Morality cannot exist without a higher power
 

Even if you're not reading this, Hank's wrong.

Morality cannot exist without a higher power
 

Why do you need a universal moral code? Why not have a sort of universal moral common law that resolves specific questions as they arise?

Rational people can ignore the social contract all the time. People do crimes that a never discovered and that never effect them or their reputations. People cheat on their taxes, steal and do other stuff that violates the social contract yet reap the benefits of the social contract.

I need this for my sanity
 

Those Australian morons better hope they never run into me. I will kill them slowly, enjoy it, and know that I am in full compliance with the Universal Moral Code when ridding the world of their wretched and offensive existence.

OK.

Do you believe in a universal moral code?

If not, what do you believe morality is based on?

Morality cannot exist without a higher power
 

What do you mean by universal moral common law?

Who gets to decide what is in it? Or in other words, how do you decide what is in it?

Unenforced laws are pretty much useless, so how would you enforce this universal moral common law?

Morality cannot exist without a higher power
 

I mean, we have competing moral principles, and we have to reconcile them as we go.

I think there are universal moral principles, but that we see them through a glass, darkly.

Morality cannot exist without a higher power
 

Where do you think these universal moral principles come from?

Morality cannot exist without a higher power
 

For now, let's say God.

Morality cannot exist without a higher power
 

I just remembered that you are Jewish. Isn't that correct?

Are you a religious Jew? If you are you should be backing me up here.

I think the Jews were the first people to realize that there is one universal moral code that applies to everyone. They were the first people (as far as I know) to determine that morality is not relative (and they have been paying for it ever since).

I agree with that. For thousands of years Jewish religious scholars have been arguing amongst themselves trying to determine what is in the code (which is why some of our best lawyers and judges have come from the rabbinical tradition). But they all agree that there is one code, they just disagree with what is in it.

I agree with them that there is a UMC. Obviously there are certain Jewish scholars I am more an agreement with than others, but in general they all have a much deeper understanding of the UMC than I hope to ever have.

It seems that most of the liberals on this board think that the idea of a UMC is a joke. But so far no one has convinced me that they are right and the rabbinical scholars are wrong.

Morality cannot exist without a higher power
 

So you agree with me that there is a Universal Moral Code.

Morality cannot exist without a higher power
 

I do not think you are trying very hard to understand my posts. When I use the word "principles" instead of "code," I am trying to draw a distinction. Perhaps you should explain what you mean when you say this. As I said before, I believe that there are certain fundamental moral principles, and that we see them through a glass, darkly.

Morality cannot exist without a higher power
 

I am reading your posts very carefully, but I think you are assuming that by using different words that you are delineating a difference, when I don't think you are.

You are drawing a distinction when there is no difference.

I don't see how a set of princoples and a code are any different.

How does a set of universal principles differ from a universal moral code?

A principle might be that it is wrong to kill innocent people. Couldn't that also be considered section of a code.

Are the ten commandments a code or a set of principles?

I think they are the same, why do you thing they are different?

Morality cannot exist without a higher power
 

Principles are more general, and may conflict in specific instances. For example, the principle of respecting others' autonomy may conflict with the idea of doing the greatest good. To me, the word code suggests a more realized set of rules. The difference I'm thinking of is like that between the sort of principles involved in constitutional law, and the sort of analysis that goes into drafting and interpreting statutes.

Also, I've quoted 1 Corinthians a few times now because it's hard for us to grasp these principles. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.

Would you say that the ten commandments are a code or a set of principles?