I get that they're not ordinary strangers, but if this GA thing is true, then... Anyways they were still irresponsable.

As for the morality/ethics thing, all of them come from humans, there's no such thing as God or any other deity. The people who came up with those sistems wanted them to be "universal", they only fit the worldview of the culture they're part of. And the only values that matter are the ones for which there is no logical reason to change.

As for killing, I gave an example, the killing that soldiers do, which is not considered morally wrong (unless it's the opposing side).

You can`t blame genetics and say oh, it`s not my fault. Unless you have zero control of your body or had no conscience you are responsible for a decision you made and followed.

You don`t seem to be fond of a God idea or fundamentation but i actually am, that`s why i say all life is precious. It was something that was given to us and we won`t ever be able to grasp how meaningful it really is.
But even if i`m a believer and you are not, in my honest opinion and interpretation, is that what God wants for us is what every humanitarian - believer or not - wants for himself or everyone else: to be loved and fully respected as a person of reason and soul. It`s a system but at the same time above that. That`s what i follow and believe.
They are also believed to be universal because they are simple, independent of time, place or context, and, above all things, objective as they encompass every single person above all differences.
To me, if God is love, who in this Earth doesn`t yearn for that.
Please, don`t consider this an imposition of believes but my view of the world and a reasoning on why universal values do share the image of God - to me, that is.

Soldiers killings as any killing happens for two reasons:  a good one or a bad one. The pure defense of human life is a good reason. Killing for political reasons or just pure hatred, is a bad reason. The ones who are pulling the trigger are the ones that can say why they pulled it

This man speeks the truth

First of all, there's no such thing as a soul.

Second of all what you're saying (to be loved and fully respected as a person) is really nice, and probably the best one invented by humans (in my opinion), but not all humans share this view, and a moral system cvan only be adopted if there is consensus, and there isn't consensus yet between all the cultures in the world. They're not really independent of time, place or context. You can't judge people from other ages or other countries, by using your moral standars. That's one of the biggest mistake one can make.

I actually think there is! :)
But instead of that you can the "sentimental" side.

It`s a very "dangerous" thing to let morality be the result of a concensus. They aren`t meant to be voltatile in that way: it could mean that what is right today is forgotten tomorrow. Moral values are for every single person to make it their own or not.
Morality reports to the highest human values that we can comprehend; they are born from the essence of humanity: love, dignity, freedom, respect, reason, feelings, etc. Yes, there are a number of morals, but if they can`t be born from that premiss they aren`t of great value. So they need to "be" before a place, a time or context.
Actually i do prefer the term ethics as it is something that`s stronger that the morality ideas.

I have a catholical moral/ethical view on this life. Can`t i criticize/judge other cultures because of cultural differences? Yes i can.
My ethical view allows me to see people from a humanity point of view, not a european, american, asian, etc. man or women. That`s the strength of ethics: it doesn`t in particular to anyone, but for everyone in general and how we all share something in common - normally moral values as i said above.
It`s not a mistake, it`s a necessity if you truly want to critize/judge yourself and others whilst retaining objectivity.

@DélioPT:

I actually think there is! :)
But instead of that you can the "sentimental" side.

Well, there isn't such a thing.

It`s a very "dangerous" thing to let morality be the result of a concensus.

Morality has no value if there's no consensus.

They aren`t meant to be voltatile in that way: it could mean that what is right today is forgotten tomorrow.

Morals are volatile. Many things that were considered "moral" in the past are considered "immoral" today, and vice versa (for example in the Middle Ages Christians considered it perfectly moral to kill non-Christians).

Morality reports to the highest human values that we can comprehend; they are born from the essence of humanity: love, dignity, freedom, respect, reason, feelings, etc. Yes, there are a number of morals, but if they can`t be born from that premiss they aren`t of great value. So they need to "be" before a place, a time or context.

Morals are the result of the time, place and context. They have no value outside of that.

I have a catholical moral/ethical view on this life. Can`t i criticize/judge other cultures because of cultural differences? Yes i can.

Yes you can, but that's a very ignorant thing to do.

My ethical view allows me to see people from a humanity point of view, not a european, american, asian, etc. man or women. That`s the strength of ethics: it doesn`t in particular to anyone, but for everyone in general and how we all share something in common - normally moral values as i said above.
It`s not a mistake, it`s a necessity if you truly want to critize/judge yourself and others whilst retaining objectivity.

