As what the title says: Do we need to have a universal moral law? Who dictates morality?

Common sense, maybe? Of course, there's a lot of people lacking this very important aspect of life, so there you go. The Christians got off to a very good start when they included "Thou shalt not kill" and "thou shalt not steal" on their amendments, even if I'd like to think this sounded like a good idea before that presumably happened. Too bad many Christians and non-christians alike isn't exactly paying attention to this, though.

Kantian ethics employs the idea of universal moral law. Something that is moral in this context is something that you could "rationally impose as a universal law without contradiction." Basically, if in any situation it would be moral to go against that, its not moral. It could work in most circumstances, but there are some shady areas. In the instance of murder, preservation of life and what is best for humanity can come into conflict. Say there is a person in power who is even more evil than Hitler, Hussein, and any other evil person you could think of combined. Would it be moral for someone to kill that person? You may say it is, because in doing so, the right thing to do is protect humanity. However, under a system of universal moral laws, it would be completely immoral. Universal laws are deontological, meaning they only regard duties and rights, the means, and not the consequences, the ends. Means-ends relationships are very important in ethics. If you were to kill the new evil dictator who threatened humanity, on one hand you would be preserving the lives and respecting the rights of the people who would eventually be victimized, but on the other hand you have taken the life of the dictator and denied him the right to live, the most important right afforded to anyone. Therein lies the dilemma.

Of course that is one situation, but many others can arise. Universal moral laws, in some instances will inevitably fail.

I personally think a universal set of moral laws to dictate everything will not work. Some things can have universal moral laws, but other issues just don't work out fairly.

For instance, I am a long time liker of hentai and ecchi material, but others consider it immoral. But even in the context of life, it is sometimes rather hard to decide on moral laws.

Everyone should be entitled the opportunity to live a full and happy life, right? If someone were to make me blind or deaf, I can no longer live a life that is even happy. I can't see and/or hear the people who are important to me, and I can't do any of the things I enjoy. Therefore, I feel it is morally okay to ruin the lives of those who take away that your right to have a good life.

Everyone is bound to have different opinions on many issues, but there are some boundaries that can be set by moral laws, i suppose.

Moral laws can be set on most things, but they must allow exceptions. Some people will believe commiting any bad act for any reason is immoral. However, I would be willing to commit an act like water-curing on someone who, for example, physically or sexually assaulted my two close female friends.

i think only in a world without opinions, emotions of any sort, friendship, feelings, love, etc. can there be a solid set of universal morals.

You bring up an interesting question but you trip it up with your question of "Who dictates morality?"
There a certain ideals that most, definitely not all, of humanity shares but the implementation of those ideals is affect by the different cultures. I believe the idea of a universal morality is probably a fantasy and that everyone should live according to their own views. After all in the end you have to answer for your own actions.

It's interesting because on the one hand, the idea of universal morality needs something like a God to keep things constant (needs a superhuman entity/artifice in which the univeral morality can be couched).

Murder and theft are obvious ones and generally any society that condones either is usually held to be degenerate.

That of course is where things get horribly thorny because while just about everyone will say that murder is wrong, it's impossible to get a consensus on what exactly constitutes murder. Even if we can get a large group of people to agree to certain rules describing murder, we still wind up with the usual exceptions, etc.

For example, killing an enemy soldier is generally held to be morally acceptable (ie, not murder) because it falls into both the realm of self-preservation and the realm of preservation of others. These days, we've seen a lot of arguing as to what is and is not an enemy soldier and what is and is not a war. Most philosophers will argue that one cannot shoot and determine, post facto, if the target was a legitimate enemy while most of the people connected with the US armed forces point out that though restraint may be more morally nice it also unnecessarily puts out soldiers at risk of life and limb and also presumes that an enemy soldier can be tailed indefinatly until such time as they will give themselves away.

So yes, there are universal laws, but whether or not these are meaty, enforceable things or ephemeral and vague dictates is up to you, your God and your country to decide.

In some cases we have legislated morality (for example laws against killing) and for the most part those are good. However, instead of taking a Kantian viewpoint in this matter, I think we should look along a utilitarian viewpoint...it is, by definition, politically favorable.

I think we should have a universal moral law, there's just some things you can't and shouldn't do that is not even part of our government laws.

It is preferred if we have a universal moral law, over time if enforced, people would generally have the same moral values and become easier to understand differences.

But of course, i doubt its going to be a success. One it is worldwide. Anything that is worldwide has a super high chance to fail, pretty much, or at least, ineffective. The worse thing is only a minority have the means to enforce the law. Even those with 1st class police and law system, trying to punish people based on moral values through the law is extremely hard. I think i'm absolutely correct on this paragraph.

The universal law would only apply to nations in the UN at the most. There's gonna be a whole lot country that will oppose it, probably saying that it is a forced attempt to suppress people's rights or a breach of national soverignity.

Moral values across the globe are very different, being another major problem.

Universal moral law? That will never happen, just like a universal economy, religion, and legal law, does not exist. Morality is a variable concept that is dependent on so many factors...religion, political affliation, type of government, war, social class, gender, education, etc. Obviously there are various behaviors...murder, pedophilia...that seem to be universally accepted as morally wrong but everything else seem to be a little more vague. Think of it this way, for the most part morality changes from state to state in the United States and they are all the same country, I can't begin to imagine having every country in the entire world come to an agreement on a moral code. I think it is highly unrealistic.

