With all of the morality threads here and elsewhere that make mention of some universal element it seems that at least one would argue for what that is - without violating Hume's Guillotine. Wanting to see what others think about that idea has always intrigued me. Due to how the topic is usually approached, I think that a successful approach to universal morality is often defeated prior to it's first step. It is in the method of approach that utterances of ought, 'right and wrong', and 'good and evil/bad' has hindered our understanding of what morality is, what brings it about, and how we - as a people - should pursue it. I outright deny a prescriptive and/or normative assessment of morality as showing us what morality is. Those methods are adopted belief about morality. The meta-ethical approach has yet to have gathered the adequate available knowledge and put it to proper use. The concept has problems, as we all know. We also all know that it is impossible, as humans, to abandon it completely. It is obviously *real*. Although, I've obviously thought about this considerably, this argument(which doesn't have the best format) was 'thrown' together on the fly last night and posted in another thread, however, I feel that it is worthy of it's own examination. So, all you morality buffs, have at it!

There are historical similiarites regarding ethics/morality. The common denominators converge upon the same thing. That is behavioral expectation of oneself or another. Morality/ethics is always about acceptable/unacceptable behavioral expectation. I think that how morality has been and continues to be framed in our thought only examines belief about morality. It is conclusion based. I say that that is being conflated with morality itself. Morality is instantiated prior to our belief about it. Much confusion has resulted from having been historically attached to God, and oftentimes it's pursuasive influence incorrectly found to be equally fallible by the same regard. First things first...

Number one problem - 'God' is in the way to properly assess morality.

Removing the need for such takes precedence.

Definition 1.) Belief is that which is accepted as being true(accurately corresponding to reality).
Definition 2.) Morality is innate and universally shared behavioral expectation.
Definition 3.) Moral belief is belief regarding acceptable/unacceptable behavior.

p1.) We all have moral belief.
p2.) We do not all hold a belief in 'God'.
C.) 'God' does not entail moral belief.

Another problem with morality, as it has been thought about throughout the ages, is that it has been framed as being belief based and has been demonstrated and examined through the product of such - through utterances of ought(s). Hume convinced us all that one cannot derive an ought from is, or vice-versa, without necessarily presupposing another ought. Let us then, use that to our advantage. The horse is dead. It is time to embrace the Guillotine rather than avoid it. We are newborns in a real sense concerning secular 'morality'. Morality is not expressed through an ought utterance, belief about morality is. There exists a universal constant which applies to all humans, regardless of particulars, that amounts to being a behavioral expectation(which ethics and morality both converge upon) that is not being met to the degree that it necessarily instantiates itself prior to our having the ability to acquire adopted belief about morality('sense' of ought). This I intend to show.

p1.) We are necessarily social creatures.
p2.) We are born void of belief.
p3.) We are born rational creatures.

Axiom1: I believe 'X' means I believe 'X' is true.
C.) It is humanly impossible knowingly believe a falsehood.
C2.) It is humanly impossible to intentionally make a mistake.

Axiom 2: The ability to doubt requires prior belief upon which the doubt is grounded.
C.) One cannot doubt whether or not the terms being learned through common language are true - accurately correspond to their referent(reality).
C2.) We are born naive realists, necessarily so.
C3.) We all instantiate and therefore use a correspondence theory of truth.

Belief is had in two forms, original and adopted. Original would constitute the conscious correlations made between objects of perception after our physiological sensory perception begins working, and necessarily results from our being born rational creatures. Adopted belief is that which we learn to correlate though common language. In order to even be able to learn a common language, one must necessarily place 'pure' faith(unquestionable trust/belief unimpeded by doubt) in the teacher of that language to be truthful in their testimony.

That is the universally applicable common denominator in human behavioral expectation(universal morality). All imaginable and real moral/ethical codes converge upon this - without exception, therefore it constitutes being universal. In science meeting that criterion constitutes being called Law. Yes, I am claiming that the fundamental basis of morality/ethics is necessarily instantiated through our obtaining common language. This includes the ability to learn anything from another through common language(adopted belief), because it is necessary in order to even be able to learn one's native tongue, regardless of the particulars.

That is what is.

Tell me then, why have we violated that universally shared human condition? Perhaps the better question is why ought we continue to do such a thing?

If I missed it, no kudos to me, but: do you have a way that you render your basic moral principle(s)? Something like the formulations of the categorical imperative?

Unless eschewing a normative/prescriptive definition of morality excludes some rendering like that...

However, then I'd argue that your theory, even if true, and even if widely acceptable in the sense of people ordinarily meaning by morality something along your lines, well, normative/prescriptive questions still exist. —How can you divide behavioral expectations from some kind of prescriptive structure?

It gets rather complicated Szav, involves showing what is. It needs work. It does not contradict the CI, though. It de-conceptualizes truth.

Leo wrote:

I would quibble with some assertions,
but the structure of your derivation is
uncommonly clear.

I take this as a compliment Leo. Being "uncommonly clear" when speaking about morality is a task in and of itself. I too, would quibble with a few of the assertions. It was a late night single sitting rendering(mind puke). There are some of the axioms which are not even pertinent to the discussion at this early stage as well... ah, well, you know how it is.

At present I'm working on the different individual aspect of it all, namely truth correspondence(which has it's fair share of opposition) and that which constitutes being thought/belief(which has even more!).

It has been a lesson in pursuasive rhetoric, if for no other reason than to 'get the ball rolling'.

I would quibble with some assertions,
but the structure of your derivation is
uncommonly clear. There is a distinction
made in Philosophy between Morality and Ethics,
but even Kant uses a sort of utilitarian
bootstrapping to justify having morality,
as being necessary for the 'man of good will'
society should be built of. Trust is a key
element in his deliberations, and trust
always means the relationship of at least
two people.

There seems to be some rigidity about language.
I wouldn't say you need exactly the same spoken
language, just key terms laid out clearly in
each spoken tongue.

Law gives us good history to look at.
It is at the far practical end, though...
consider that. That is, it usually concerns
key elements of trust and coordination society
feels strongly enough about to enforce.
"Extreme Ethics", as it were. A lot of ethics
and morality is beneath the action threshold
of law. That's a good thing: there will always
be differences, and if they aren't debilitating,
they should be given over to freedom.

The God thing is the only moral spinal column
in many places. The ability to hijack the God
concept for any and all brute nastiness is
the main reason for questioning the scheme.
There is no quality control on religions,
as communities pull apart and mold their own
god-images.