Are the moraly right the victors of war?

[devil-fire]

it seems to me that the ones who win the wars turn out to be the moraly right

i remember talking about archers in history class in that they were vary effective in battle but they were a 'lesser' way to win the battle beause they required little skill to best a knight. sure enough, we don't care who has the skill and we don't care much about honor in war as long as it dosent violate any human rights conventions

there is a saying about world war 2, "if they won the war, we would all be speaking german". i think this also extends to (or maybe just refers to) the mentality that nazis would have been in the right if they won.

it makes sense that any system of morals that can beat out the last guys will be considered the right way to do things after a generation or 2



what do u guys think?

 

[russ_watters]

there is a saying about world war 2, "if they won the war, we would all be speaking german". i think this also extends to (or maybe just refers to) the mentality that nazis would have been in the right if they won.

it makes sense that any system of morals that can beat out the last guys will be considered the right way to do things after a generation or 2

what do u guys think?

I don't think that old adage was meant to imply that the Germans would automatically be morally right. There is another adage that the winners write the history books. In that sense, someone can manipulate (or lie) about the history to make it seem like their side was morally right, but that doesn't make it morally right.

In fact, if one has to lie to make their side appear "better," that's pretty clear evidence that they aren't.

 

[dschouten]

I would tend to agree with russ_waters and would even venture so far as to say that the victors of war tend, more often than not, to be in the morally 'right' position (and win the war because of it). "Evil may win battles, but good wins wars."

I argue in favor of this position by considering Von Clausewitz' arguments about the relation between total war and the strength of the combatants' will. More often than not, the defendant bears its very existence into war, and thereby is more strongly willed than the agressor. The defendant emerges the victor eventually through guerilla tactics and/or dogged persistence that outdoes any of military/political/monetary advantages the agressor may have gained by pursuing its objectives with the same tenacity.

Case-in-point: the American resolve has been considerable weakened by the death of some few hundred soldiers in Iraq. Yet by comparison, in WWII the Americans lost hundreds of thousands of young men and women whilst their resolve to continue the fight was only strengthened. I am not making a judgement on the Iraq 'phoney-war' (thats a whole other can of worms - and besides, it can hardly be called a war, it is more like a skirmish or brief foray), but I will say that if the situation was reversed, the will of the American people to suffer and even die for their nation's continued existence would be much stronger.

 

[odersven]

morality has nothing to do with determining right or wrong in war.

case in point: if there is no one to say you are wrong because you killed them, you could be considered morally right by lack of opposition.

war doesn't decide who is right or wrong, just who is left.

 

[odersven]

russ_watters,

you have to remember that morality is subjective - even down to the individual - and is not the generalization common among Western Ego born in the European medevial age.

In Hitler's mind, he thought his actions were moral. And in his mind, he was right.

It is subjective.

 

[dschouten]

russ_watters,

you have to remember that morality is subjective - even down to the individual - and is not the generalization common among Western Ego born in the European medevial age.

In Hitler's mind, he thought his actions were moral. And in his mind, he was right.

It is subjective.

Don't be so stupid. If Hitler really thought he was 'morally right', then why did he go through such lengths to hide the Holocaust? Was it just for a bit of German fun?

Your sorry mixture of historical revisionism and moral relativism is complete hogwash.

 

[dschouten]

case in point: if there is no one to say you are wrong because you killed them, you could be considered morally right by lack of opposition.

By the same token, when a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to see it, it doesn't make a sound. Ergo, physics is just a bunch of "Western Ego born in the European medevial age" so we don't have to accept it or the laws it imposes. What a tidy affair.

If I kill you, and nobody catches me, am I 'morally right'? That would be convenient.

 

[loseyourname]

To be fair, the tree falling thing depends entirely on how you define sound. If the waves themselves constitute sound, then the tree makes a sound. But if sound is the perception of the waves by an intelligent being, then it doesn't make a sound. I guess that's off-topic, though.

A better analogy would be to just use some obvious truth. If I insist that my hand is made of plastic, and even if I honestly believe my hand to be made of plastic, I'm wrong whether or not anyone argues with me.

 

[odersven]

dschouten, welcome to slave morality!

Morality is SUBJECTIVE.

Hitler did think he was right, he hid the holocaust because others thought it was immoral. SUBJECTIVE. Do I think he was right? No, but guess what? You can't kill 6 million Jews by yourself.