On the contrary, yopu're very subjective when you say this. And regardless of what you say, your moral/ethical values only apply in the context in which you learned them (the period, the location etc.), and have no value outside of this. You say you're objective, but you're actually looking at the world from the perspective of an European Christian (which suggests that your views have been determined by the place you were born in, the historical period you were born in, and other elements relating to the context), which in itself shows your subjectivity. You also didn't come to these views objectively, because at least some premises your rerasoning started with have been taught to you (for example that love, freedom, dignity etc. are the essence of humanity), rather than being discovered through rational thinking.

Wait... we still haven't got any pics?

There isn`t sentimental side to people or were you referring to the soul part? :D
Gonna use the word ethics on this one. In your view, morals or ethics or/should be the result of a consensus. Ethics exist to serve everyone. That`s why they exist all over the world. Consensus are dangerous because they tend to force people to "give in" in some regards and we can`t have something that exists to help defines us and guide us, be the result of contexts. There`s no universality in consensus.
Ethics are meant to help one another see beyond their little world and try to findwhat they share with everyone else in the world, even if they are from across the street or live miles and miles away.
"Morals are volatile. Many things that were considered "moral" in the past are considered "immoral" today, and vice versa (for example in the Middle Ages Christians considered it perfectly moral to kill non-Christians)."
Like crusades. But when you look back you it was wrong. They are volatile yes and they should be. But the question is avout what makes them change: a reflexion upon them to try to improve them or consensus? Because consensus can bring them back one day.
As i said, although ethics and morals are meant to be universal, they are also meant for each one to adopt them as they wish. They aren`t "laws" that people have to follow. You need a consensus to help you decide which morals to follow?

Can`t i criticize/analyze something different than me? Why not? I always try to do it through something that serves everyone and no one in particular. Isn`t that also being objective?
"but you're actually looking at the world from the perspective of an European Christian"
Christianity may have differences within itself, but they don`t change depending where you live or were born.
And, like every other religion, the essence of their teachings doesn`t change depending of time and place. If they did they would just end themselves with inconsistency. It`s essence is based also on universality: One love for all.
What may change is the explanations - as a result of reflexion on the world we live in and therefore trying to compliment it`s beliefs with something they can learn to the better or teach better.
"You also didn't come to these views objectively, because at least some premises your rerasoning started with have been taught to you (for example that love, freedom, dignity etc. are the essence of humanity), rather than being discovered through rational thinking."
And that brings me to this: just because i was taught something doesn`t mean per se that there was no reflection. There always is; there needs to be. If they try to be objective and universal, there needs to be reflection.
What is taught - and i am also adding non-religious thinking - is also a fruit of rational thinking. That` what made killing non-christians immoral, in the first place.

Just because someone was taught on a place at a given time, doesn`t mean that those teachings or the person that was taught, is a mere reflexion of that.

@DélioPT:

There isn`t sentimental side to people or were you referring to the soul part? :D

I was reffering to the sould part.

Gonna use the word ethics on this one. In your view, morals or ethics or/should be the result of a consensus. Ethics exist to serve everyone. That`s why they exist all over the world. Consensus are dangerous because they tend to force people to "give in" in some regards and we can`t have something that exists to help defines us and guide us, be the result of contexts. There`s no universality in consensus.

That's exactly what morals are. Thye are determined by context. Culture has no meaning outside of context. Neither is anything that's part of it. And they have no value without consensus, because without consensus they lose their universality. All people have to accept them.

Ethics are meant to help one another see beyond their little world and try to findwhat they share with everyone else in the world, even if they are from across the street or live miles and miles away.

Ethics were first developed by people who didn't consider people outside their country as being human beings.

Like crusades. But when you look back you it was wrong.

If I judge them by today's moral standards, yes. However they were perfectly justified in their minds back then by their moral system and their religion.

But the question is avout what makes them change: a reflexion upon them to try to improve them or consensus? Because consensus can bring them back one day.

Morals change because society changes.

As i said, although ethics and morals are meant to be universal, they are also meant for each one to adopt them as they wish. They aren`t "laws" that people have to follow. You need a consensus to help you decide which morals to follow?

There are aspects that are considered "moral" by society in general. Peoiple can also have a personal moral/ethical system, but some aspects can only be applied to society as a whole (like whether or not murder is moral), esle we'd have dramatic situations. Consensus decides what aspects are considered "moral" on the level of society as a whole.

Can`t i criticize/analyze something different than me? Why not? I always try to do it through something that serves everyone and no one in particular. Isn`t that also being objective?

