“Can humanity agree on common moral principles without agreeing on religion, philosophy or the existence of objective morality? 🤔 Our ancestors were ingenious survivors. Over thousands of years, humans developed rules for cooperation, survival and reducing harm. You could call them humanity's legacy code. Some rules helped communities survive. Others reinforced power, inequality and suffering. But here's my question. We can objectively investigate suffering and harm. We can examine intentions, consent, circumstances, consequences and available alternatives. Could humans from different cultures and belief systems use that evidence to develop shared moral principles around minimising unnecessary, non-consensual harm? I'm not suggesting universal agreement proves objective morality. Nor does disagreement necessarily disprove it. I'm asking whether we can find common ground without first agreeing on the ultimate source of morality. After all, every programmer thinks their language is superior until someone audits the dependencies. 😂 Perhaps our religious and secular moral frameworks could use the occasional audit too.”

Another soul answered...

Lately, there have been some people who have been criticizing religion (without criticizing those that follow it, that is) for its failure to provide a solid moral framework for its followers, and its role in continuing to divide people around the world. I think this stems from a question like yours; is it possible to be united with religion still in the picture? The answer, for these people, seems to be no. In my mind, morality is developed through experience. People's lives dictate how they move through the world, and what they believe is right and wrong. Sometimes, morals overlaps because experiences overlap, or are similar. Sometimes, morals don't overlap at all. Additionally, in our society, many people are set in their ways. They are capable of change, but they refuse it. With these two things in mind, I think it'd be nearly impossible to get everyone to agree on a moral framework. There will always be differences in the way people see things, and many will be too stubborn to change their mindsets. Online debates can show this, too. A little while back, the red button vs blue button debate was popular: if everyone in the world was given two buttons, a blue button that would only keep you alive is 50% of more of the population chose it, or a red button that would keep only you alive regardless of the results. It is a morality problem, but one solution wasn't inherently morally worse than the other. Still, people fought amongst each other and called each other 'heartless' or 'stupid' for choosing one button or the other. I didn't see a single person who had changed their mind to press a different button than the one they started with. That's what I think, anyways. This is an interesting topic, though!