You obviously have no clue as to what moral concepts are. They are not perminant, and change constantly. There is no such thing as a universal morality because it is a generalization of life as a whole.

You created your morality, and now it limits you - enjoy your self served slavery.

 

[loseyourname]

You don't think Hitler was right to kill Jews? Does that not mean you would not kill a Jew simply because he was a Jew? Well jeez, welcome to slavery. That's one less possibility for your life.

 

[Kerrie]

dschouten, welcome to slave morality!

Morality is SUBJECTIVE.

Hitler did think he was right, he hid the holocaust because others thought it was immoral. SUBJECTIVE. Do I think he was right? No, but guess what? You can't kill 6 million Jews by yourself.

You obviously have no clue as to what moral concepts are. They are not perminant, and change constantly. There is no such thing as a universal morality because it is a generalization of life as a whole.

You created your morality, and now it limits you - enjoy your self served slavery.

you make a good point, but let's tone down the self-righteousness here
new ideas/thoughts are better accepted when coated in honey.

i absolutely see your point-hitler did believe he was "right", thus "moral" in his own perspective. as the question of this topic is posed, "are the morally right the victors of war?", we would have to answer a big fat NO because Hitler did not win WWII, despite how many innocent people lost their lives.

 

[devil-fire]

for the points in this topic let's say that the moraly right or wrong is desided by the most people in the world. and also let's assume that if a person dosn't care, that they do not disagree with it.

so durring ww2 for example, most germans did not know the full extent of the genocide but many suspected and did not find it objectionable. if the nazis won the war do you think that those people would look back in retrospect and change their minds about right and wrong? would a world under nazi rule think it right or wrong?

note that history isn't the main subject of this topic (i for one generaly have a lack of knowledge in history). its just a good example i think i can refer to and know that everyone is basicly on the same page

 

[devil-fire]

you make a good point, but let's tone down the self-righteousness here
new ideas/thoughts are better accepted when coated in honey.

i absolutely see your point-hitler did believe he was "right", thus "moral" in his own perspective. as the question of this topic is posed, "are the morally right the victors of war?", we would have to answer a big fat NO because Hitler did not win WWII, despite how many innocent people lost their lives.

sorry, i missnamed my topic. what i ment to ask is if the victors of war are the moraly right.

i think we can all agree on that point though

 

[devil-fire]

when i say moraly right I am referring to the shared opinion of the most amount of people

 

[BoulderHead]

Yeah, I saw you had answered my question right after I posted, so I deleted the question.

In that case I would say in the long run the majority view is likely to prevail.

[edit]
To which I'd add that winning the minds of others is part of the struggle, a struggle that philosophy plays a role in.

 

[Evo]

when i say moraly right I am referring to the shared opinion of the most amount of people

If we take WWII as an example, Hitler was able to quickly conquer a large number of people, but these people did not agree with their captors and most continued to oppose him until ultimately Hitler was overthrown. Also, many countries not yet conquered by Hitler opposed him. So, even though he was the victor, the shared opinion of the majority (according to your definition) would make the victor Germany/Hitler morally wrong.

If Hitler would have stopped before invading Russia, Germany would have held most of Europe and parts of N Africa.

 

[russ_watters]

Morality is SUBJECTIVE.

You're talking about moral relativism. Its discussed in several other threads and it is, quite simply, wrong. What someone believes to be moral and immoral is largely irrelevant to the question of whether certain actions actually are or are not immoral. Morality is as absolute as the laws of physics, though just as difficult to figure out. But to put it simply, what is morally right is what works. Murder, for example, cannot be morally right because if it were and everyone were to do it, it would cause society to break down. That idea of morality doesn't work and is therefore flawed.

If taken to its logical conclusion, moral relativism means anarchy: no one is able to impose any morality on anyone else and therefore no one can enforce any laws against anyone else.

i absolutely see your point-hitler did believe he was "right", thus "moral" in his own perspective.

I'm sure there is much debate on that point in psychology circles where they discuss the depth of his mental illness. The veracity of his beliefs is not really all that relevant to this discussion for that reason.

 

[Integral]

...
Morality is as absolute as the laws of physics, though just as difficult to figure out.

Wow! Russ were did you get this wild idea! Morality is cultural, each culture has its own morality, there have been many cultures in the history of man most of which you would have been horrified at what was considered moral.

But to put it simply, what is morally right is what works. Murder, for example, cannot be morally right because if it were and everyone were to do it, it would cause society to break down. That idea of morality doesn't work and is therefore flawed.

