Hoo boy. OK, I’ll give it a whirl. You might also want to read the discussion in this thread.
Before I start, I will state that I haven’t done nearly enough reading on relative and absolute morality to engage in debate on those philosophies. But I will give my take on things.
I do not believe in a ‘universal morality’ as handed down from on high. I do not believe in a ‘universal morality’ towards which we (all peoples of the earth) are tending.
I do think that there are universal principles without which any particular society or culture can not long survive. However, the interpretation of those principles (usually referred to within any given society as its ‘morals’ or ‘values’) is cultural and varies. I do think that, as the peoples and cultures of this world become more interdependent and entwined and familiar to one another, the cultural interpretations of those principles grow closer in meaning.
For instance, all cultures believe that ‘murder is wrong’. So ‘murder is wrong’ can be considered a universal principle. Please note that I do NOT think that all cultures believe this because it is some sort of ‘higher’ principle or ‘universally existent’ moral. I simply think that any culture or society that does not follow this principle will rapidly destroy itself.
Now, let’s look at specifics. Most cultures only consider ‘murder’ to apply to humans. Many cultures do not consider anyone outside of their society to truly be ‘human’. Ergo, if you kill your neighbor, it’s ‘murder’, but if you kill that guy that lives across the river, it’s not. This is the rationale that allowed earlier generations of Europeans to wipe out entire populations - those ‘savages’ were not fully human. (This isn’t intended as Euro-bashing; many of those ‘savage’ tribes used much the same definitions to kill off competitors.) IOW, ‘murder’ is prohibited within the society, else the society might soon be destroyed by its own members, but killing outside of that society is accepted.
The generally accepted definition of ‘murder’ is ‘killing of innocents’; I’ll stick with that. (I realize that this is not the legal definition, but I’m not discussing the U.S. penal code here.) So to really define ‘murder’, one must first define ‘innocent’. Again, many cultures define ‘innocent’ as ‘those who fit into our society’. Christians of the Middle Ages could happily slaughter infidels and heretics - it was not ‘murder’ because those people were, by definition, not innocent. Same for the Moslem jihads, the Jewish massacres documented in the OT, etc. Killing outside of the defining society is OK because it doesn’t count as ‘murder’.
In current Western society, generally ‘murder’ does not include lawful executions, killing of military personnel in battle, accidental killings (unless through negligence), etc. However, many US/Euro’s would decry some lawful executions under Islamic law because they can be carried out (IIRC) by the families involved without recourse to a formal court of law and hence would not be ‘lawful’ outside of the Islamic community. On the other hand, in PETA society, ‘murder’ has been extended beyond humans to include killing of animals. Not generally accepted by the population at large, but to those in that society, a perfectly valid definition.
So, even though the concept that ‘murder is wrong’ is universal, the meaning and interpretation and application is cultural and relative. BUT, as our sense of community grows larger to include those who were once considered ‘subhuman’ or ‘non-innocent’ or were otherwise excluded from the safety of the murder taboo, the scope of ‘murder’ grows wider and more inclusive. Hence, the illusion that there is some ‘universal morality’ towards which all cultures and societies are headed.
I think that the base principle upon which these others are rooted is one of ‘do no harm to your fellow man’. It shows up as the Wiccan Rede ‘An it harm none…’, as K’ung-Fu-Tze’s maxim ‘Do not do unto others…’, as Hillel’s Rule ‘What is evil to you do not do…’, as the Golden Rule ‘Do unto others…’, as the Christian principle of ‘Love thy neighbor…’. Even Lib’s and Polycarp’s ‘Love is All’ (my paraphrasing).
Name any ethical system and it will have some version of this concept. So if there’s any ‘universal’ universal principle, that would be it. As with all of the more specific injunctions, however, it always depends on the definition and meaning of ‘your fellow man’. The wider that definition, the more inclusive and more ‘universal’ the morality.
Did I actually say all that? How verbose! Ah well, you asked. Did it help any?
Questions or problems? Arguments or disagreements? Responses? Please? Anyone?
This message brought to you by the Practical Anarchist sect of the Antidenominational Existential Eclectic Zen Agnostic. See sig line for further details.