Universal morality

As for proofs, I don't remember saying that. Anyway, there are arguments but no proofs. See the third part of the fourth notebook on the website.

Shalom Rabbi and have a good week.
Thanks for the answer. With your permission, I will respond to what seems incomprehensible to me.

On the question of how we know what is appropriate.. Your claim – “We will use our common sense, and also take into account that there are those who disagree with us. In the end, this is what we have. And are there no disputes in halacha? Is that why there is no point in formulating a position? And in law? And in science?”
And here the questioner asked
Who said that the concept “common sense” belongs to morality?
With this assumption, you have a clear analogy between disputes in halacha, disputes in moral positions, between disputes in science and moral positions, and between disputes in science and moral positions.
I argue that science, halakha and law are not (in a certain sense) like the mountains of ”universal morality”, universal morality is a code for a certain cultural behavior. Not something that can be proven, or something that is personally binding.
And why?
In halakha, there is a halakhic platform and objective halakhic axioms, and the dispute is there on that platform.
Which is not the case with moral positions that did not start from any kind of objectivity, but from cultural evolution.

In science, there is a platform called reality, and we only make assumptions and discuss it in the name of debates.
In universal morality, there is no reality that is discussed, there is a culture that developed on top of the culture that came before it. Out of the silence of cultures, other cultures grow. Not from a fusion of discussion on the platform of reality. But from a fusion of pure randomness.

In law, in a certain sense, there is a discussion within the framework of the law. What does that mean? Or alternatively, a discussion of the validity of the law according to the fundamental values of that political regime.
Universal morality does not have fundamental values of a constitution. Because there is no universal constitution for all the people of the world. Therefore, value is subjective. There is cultural behavior and not value.

You claimed that “Today there is development in a pretty clear direction”
This is only clear if you look from the perspective of the steward in the terminal, not from the perspective of the African/Saudi/Syrian/Iranian and the list is long.
And this is also a type of acceptance of culture by assimilation that he enters into that culture.

Universal morality can be valid as objective morality only if I claim that morality is validated by imitating and observing nature. {Abrahamic morality}

Hello Neriah. I can't understand your question: You're wondering who said there is common sense in morality? What answer do you expect? A verse? A logical proof? Common sense says there is common sense. Who said there is common sense in science or law or halacha? If there is – then there is.
What you may have meant to say is that there are no truths in morality and therefore there is no meaning to my or your claims about it, in contrast to law or halacha (although there are those who will disagree with you there too). I disagree with you. In my opinion, there are moral truths and there is moral right and wrong. Common sense is a measure of these truths. I explained this in my book True and Unstable. You can look at the fourth notebook here on the site in part three.

The Torah was very strict about the moral character of the army of Israel going to war, and therefore it stated in our parasha:
“When you go out as a camp against your enemies, you shall be kept from all evil” (Deuteronomy 23:10).
The Ramban made it clear in his commentary on the Torah:
“For it is well known that the customs of the camps going out to war are that they will eat every abomination, steal and commit adultery and will not be ashamed even of adultery and all abomination... Therefore, the Torah warned against it: ‘And you shall be kept from all evil!’ “.
There is no doubt that the warning “And you shall be kept from all evil” It is primarily aimed at maintaining the purity of the body and soul from things that involve sexual promiscuity, as the scripture says at the end of the parashah: “…and let no one see in you a naked thing and turn away from you”, and the sages even expanded this warning and determined that it also includes profanity, as they said in Yerushalmi (Terumot 1, 3): ” ‘ ‘ nakedness of speech’ – this is profanity of the mouth”.
It should be noted that the Ramach”l in ’Mesilat Yasharim’ in ’Partei Midat Hanakiyot’ emphasizes in a special way the prohibition of profanity of the mouth, lest we take it lightly. And thus his ‘bitter’ words Regarding this:
“And if a person whispers to say, that what they said about swearing in the mouth, is only to threaten and keep a person away from transgression, and to those whose blood is boiling, the words are said, that from the moment of his speech – he comes to lust. But whoever said the way of mocking in vain, is not a word and is not to be felt! You also say to him: So much for the words of the evil inclination! … But the truth is according to the words of our sages, blessed be their memory, that swearing in the mouth is the nakedness of speech, and because of fornication it is forbidden…”