Frankly, our view of murder is pretty recent. As little as 150 yrs ago in this country a Southern Gentleman could terminate the life of one of his slaves and it would not have been considered murder, no one would have raised an eyebrow or even thought to suggest that murder had been committed. Morality is more defined by the subconscious of the culture then "what works".

If taken to its logical conclusion, moral relativism means anarchy: no one is able to impose any morality on anyone else and therefore no one can enforce any laws against anyone else. I'm sure there is much debate on that point in psychology circles where they discuss the depth of his mental illness. The veracity of his beliefs is not really all that relevant to this discussion for that reason.

There is a significant difference between morality and the legal system, we can impose laws but morality is an entirely separate issue. It is the rare human who will declare THEMSELVES immoral. Irregardless of despicable deeds each human has the ability to rationalize actions so as to believe themself to be moral. That is how ephemeral morality is. As for morality being absolute that is simply ludicrous.

 

[BoulderHead]

Murder, for example, cannot be morally right because if it were and everyone were to do it, it would cause society to break down. That idea of morality doesn't work and is therefore flawed.

What is wrong is the Genetic Fallacy…
There may be societal, even evolutionary, reasons explaining why people may view murder as wrong, but being able to explain the how and why for holding a view does not demonstrate the untrue-ness of an opposing view.
Although this may seem a bit odd; I am unconvinced there is necessarily a reason to assume everyone would commit murder even if murder were in fact morally ok, therefore, claiming ‘that idea of morality doesn’t work…’ seems dubious.

 

[russ_watters]

Wow! Russ were did you get this wild idea! Morality is cultural, each culture has its own morality, there have been many cultures in the history of man most of which you would have been horrified at what was considered moral.

And there is a reason why they are no longer around today. Like I said, just because something is "considered" (believed) by some to be moral does not make it moral any more than geistkiel's insistence that light obeys Galilean relativity makes it so.

Morality, just like scientific knowledge is converging into its fundamental laws the more we study it.

Frankly, our view of murder is pretty recent. As little as 150 yrs ago in this country a Southern Gentleman could terminate the life of one of his slaves and it would not have been considered murder, no one would have raised an eyebrow or even thought to suggest that murder had been committed.

More evidence that our understanding of morality is evolving/coalescing into its universal laws.

There is a significant difference between morality and the legal system, we can impose laws but morality is an entirely separate issue.

Murder isn't a moral issue?

As for morality being absolute that is simply ludicrous.

Quite frankly, its only ludicrous because you haven't thought moral relativism through to its logical ends. I'm not saying that to be condescending, its just that very few people ever do. Most people take the morality given to them by their parents and accept it (or don't) with little thought. Religion helps - it says in the Ten Commandments that murder is wrong. So it is... right? Or isn't it? No one ever stops to ask why?

I had a series of seminars on this in college and a good 3/4 of the people started with your opinion. After several weeks of case studies and examples on why moral relativism leads inevitably and invariably to anarchy, virtually everyone eventually concluded that moral relativism is a flawed basis for defining morality. Boiling it down though, think about this:

On what basis can you impose your version of morality on someone else if everyone's own personal view is equally valid?

 

[russ_watters]

I am unconvinced there is necessarily a reason to assume everyone would commit murder even if murder were in fact morally ok, therefore, claiming ‘that idea of morality doesn’t work…’ seems dubious.

I'm not saying everyone would - I'm not even saying that many more would than already do. I'm saying that if you don't have a basis for morality, you don't have a basis for telling people what they can and can't do. If you can't tell people that they can't commit murder, and you don't punish people who do, that will have a pretty big negative impact on society.

 

[BoulderHead]

I'm not saying everyone would - I'm not even saying that many more would than already do.

Your argument came across differently to me. What I saw was a claim that society would break down.

I'm saying that if you don't have a basis for morality, you don't have a basis for telling people what they can and can't do. If you can't tell people that they can't commit murder, and you don't punish people who do, that will have a pretty big negative impact on society.

You were arguing not in favor of morality but, rather, absolute morality. Here is how I saw your argument;

1) Society cannot exist without absolute morality.
2) Society exists
3) Absolute morality exists

I question the premise and conclusion.

