>You say that it's construct, I say that it exists apart from
>whether we acknowledge it or not.
>We did not "invent" it.
>We "discovered" it.
>Those are two HUGELY different things in this case.
>
>If we invented it, as a lack of a creator unquestioningly
>suggests, which is what you're saying, then who is to say
>any one moral standard is greater than another.
>
>If you say we invented it, then you cannot compare
>moralities.
>
Why would you want to compare moralities? Why not leave it alone, why not allow people to live in thier own society instead of feeling the need to compare it with your own? This seems to be indicitave of a larger problem with western society. The idea that the one idea is better than another and the worse idea ought to realize it.

>For to compare, there must be something to be compared
>againts, there has to be a standard, a bar to raise.
>
Again, why compare? Even more so, why compare against? This seems especially combative.

>If you think that in a couple crucial respects, contemporary
>Switzerland is more moral than Nazi Germany, then you have
>already acknowledged that there is an idea of "morality"
>that BOTH are being compared against to determine which is
>a modern/reformed/enlightened morality, and which one is
>decrepid, insidious, evil, and based in hate.
>
Flawed arguement. If you insist on comparing at least compare within the construct of time, i.e. Nazi Germany vs. 1940's U.S. or Canada or something. Without at least working within the context of time you don't allow for evolution of the Human Species and its collective consciousness. I mean collective consciousness as an idea kept within tangible sources not an otherworldly connection of human souls, example, books and literature.

>Do you see that?
>
Nope

>Now we HAVE to draw the line between the idea of MORALITY
>being human construct, and MORAL GUIDELINES or "Man-made
>laws" being human consruct.

Probably a good idea to draw that line
>
>One is the absolute, the standard. The other, is a rule
>developed to reach that standard as best as possible.
>I'm not contending that MORAL GUIDELINES are not human
>construct. I'm contending that the idea of MORALITY could
>not possibly be.

Why not?
>
>If you are going to tell me that MORALITY is human construct
>then you are telling me that I am free to act in any way I
>please, to define my own morality (let's be extreme for
>illustration.. killing, raping, etc..), because there is no
>way to say one is better than the other. You are telling me
>that I'm free to act in a way that encroaches on your
>morals, yet I am completely blameless in doing so, because
>your morals are not my morals. You're saying it's all
>completely subjective.
>
You are free to act in any way that you please. Thats the entire idea behind "free will". But your examples are off target anyway. When you use an extreme example of behavior that falls under the your idea of MORAL GUIDELINES, you negate your entire arguement. Even still, by adding the concept of blame you add in the idea of judgement, which if you'd like to add to this conversation some parameters will need to be drawn. But within my previously mentioned idea of a human collective conscious found in human art, history, ect... you still would, classically be blamed for your behavior, not blameless.

>But you're not saying that directly. You're masking it with
>the argument that logic would dictate that most humans would
>know not to act so contrarily to others rights and interest
>because it wouldn't be in the interest of order or society.
>
Humans probably do behave within the confines of society. I agree with you there.

>However that argument falls down again with the illustration
>of an absolute dictatorship where the ruler maintains
>command by intimidation through torture and murder.
>That society stands the potential, lots of potential, to run
>in a more orderly fashion than we could ever hope of
>functioning.
>In other words... shit would get DONE!
>
Yea lots of shit would get done, including Nepotism, which has been one of the many downfalls of dictatorship. The Nepotism that dictatorships usually have increase the effect that bribery has on the system, subsequently subverting the system over time. This coulpled with Cronyism and the fact that a dictator would not stand for punishments being dolled out evenly across his society generally causes unrest and larger problems. While dictatorship does solve some of the problems of buerocracy, its not a very good system for the masses in practice and usually the masses don't stand for it.

>So you cannot say that we invented morality cause it is
>necessary for order in the society.
>
No I can say that. But even more relevant is the fact that Morality has little to do with an orderly society. Society has many things in it that help to create order, cops, laws, punishment, education, ect...

>It is demonstrative that that goal can be achieved through
>other means.
>
>"Yes but other means wouldn't be fair"... really?
>
>Fair COMPARED to what.
>
I'm not quite sure what this is in reference to.

>Hitler had it in his head that he had the green light... who
>are you to subject him to your moral principles?
>
I'm nobody really.

>Unless of course you truly feel that you have a more
>enlightened view than he... right?
>
I sincerely hope that I am more "moral" than Hitler. Generally I chalk that up to Humility more than anything else though. If I was Hitler I wouldn't have opened up a second front in the war and probably would have won the war as a result. Of course Hitler was kind of an meglomanical mass murderer, kind of like a protege of Charlamagne, except without the need to have "God" justify his actions. This was a bonus for Hitler b/c he could act quickly and decisevly, in other words shit got done.
>
>peace.

PEACE, now thats something that I can easily agree on