I think we should have one but the fact remains that people in different countries believe in a different set of morals. So a universal moral code seem quite impossible. Although I believe a Universal Moral Code with do alot for the world and greatly delay the destruction of the world by humankind.

I think that there should be a universal set of morals. Without them the world will know nothing but chaos.

The problem is morality is both a relative and a subjective concept. What one person would find wrong another would find perfectly acceptable, while a third might believe that it depends on the circumstances. Attempting to apply a universal moral law would be a failure as everyone subscribes to a different set of values and would resent the implication that someone else's preferred set of values is a better choice than their own. For an example take homosexuality, a lot of people object on supposedly moral grounds, while others think that it is fine. If you implemented a universal moral law where would it stand on the issue? And how would it change the attitudes of those who disagreed with this "moral law"?
What about sex before marriage? How would this supposedly universal law deal with the changing attitudes of future generations? These are just a few points people should take into account. As to who should decide these laws, there isn't a single entity in existence who has the right to determine what is morally acceptable and what isn't.

Hopefully the above actually makes sense to anyone reading it as my brain is currently functioning along the lines of "look at the pretty colours" rather than any state fit for rational discussion.

i would say its almost an impossible question to answer. there are objective moralities, and subjective ones. utilitarians will say this, kantians that, and aquinans something else. but look at it this way-if there is not a single set morality, how many are there? as many as there are people obviously. but that means there is no real morality at all because we will all disagree (howver minorly) on any given moral statement. i might say "thou shallt not kill" but someone else can say "but what in this or that circumstance?" or "what if it prevents some greater evils?"
however if we dont have some idea of an objective set morality then we are in trouble-murder, rape and whatever are only prevented becuase we simply dont want to do them at that time, or are afraid we may get caught-so we need something that says "this is wrong, no matter what"
the question is who can this be? not God, because so many people no longer believe in him, though they still cling to the idea that God represents and upholds-to quote jonny cash-"we all want the kingdom, but we dont want god in it" we have all these atheists, who rally behind the cry "god is dead" and take it to mean that he never was or whatever-but do they know what that means? ofcrouse they dont. so one could say we need god-but then what can god be now? the protestant line of a personal relationship with god is hardly any better than the atheist line-but by the same coin as with morality-we dont want or need some monolithic ideal as stated by a man in a white hat in a big church do we?

i know ive babbled a fair bit-but the question is interesting and the answer impossible

Morality is the only thing keeping the world from degenerating into chaos. take that how you will

But what is really morality? What's better to stay in a love-less marriage just because that's the "moral" thing to do or should you get a divorce or should you have a mistress/lover outside of marriage and stay with your spouse for the sake of your kids? There can't be a moral law for everyone...

Quote by oceansoulThe problem is morality is both a relative and a subjective concept. What one person would find wrong another would find perfectly acceptable, while a third might believe that it depends on the circumstances. Attempting to apply a universal moral law would be a failure as everyone subscribes to a different set of values and would resent the implication that someone else's preferred set of values is a better choice than their own. For an example take homosexuality, a lot of people object on supposedly moral grounds, while others think that it is fine. If you implemented a universal moral law where would it stand on the issue? And how would it change the attitudes of those who disagreed with this "moral law"?
What about sex before marriage? How would this supposedly universal law deal with the changing attitudes of future generations? These are just a few points people should take into account. As to who should decide these laws, there isn't a single entity in existence who has the right to determine what is morally acceptable and what isn't.

Hopefully the above actually makes sense to anyone reading it as my brain is currently functioning along the lines of "look at the pretty colours" rather than any state fit for rational discussion.

Well how has letting everyone decide their own morals worked out so far?

It hasn't. Someone should just arbitrarily decide a universal system and exterminate all others.

a guy tried that in europe 70 years ago. went by the name of hitler.....not a flame btw, just an example of that way if thought going totally wrong

At least Hitler tried something. He did what he thought was best, know matter how insane or stupid, and didn't care what anyone else thought and he nearly succeeded but he ticked the U.S. off and sealed his own fate.

universal moral law is absurd. what is good, what is evil. I don't think there are such things. It's all about how one defines words and ideas.

Universal MoralLaw would have it's ups and downs. For starters, there's a slim chance that this would even work out. You simply can't get everyone to agree on one set lists of morals. As stated before, it would be pretty much impossible to effect any country outside of the UN anyway, plus it would probably crash and burn within the UN as well. It DOES have it's positives: more cooperation from foreign countries and not feeling so alienated when you visit another country are the first two that come to mind. But, either way, it just wouldn't work out. People can't even agree on global warming, let alone agreeing on the base beliefs of right and wrong. Plus, I don't need my imported anime DVDs compensated because of some twisted universal moral law.

A universal moral law already exists. Every place in the world has religious (spiritual, etc. Call it what you will) beliefs, and in each of those, there are similarities. Not necessarily in regards to who you pray to (if you pray) or what happens when you die, but in terms of how you should live your life. Killing is bad. Being kind is good. Etc etc etc. The thing is that people often ignore the beliefs or twist them to suit their own purposes.

apparently human beings need something to guide them if not they will start doing things that will benefit themsleves n hurt others

however, it's so difficult to devise something that will be fair to every1 therefore it is up to the person to judge it in the fairest n wisest ways possible

i am studying to be a professional accountant n we have the code of guidance on how to be trustworhty etc