 

[dschouten]

Allow me to renew this discussion with a few statements with which I think everyone can or should agree:

1. Everyone, with the exception of a very few perhaps, has some concept of morality. Consider: when approached with the question "Is what you are doing morally right?", a vast proportion of people will not balk or question the sanity of the one asking the question, but will more than likely have some quick response to justify themselves and their actions (whether the justification is valid or not will have to be discussed later).

2. Whether or not one defends his/her actions has little to do with the actual morality of the actions. This is why excuses are so prevalent. When faced with the possibility of being caught 'red-handed' doing something that is known to be wrong, even in the sense of a cultural norm, people (that is, we) are very likely to simply lie and willfully promote the morality of something they (we) know, or at least believe, to be immoral.

3. Morality is not synonomous with legality. Many moral things have been - indeed, still may be - illegal. The vice-versa is similarly true.

(This will be the most controversial and emprical statement)
4. Cross-cultural differences in moral codes do not affect the most basic premises of morality, but only the particular applications. For example, killing is never generally accepted but people are still killed. Similarly, cheating is never considered good, although there certainly exist circumstances in many cultures where cheating is promoted. The basic premises have not changed, but value statements have been made to justify their transgression.

Now for some conclusions derived from these premises:

Because of (1), whereby every human has some concept of morality, it follows that morality exists in and of itself. Disagreements about the correctness of one's moral code may certainly exist, yet there are no arguments to dissuade the very existence of morality.

Because of (2), arguments derived from the differences of distinct moral codes may not imply that morality is relative. Also, because of (3), the legality of some action implies nothing about its moral status in that culture. The argument proposed to validate moral relativism in this forum had to do with the murder of slaves some hundred years ago. My counterclaim is that this was legal, yet entirely immoral even in the context of 19th century American culture despite the many attempts to justify it at that time. There exists a vast store of literature from that era which will validate my claim.

Now since morality exists in and of itself, and arguments concerning its application do not imply moral relativism, and since by (4) the concept of morality is essentially constant across cultures, it can be concluded that there is some morality which is common and which exists by itself independant of its application. This is the morality of which I speak when arguing against the moral correctness of a military victor.

This is also the morality which condemns Hitler's murderous intentions. It cries 'despicable' when it sees the horrors of slavery then and now. It has exuded and now exudes its influence in literature from antiquity to the present. Anyone with a tiddle more than a brief exposure to the world, its peoples and its history cannot cling to the hot branding iron of moral relativism. It holds no sway when brought to bear on the realities of life and exists only when separated from its application.

 

[RRR]

So far, only one war has been considered.

Only WWII and Hitler have been considered and incidentally, it is one of the rare instances where a "bad guy" can clearly be indentified in the history of war. In this case, few people would argue that "the good guys" won or at least that the worse of the two parties lost. But even in WWII, there was a lot of relativism at work such as the massive aerial bombing campaigns of the allies against German and Japanese civilians.

But beyond World War II, look at all of the innocent peoples that have been wiped out by warfare. The volumes of history that have and could yet be written on the colonial wars instigated by european imperialists against aboriginal peoples round the world do not represent very well the notion that the morally right win wars. If anything, history continues to teach us that nice guys don't win wars, that morality has nothing at all to do with it. Discipline, leadership and most importantly, ample resources (including technological resources) determine the victors of warfare. Wars are fought for and with economic and human power. Morality is a marketing ploy used to sell the product of war.

 

[russ_watters]

Your argument came across differently to me. What I saw was a claim that society would break down.

And it would. It doesn't take that many unpunished murderers, thiefs, rapists, etc before vigliante justice (anarchy) sets in.

You were arguing not in favor of morality but, rather, absolute morality.

That is correct. I do, in fact, believe that no morality has any teeth (ie, can't work) unless it is absolute. A society based on a relative morality would have no choice but to let every individual in the society choose what is morally right and wrong for them and act accordingly.

Here is how I saw your argument;

1) Society cannot exist without absolute morality.
2) Society exists.
[therefore] 3) Absolute morality exists.

#3 needs to be a premise in the same way that every physicist must assume starting out that there are absolute laws governing the universe before starting an experiment. If the experiment works, then that becomes further evidence that that premise is correct. If no experiment ever works (ie, no reproduceable results, ever), then you can throw out the premise.

#1 becomes Universal Morality's first premise. Just as with Relativity's premises though, this one can be tested simply by observing that there has never been a society based on complete moral relativism. Its as axiomatic as the first postulate of Relativity (it even sounds the same): the moral laws of a society are the same for all members of the society. There have of course been varying degrees - a despot is above the laws of the country. A country with a strict caste system (India) has different morality/laws for different people. But in no country can everyone pick and choose what works for them. The jump then is similar to the jump from Galilean to Einsteinean relativity - not a big step.