“For the Lord your God walks in the midst of your teaching to save you and to give your enemies before you, and your teaching is holy, and He will not see any nakedness in you and turn away from you” (23:15) ‘4”a A transgression extinguishes a mitzvah, and no transgression extinguishes the Torah. Rabbi Yosef's sermon Rabbi Menachem bar Yossi Lahai read that Sinai and if it had not been for the sermon, Doeg and Achitophel would not have pursued the descendants of David, as it is written: "And God forsakes them" and so on, "What is the sermon?" - and he will not see in you any nakedness, so on, "And they do not know that transgression extinguishes a mitzvah and no transgression extinguishes Torah" (Sotah 21:1). The rule that transgression extinguishes a mitzvah and not Torah should be understood according to what was said earlier there: "And he explained this sermon by Rabbi Menachem bar Yossi, "For the mitzvah is a lamp and the Torah is light" The Scriptures have hung the commandment on the lamp and the Torah on the light, the commandment on the lamp to tell you what a lamp does not protect except for a time, no mitzvah protects except for a time, and the Torah on the light to tell you what light protects forever, no Torah protects forever’ that the Torah is stronger than a mitzvah and therefore a transgression cannot extinguish it like the commandment, that a mitzvah and a transgression are a specific part while the Torah is the whole of the mitzvah and therefore there are many mitzvahs in it and fulfilling a transgression is not strong enough to extinguish it. However, it seems more than that, that the emphasis is that a mitzvah protects for a time and the Torah protects forever, so that it seems like a fundamental difference. Therefore, it seems that there is a matter of a difference in content in this, that Ahithophel and Doeg thought that David had sinned in fornication and therefore the ’ left, and thought that this nullified even the virtue of his Torah, what is the point in this? - The Pass’ Says “And no nakedness shall be seen in you, and he shall turn from you.” And they taught in my book, “And no nakedness shall be seen in you, and he shall turn from you.” This teaches that the gates of the Divine Presence are removed from Israel (124). And they taught in the same way in the Book of Genesis (Sotah 3:2). And Rav Chisda said, “In the beginning, before Israel sinned, the Divine Presence was with each one of them, as it is said, “For the Lord your God walks in the midst of your tents.” But because they sinned, the Divine Presence was removed from them, as it is said, “And no nakedness shall be seen in you, and he shall turn from you.” And so in the Avos of the Fathers (33:4). And they learned from the passage that it is forbidden to offer offerings to the naked (Bm 14:2). It seems that this offering elevates the world. Therefore, in the naked (naked) one should not donate that does not sanctify the naked because of the connection to the naked, which reminds us of sin, because the Tree of Knowledge is connected to the naked (which is why they saw that they were naked), and in general, a person in his connection to the naked deepens in impurity, because this instinct is connected to descendants in the world and therefore by his sin he spoils the connection to the correction of the world that was made with the generations (and he hates lewdness). Therefore, this causes the Shekhinah to depart, and this applies to the mitzvot in which he corrects the world. But in the Torah it is something different, which Rashi brings to the Passover: “And the Holy One, the Blessed and Exalted, will not see in you any nakedness; as if the Lord stood by and looked at your actions and when he saw your nakedness, he turned away from you, but in the Torah this is the will of the Lord, who There, in the connection of the Torah to us, the Holy One, the Blessed One, said to Israel: The Torah is mine, and you have taken it, take me with it, as it is said, and they shall take me a gift (Tanchuma, Terumah, 3rd verse), and also, Rabbi Yochanan Didya said, "I am a notary, I beg you, to write a book" (Shabbat 15:1). Thus, in the connection to the Torah, this is a connection with the Lord Himself, who cares for us. They thought that just as a gift is forbidden in private, so too the Torah is nullified, that it is "and they shall take me a gift." However, they were mistaken, for the Torah connects us with the Lord Himself, and thus it is not that He looks on from the sidelines, but is directly connected to us, and therefore there is nothing that would blemish it. This is because the Torah is light and the Mitzvah is a candle, because the candle brings light, so the Mitzvah brings a connection to G‑d, but the Torah connects us with G‑d, the light itself, and therefore, in its transgression, which is an infringement on our acts of holiness in the world, it can harm the Mitzvah that it does not address and is extinguished, but in the face of the Torah it cannot do anything since it is a complete connection with G‑d Himself.
According to Rabbi Avraham ben Yehoshua Zvi, I am a keparth from his bed.

In the path of the righteous, in explaining the measure of piety, and these are his words:
“If the commandments, whose commandment is open and public, are for the manifestation of knowledge alone, to know that this matter is inclined to His will and His desire, blessed be His name, then he will not say, what is stated explicitly is enough for me... but rather he will say: Since I have already found and seen that His will, blessed be His name, is inclined to this, it will be in my eyes to multiply this matter and expand it on all sides so that I can discuss that His will, blessed be His desire. And this is what is called: He brings pleasure to His Creator”.

In conclusion, if we set our eyes to examine: Is this His will, blessed be His name? We will find out that no, God wants everything to be kosher according to the law, and that we overcome our instincts in every place and in every situation, especially in war, and if we set our eyes on a Gentile, then at least it will be sanctified after the war, and just as Joseph saw before his eyes the image of his father when Potiphar's wife seduced him - and he fled from her, so we must understand how bad it is to touch a Gentile, and of necessity when it is written “and sits behind you”, ..”for the Lord your God walks among your camps”, “and you will be kept from all evil” then when He walks among your camps, you will be ashamed to touch a Gentile or even think about it. And what kind of hero is he? One who conquers his instincts, even if it is not forbidden by the Torah but by morality, as the Rabbi explained at the beginning of his words to the questioner.
And the first article I quoted shows that this is a moral thing. And it wasn't me who said it, but the Ramban!
Hopefully, this concludes the discussion of this response. In agreement with what I found on the Internet. Rabbi Yochanan said: A person has a small organ, from hunger he becomes full, from satiety he becomes hungry - and from satiety he becomes poor.