No human is tyruely objective, as all humans have a cultural baggage that influences what and how they think.
Christianity may have differences within itself, but they don`t change depending where you live or were born.

And, like every other religion, the essence of their teachings doesn`t change depending of time and place. If they did they would just end themselves with inconsistency. It`s essence is based also on universality: One love for all.

Christianity as a whole has changed considerably throughout history. Actually, your last sentence is itself just the current view that apologetics have.

And that brings me to this: just because i was taught something doesn`t mean per se that there was no reflection. There always is; there needs to be. If they try to be objective and universal, there needs to be reflection.
What is taught - and i am also adding non-religious thinking - is also a fruit of rational thinking. That` what made killing non-christians immoral, in the first place.
There are certain elelments that people are tought, and upon which they never reflect upon, as they're seen as general truths. Universaility does not mean there needs to be any reflection. It just means that everyone has to accept it, so that it applies to everyone. Not everything that  is taught is  necessarily a fruit of rational thinking. Religion is a good example of this.

Just because someone was taught on a place at a given time, doesn`t mean that those teachings or the person that was taught, is a mere reflexion of that.

Yes, it does actually. Actually a person is no more than what his culture allows him to be. There are a few people who are visionaries, and who can transcend their culture (that's one reason why cultural revolutions occur), but the vast majority of people are just sheep.

"That's exactly what morals are. Thye are determined by context. Culture has no meaning outside of context. Neither is anything that's part of it. And they have no value without consensus, because without consensus they lose their universality. All people have to accept them."
That`s nor exactly true. Yes, there a informal kinf of consensus and cultural influence. But that`s not what validates their universality per se. There`s never a full consensus on all that`s moral related and that`s exactly why that consensus can`t become the source of morality or the desire to make it universal. What people, at first glance, settle for are expressions of an ethic system that needs to appeal to all. If we have a system that`s created on consensus, time, place and culture will make it insignificant because it would be one day one set of moral values and the next day, another. that`s why they to be outside of context - whichever it is - so we can recognize ourselves in it.
Ethics are meant to be an expression of humanity. If we admit morals=context, what are we even deciding upon? Our view on humanity changes as well.
"No human is tyruely objective, as all humans have a cultural baggage that influences what and how they think."
At least, one thing we agree! :D But at the same time we are not all culture. That`s like saying i am what my parents, teachers, etc taught me. How could exist responsibility for our actions if there was no "I" in this world. We are also what we make of ourselves.
I do agree that external influences help define an ethic system but only on the mindset of a "upgrade", on the search for a more enlightment on ourselves. Because that`s what an ethic system must to: find better ways to express what we are.
You say that morals change with society but even you can realize the core values behind those changes remain, even if some changes are for worse, doesn`t mean that those core values lost meaning as they still speak for us.


"Like crusades. But when you look back you it was wrong.
If I judge them by today's moral standards, yes. However they were perfectly justified in their minds back then by their moral system and their religion"
Yes they were, but even then the essence of ethics existed as it always has. What changed from that time to this day, was the realization by reflection that those actions did not serve God`s desires.

"No human is tyruely objective, as all humans have a cultural baggage that influences what and how they think."
At least, one thing we agree! :D

"Christianity as a whole has changed considerably throughout history. Actually, your last sentence is itself just the current view that apologetics have."
Don`t know about the last part but the first one is true. Christianity really has changed and i`m glad it has. There were many things that were part of it that had nothing to do with it and only managed to hamper it`s true meaning.

"...Actually a person is no more than what his culture allows him to be. There are a few people who are visionaries, and who can transcend their culture (that's one reason why cultural revolutions occur), but the vast majority of people are just sheep."
I`m not what my culture allows me to be. I may be born and educated by it, but that`s a view on the world that we only accept if we want to. What i decided to follow - as a lot of people do - is something that exists to mold them. All the things i believe are beyond cultures and my own personal desires.
Yes, we are all actors in play, but each and everyone of us decides it`s role and has a voice on how things should. Of course there are always people that just go with the flow, but that`s their decision.
Don`t forget that cultures only existed after we searched for ourselves in others.

"Not everything that  is taught is  necessarily a fruit of rational thinking. Religion is a good example of this."
The essence of religions is supposed to be of a divine revelation but you can`t just stop there. The meaning behind all those truths is still obscure to us all. Reason is always a tool to help us understand. We can`t honesty say we know it all, because if we said we would be making ourselves God. That`s why morals do change with time as a mean to understand the core values of our lives and God itself.