I question the premise and conclusion.

Fine. Why?

 

[dschouten]

Only WWII and Hitler have been considered and incidentally, it is one of the rare instances where a "bad guy" can clearly be indentified in the history of war. In this case, few people would argue that "the good guys" won or at least that the worse of the two parties lost. But even in WWII, there was a lot of relativism at work such as the massive aerial bombing campaigns of the allies against German and Japanese civilians.

This wasn't moral relativism: that it was done by the 'good' guys never validated them doing it. A morally superior position in war has never validated every action performed during the war. Rather, war is atrocious in its very nature. Upon reading Churchill's series on the war as well as a vast store of other historical documents it becomes clear just how much argument there was against the Dresden fire bombings etc. from the Allied commanders.

Morality is a marketing ploy used to sell the product of war.

Not quite. Hawks certainly appeal to morality to justify war, but morality is not invented to serve war. For instance, no one would ever say: "Such and such a country is all too nice to us. Let's bomb the hell out of them." and thus invent a completely new morality. The appeals always go like "This group of people are bad because of such and such. Because of this let's bomb the hell out of them." The 'bad because of such and such' is the morality and its not invented, but appealed to. Otherwise, why would such a claim carry any weight, unless the majority of people agreed that 'such and such' was bad?

 

[RRR]

One must view the concept of "morality" for what it is...a human concept invented by humanity. It is not a natural law that we somehow discover. As with any human invention, morality serves a purpose. That purpose has primarily been as a tool to aid in the smooth functioning of an ordered society. Beginning with the enlightenment, the concept of individual liberty was added to the function of morality. Morality's purpose then became to function as a tool in balancing social order with individual liberty. It is this function which serves as an absolute---not a universal absolute, but a functional one. Its like any invention...say an automobile. A car is made essentially for transportation--to get from point A to point B. How one makes an automobile and even how one drives it is relative or even a subjective consideration, but the goal is, for practical purposes, an absolute.

 

[russ_watters]

But even in WWII, there was a lot of relativism at work such as the massive aerial bombing campaigns of the allies against German and Japanese civilians.

And the international community has looked back and realized that that isn't how civilized nations should act. I wouldn't call that relativism though. Its coming to an agreement on a universal moral law (indiscriminate bombing of civilians in war is not acceptable).

The international view of morality was changed after WWII precisely because the existing view was seen as flawed: it led to two world wars.

The volumes of history that have and could yet be written on the colonial wars instigated by european imperialists against aboriginal peoples round the world do not represent very well the notion that the morally right win wars.

Back to the original question: I agree with you here that strength is what wins wars, not moral superiority.

dschouten - I mostly agree with you. Minor points:

No, morality is not synonomous with legality (and that's why we're having this part of the argument), but it is suposed to be. Ie, no one will pass a law while admitting they know it to be morally wrong.

On #4 I think we agree (it is, admittedly, complicated) and that's part of my basis for arguing against moral relativism. Some people see the fact that different people have differing views on morality and think that that equals relativism. It doesn't any more than the disagreements in the TD forum mean there are no universal physical laws. It bears repeating: just because someone believes something does not make it right.

 

[russ_watters]

One must view the concept of "morality" for what it is...a human concept invented by humanity. It is not a natural law that we somehow discover. As with any human invention, morality serves a purpose. That purpose has primarily been as a tool to aid in the smooth functioning of an ordered society. Beginning with the enlightenment, the concept of individual liberty was added to the function of morality. Morality's purpose then became to function as a tool in balancing social order with individual liberty.

A reasonable position, but...

It is this function which serves as an absolute---not a universal absolute, but a functional one.

What's the difference between a universal absolute and a functional one? God? 'It just 'Is'?' Since it works just the same either way, I don't see a reason to assume a functional absolute is any different from a universal one. Again, I consider this like the ether vs relativity debate - an unncessary added assumption.

 

[RRR]

This wasn't moral relativism: that it was done by the 'good' guys never validated them doing it. Upon reading Churchill's series on the war as well as a vast store of other historical documents it becomes clear just how much argument there was against the Dresden fire bombings etc. from the Allied commanders.

