talking will change that because he does not care about surviving (forensic scientist say that he actually wants to be caught) he wants to control his victims.
Taken to a less extreme, since it would take some unnatural trauma to cause that kind of mentality, there is the prospect of two world leaders. Before modern day, when two world leaders would clash, surviving was the furthest thing from, their mind, taking power from the other was the top of their list.
Firstly, First world countries seem like they are well off but they are continously being threatened. Look at USA they are threatened by terrorists on a daily basis. Also, most if not all first world countries are deep into debt which indicates a possibilty that they will enter a depression and thus their quality of life and suriving ability decreases significantly. so yes the first world countries are surviving but they are never past it.
Secondly, its interesting that you decide to attack the word 'universal' in the debate question by bringing up the serial killer point as your thought process might have been that 'universal' means that everyone has to follow it and if one person goes against it, it is not universal. However, 'universal standard' also means 'widely accepted' hence there may be exceptions as there maybe people who do not accept it as in your point the serial killers.
lastly, your point about the two world leaders fighting for power is a very good one but if like i said a threat were to fall upon both leaders they would realize that their suvival is indeed in danger and cease to fight but try to defeat the threat. Though their pride may hurt but eventually they will realize that they need to work together to have the best chance to survive the threat such as lack of resources.
First, for the countries. They are for the most part past it. First world countries no longer need to fight for survival as much as third world countries or as a person in the wilderness. Since they are past surviving, that means survival is not their driving goal, so to use it as a means to establish universal morality would be a bust.
Second in regards to the serial killer, you are correct it was a poor example.
The final point you make I also agree with. It was even evidenced by WW2 when every country was afraid to bomb another country, for fear that they'd be bombed. That said, that was a case when survival was brought back up. It's universally accepted that bombing a country is bad, yet it was done to Hiroshima, because at the time it was done, no threat to America's survival existed, all that was their was the need for power.
Yes the countries are 'past' surviving now but the question asks 'what would it take' i am saying that it would take a threat (such as depletion of oil) to all countries' surival to create a universal standard on morality and the big 'umbrella' that would distinguish right from wrong is if it impedes humans abilty to work together and/or to survive, then it is wrong. This would mean that a human cannot take advantage of another human to survive as that is not working together.
Competition is required because of the limited resources but under this umbrella it has to be fair competition without the use of violence to gain resources. You might say that competition is actually the opposite of working together but it is not. When we compete for job positions it further betters humanity and our personal survival as we are required to attain more skills then the other job applicants. And because the countries will realize that working together is key, the governments of all countries that agree to this will aid people in finding jobs not just their own citizens.
For your final point, all i have to say is that Japan attacked America first then America forced Japan to surrender with the bombs. It was not out of gaining power but out of protecting their people.
All but one person to be dead. That way what is considered right and wrong is completely left up to that one person, and agreed upon by every (that one) person. I don't think humans can achieve universal morality.
To begin with, it would take a unifying principle that everyone voluntarily accepted. Tell me more about what you think, and I'll tell you what I think that principle should be.
I don't think voluntarily it will ever come along. This might sound satirical but I believe the only way a universal standard on morality could exist, was if no one else existed. It's similar to the dilemma, on how two can keep a secret. The only way two can be absolutely sure their secret is safe, is if only one of them is alive. Same for the perfectly moral world, people will never see eye, to eye. Force won't do it, and county borders are preventing it from happening voluntarily. So my true belief is that it would be impossible to have a universal standard on morality, without this impractical possibility.
How about this..... We already have a "universal standard" in that everyone's morality is based on the same thing. What they value the most. What do you really think the significant differences are concerning core values?
Barring those with severe mental illness......and assuming you agree with the premise that everyone's morality is based on their strongest core values. What are the differences in these values that are so different as to be irreconcilable?
Separate cultures. The way I see killing a person, as the biggest hit to my sense of morality, is different than the way a U.S. Marine see's killing a person, as maybe an act of defending his country or himself on the battlefield.
I think seperate cultures are more than capable of sharing a standard of morality. Why don't you? I'd like to broaden your focus on killing to intentionally causing harm. I think it is well within our capability to adhere to the standard that we don't intentionally cause harm to anyone. Further, It's entirely possible for us to handle conflict in a manner that better honors this standard. Frankly, I think this standard is already embedded in our nature, and that in order for someone to disregard this standard, they must first have experienced a traumatic event that damages them psychologically.
If we have to create a universal standard of morality - then by its very essence it isn't universal. If it is man-made, then it is arbitrary - plain and simple.
Universal morality should be something that isn't created, exists independently of humans and thus cannot be changed by humans.
I don't think there can be a universal standard of morality. What is moral changes based on the arbitrary natures we evolved to have, what is moral for one species isn't necessarily moral for another.
Human morality is a spectrum, because of that I don't think we can agree on a universal morality. Societal morality is something that has been achieved, and can be determined by surveying all members of a society that are of the societies species, they would be asked what their personal views are on a range of actions, then for each action we determine how much that society publicly debates it. The actions that both have been judged to be highly immoral, and are not publicly debated are what I would call a societies morality.
This is a quick summary of my idea, I will gladly go into more detail, just ask.
Well, a universal standard of morality must be flexible, so that it can take into account the different circumstances people (or beings in general) live under.
When the universal standard is applied to different cultures, no emerged, specific set of moral guidelines must contradict the universal standards.
Morality isn't an ideologue that has rules that must be followed blindly. Instead, a universal standard must have axiomatic principles that guide action, not rules that dictate. Such a principle could be that "it is good to be aware of what is true" That doesn't mean that it is immoral to keep what presents you bought a secret. It just means that in the long run, you will be better of to be aware of what is true. The individual should make the decisions because the individual has much more knowledge of her situation. Why should we have guidelines then? The guidelines are there to remind us of when we have to think twice and what generally is the best course of action.
A universal morality is universally rational to follow. Morality should cultivate cooperation among individuals and between groups, but it should also take into account that people will try to exploit cooperating people. Following the guidelines should generally result in the betterment of life for all, which means that exploitation must be either ineffective or rare.
where is your idea? i really want to know what it was. Sorry this debate was a long time ago but i just came to it again and im curious as to what your idea is
