It's my opinion YES, i stated that. Now if you want to know why i came to that conclusion either ask or please stop being a smartass.

Can you say more about what this common element in their character might be? I can imagine it might be, for instance, concern for others. But then I can imagine it might be, for instance, something common only to all those of a certain nation or regime. I'd appreciate it if you, or anyone, can expand on this.

IMO keeping your morality would be to respect others' life, liberty, and as much as i hate to say it, property. These are the most fundamental values that when violated becomes a moral discrepancy. Therefore any violation of these rights would be a violation of our fundamental moral code, anything else, could theoretically be argued.

Morality is an excellent thing to debate, and may be the most relevant debate topic. The problem, of course, is that people like absolutes and hate to admit they're short sighted or in error, thus, debates about morality suggest that there is some sort of defect in moral debates. But morality becomes an excellent conversation catalyst when the discussion becomes a sort of point-counterpoint-conclusion cycle in which various view points are presented.

What this means is that there is so much gray area in all things morality that a good discussion about morals helps narrow down conclusions that are compromises. Of course, it would be ideal if all moral discussions were like this, but unfortunately, they are not.

Bonding, and emotional attachment are behind morality, and reason is against it, for what is reasonable is reasonble to some one, from a single perspective, as moral behavior can never see things...The we is an axium of all moral behavior, and reason asserts the individual and denies the group...

Agree with nearly all that's been said here (see below exception). I especially like the OP point that speaks to the danger of drawing conclusions based on abstractions that are inextricably tied to the circumstances (means, end, etc.)

I don't believe morality is exclusively contingent on emotional attachments. If there is anyway in which I can behave 'morally' towards someone with whom I've no emotional attachment, the argument falls apart.

Thanks

I think there is something to what you say. But aren't certain sorts of rational ethics moral? One that comes to mind offhand is Objectivism.

If it is moral for a mother to save her baby is it not also rational???

Let me see if I can clarify your problem. First, there is the definition, which is impossible to nail down because moral reality is full of infinites...

Second, Morality is based upon emotion, and emotional connectedness, first and foremost with ones family, and then with ones gentile group...For this reason, what is moral for one in relation to ones group, as morals as morals are a form of relationship, is not necessarily moral in regard to all other groups...

Third; the desire to rationalize morality is in search of a universal morality, but as the reference above to morality in relation to ones group suggests, morality has its milieu... If the milieu is destroyed as it was, in Rome, and Greece for example, then there is no culture or community to support morality, and the whole society feeds on itself until it caves in...The wise men know what is missing and they try to replace natural morality based upon natural relationships with a reasoned morality based upon a universal relationship...Ask: Can we have law without justice???Justice is moral, is it not; but the desire to control behavior without giving to each his due is common...

Fourth: There is no hypothetical morality, and people should not waste time finding one..If what is moral can never be clearly defined, then the same is true of the immoral... To rationalize morality requires a fixed form, and this is nonsense because the most moral people were primitives, and morality would never have served their purpose if it did not leave them essentially free in their own actions...As one English jurist said: There are no imaginary cases...Hypotheticals shine on a light on stupidity, and not on morality...Moral actions are the actions of moral people...That is what we should seek; but only consider how law works against communiites, and families which are the source of morality... There is no point in trying to rationalize morality which is naturally a result of emotional attachments, and is in most respects irrational...Morality is learned before all other knowledge, or not learned at all...Morality cannot be taught, nor rationalized...

Yes, and it is also, very emotional. Have you ever read William Styron's, Sophie's Choice (or seen the movie)? There is a moral and emotions decision for you. Sophie is forced to choose which of her two children should die. She makes a rational decision, but boy, is it emotional too!

Very often, our making of those choices is a form of cooperation in our own demise... If the people involved in the death camps had chosen death over cooperation they would have died, but the process would have had one more impediment... Think of how many were swallowed up in the death machine who first stuffed its maw with the lives of others...The thing would not have worked but for the desire of people to live being turned into the deaths of millions more... We should not blame the victims... In fact, we are all guilty, for what we allow we justify, and it is happening today, and around the world; and we should all be aware that while we are presented with no good choice, or no rational choice, or no political choice that we are still always presented with a choice... Every move we make is preceeded by a moral choice... It is always there...

What has that to do with the issue?

Problem with a debate for morality is morality being human signaling and social control mechanism. Make no sense, like argue about what kind food is best.

There are many similarities in our understanding of moral through out the world, be it primitive tribes, to highly developed civs. Be it western, middle east, or asian.