It was debated, but even today, it is largely justified. You won't find a lot of WWII buffs claiming that the A-Bombs should not have been dropped. The idea that the killing of thousands of civilians to save even one American soldier often justifies what might normally be considered reprehensible. While some figures, like Curtis Lemay would privately comment that if they lost the war, they would be tried for war crimes, the will to win and preserve their own troops justified nearly any indiscretion.

Not quite. Hawks certainly appeal to morality to justify war, but morality is not invented to serve war. For instance, no one would ever say: "Such and such a country is all too nice to us. Let's bomb the hell out of them." and thus invent a completely new morality. The appeals always go like "This group of people are bad because of such and such. Because of this let's bomb the hell out of them." The 'bad because of such and such' is the morality and its not invented, but appealed to. Otherwise, why would such a claim carry any weight, unless the majority of people agreed that 'such and such' was bad?

Actually, that's what I meant, but you articulated it better.

 

[dschouten]

It was debated, but even today, it is largely justified. You won't find a lot of WWII buffs claiming that the A-Bombs should not have been dropped. The idea that the killing of thousands of civilians to save even one American soldier often justifies what might normally be considered reprehensible. While some figures, like Curtis Lemay would privately comment that if they lost the war, they would be tried for war crimes, the will to win and preserve their own troops justified nearly any indiscretion.

Aha. But that is just it - 'largely justified'. People appeal to norms of morality to try and justify an action, but they don't invent new ones, which is the main thrust of my arguments thus far.

It can be debatable whether a particular action is moral simply because the basic laws of morality depend on circumstance, and the circumstances are debatable. But if everyone agreed on the circumstances, everyone would agree on the morality of the action.

 

[RRR]

Is it a universal absolute that a car is used to go from point a to point b? I suppose you could use a car as a planter for an herb garden. Morality is a tool like any other. Society, as its wielder has evolving needs. Those needs are what set the "worth" of a moral law and that changes over time and under varying circumstances. Its not a free-for-all relativism that one might imagine. Its grounded in its efficacy. But its not a carved in stone mythic cord binding all living things to do its bidding. If it was universal, then I would expect animals and even inanimate objects to conform to moral law.

 

[dschouten]

Is it a universal absolute that a car is used to go from point a to point b? I suppose you could use a car as a planter for an herb garden. Morality is a tool like any other. Society, as its wielder has evolving needs. Those needs are what set the "worth" of a moral law and that changes over time and under varying circumstances. Its not a free-for-all relativism that one might imagine. Its grounded in its efficacy. But its not a carved in stone mythic cord binding all living things to do its bidding. If it was universal, then I would expect animals and even inanimate objects to conform to moral law.

Don't be ridiculous. Morality is concerned only with human actions. You don't put a bear on trial for killing a rabbit. Inanimate objects should also seem an obvious exception to morality's universality.

Regarding society's evolving needs, if you were to peer into the moral codes of yesteryear you would find that morality has remained unchanged, as it would be.

I think though, that we are closer together on this issue then we are letting on here. Perhaps my peevishness is standing the way of acceptable compromise. Alas, but for my egoism!

 

[RRR]

You guys are too fast for me. I'm goofing off of work and before I can post a reply to the last response, another one is already out there.

It can be debatable whether a particular action is moral simply because the basic laws of morality depend on circumstance, and the circumstances are debatable. But if everyone agreed on the circumstances, everyone would agree on the morality of the action.

I can concede this. But even so, I think a lot of it remains subjective. Morality is determined by a society, or even a community, if you will. Often, even in our more international world, rules for one's community are often not applied to "outsiders". I think it remains difficult for many people, especially in war, to apply the same logic that may justify one's own actions to justifying the action of an enemy. Even if people do agree on the circumstances, its not given that they will agree with the actions taken simply because they may belong to different communities.

 

[RRR]

Don't be ridiculous. Morality is concerned only with human actions. You don't put a bear on trial for killing a rabbit. Inanimate objects should also seem an obvious exception to morality's universality.

Actually, that reply was to this from russ_watters. I must be more careful.

What's the difference between a universal absolute and a functional one? God? 'It just 'Is'?' Since it works just the same either way, I don't see a reason to assume a functional absolute is any different from a universal one. Again, I consider this like the ether vs relativity debate - an unncessary added assumption.

But yes, morality isn't concerned with animal behavior or inanimate objects. It is only concerned with human action. Which is why I can't see that it is "universal". Thats why I believe that it is a human invention. I was just being flippant.