user12857: Does the Dhamma allow the philosophical establishment of an objective and/or universal morality without God?
If yes, how?
Do all beings intuitively know what is right and what is wrong deep within their consciousness? Even the worst psychopaths? 
Resources:

https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Is_morality_objective%3F
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/scholarly-writings/the-existence-of-god/the-indispensability-of-theological-meta-ethical-foundations-for-morality/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism/


user-1: 
Does the Dhamma allow the philosophical establishment of an objective and/or universal morality without God?

I'm not entirely sure what "philosophical establishment of an objective and/or universal morality" means, but short answer is yes.

If yes, how?

Through the idea of dependent origination, which can be likened to a combination of consequentialism and pragmatic ethics.

Do all beings intuitively know what is right and what is wrong deep within their consciousness? Even the worst psychopaths? 

No. Everyone except those fully enlightened suffers from some degree of ignorance (avijja).

user254: In theory, some people could argue all day instead of agreeing, and at the best of times it might be difficult to explain (and need explaining "step by step", need to be "individually ascertained by the wise" and so on).
MN 26 says,

Having seen this, I answered Brahma Sahampati in verse:
'Open are the doors to the Deathless
to those with ears.
  Let them show their conviction.
  Perceiving trouble, O Brahma,
  I did not tell people
      the refined,
      sublime Dhamma.'  
"Then Brahma Sahampati, thinking, 'The Blessed One has given his consent to teach the Dhamma,' bowed down to me and, circling me on the right, disappeared right there.
"Then the thought occurred to me, 'To whom should I teach the Dhamma first? Who will quickly understand this Dhamma?' Then the thought occurred to me, 'This Alara Kalama is wise, competent, intelligent. He has long had little dust in his eyes. What if I were to teach him the Dhamma first? He will quickly understand this Dhamma.


user-1: Buddhism has nothing to do with morality.  It's aim is enlightenment.  Not holiness, great emptiness. Head in the direction of emptiness and you will begin to see past the subjective and the objective.  Without emptiness, there is no right action.
Emptiness, no holiness --
      Empty -- nothing holy:
the questioner's far off.
      The approach is far off.
-- Hongzhi's comment on Case 1 of the Hekiganroku 

user7309: The law of kamma-vipaka is objective, in the sense that it is entirely consistent. It is Newton's third law of motion, for intentional action. 
As all things are empty from their own frame of reference - not-self, there is no thing made or no thing destroyed through it, just a linear wobble around emptiness for some subjectively delineated self. Good actions get good results, bad actions get bad results linearly, when summed through all time (rebirths (an impermanent object (human) cannot have a permanent property (death)) for that delineated self. 
But then the Buddha didn't say 'this=this and that=that' (which are 0 information tautologies anyways), but 'treat this as this, and that as that, not this as that and that as this'. It's not an objective thing earning an objective action, but a subjective thing existing within a linear correlation between action and result of action. 
So the law of action is objective, but it only describes how it affects subjective things. 
Nibbana however, and the end goal is not objective, not not objective, not both, not neither - it is 'no thing'.

user471: This is an interesting question. Is morality objective?
I recently watched a video where Tovia Singer, an orthodox Jewish rabbi, claimed that he once debated with an atheist. The atheist apparently stated that he did not need God and he is aware by himself that murder, theft and other immoral actions are wrong. To this, the rabbi responded that humans were made in God's image, and that's why he has intrinsic awareness of morality - because God put it in him.
How would Buddhism respond?

OP: Does the Dhamma allow the philosophical establishment of an objective and/or universal morality without God?

Yes, of course.
According to the Kimattha Sutta:

"Skillful virtues have freedom from remorse as their purpose, Ananda,
  and freedom from remorse as their reward."

You can read the whole sutta to see how skillful virtues lead to enlightenment. It starts from freedom from remorse, which leads to joy and so on.
So, if skillful virtues result in freedom from remorse, then immoral behavior lead to remorse. So, this means that virtue is universal or objective in Buddhism.
Well, some things are not universal or objective. For example, should you try to beat the lights when the traffic light is red? Now with the pandemic, many governments enforce social distancing rules - should you follow them? These are not universal or objective. These are learned.
But some things like taking a life, taking what belongs to others, speaking untruth and adultery are definitely universal or objective.

OP: If yes, how?

Where is this source of objective morality?
According to Udana 5.1:

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near
  Sāvatthī at Jeta's Grove, Anāthapiṇḍika's monastery. And on that
  occasion King Pasenadi Kosala had gone with Queen Mallikā to the upper
  palace. Then he said to her, "Mallikā, is there anyone dearer to you
  than yourself?"
"No, great king. There is no one dearer to me than myself. And what
  about you, great king? Is there anyone dearer to you than yourself?"
"No, Mallikā. There is no one dearer to me than myself."
Then the king, descending from the palace, went to the Blessed One
  and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was
  sitting there, he said to the Blessed One, "Just now, when I had gone
  with Queen Mallikā to the upper palace, I said to her, 'Mallikā, is
  there anyone dearer to you than yourself?'
"When this was said, she said to me, 'No, great king. There is no one
  dearer to me than myself. And what about you, great king? Is there
  anyone dearer to you than yourself?'
"When this was said, I said to her, 'No, Mallikā. There is no one
  dearer to me than myself.'"
Then, on realizing the significance of that, the Blessed One on that
  occasion exclaimed:

Searching all directions
    with your awareness,
    you find no one dearer
    than yourself.
    In the same way, others
    are thickly dear to themselves.
    So you shouldn't hurt others
    if you love yourself.


Also found in the Dhammapada 10:


All tremble at violence; all fear death. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.
All tremble at violence; life is dear to all. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.
One who, while himself seeking happiness, oppresses with violence other beings who also desire happiness, will not attain happiness
  hereafter.
One who, while himself seeking happiness, does not oppress with violence other beings who also desire happiness, will find happiness
  hereafter.


What does this show?
Morality is objective, not because it has a source like God.
Rather, it's because we know that nobody is dearer to us than ourselves (if we still have self view and conceit), and we recognize that this is also the case for other unenlightened sentient beings.
So, you would feel remorse when hurting others, because you know that if others did that to you, you would feel pain. The basis of morality is compassion towards the suffering of others, because we can relate to it due to our own suffering.
How do I know this to be true?
Simply list out every possible way you can hurt another person, and most likely, you would have derived the basic code of morality found in most religions by negating every item in your list.

12857: <p>Does the Dhamma allow the philosophical establishment of an objective and/or universal morality without God?</p>

<p>If yes, how?</p>

<p>Do all beings intuitively know what is right and what is wrong deep within their consciousness? Even the worst psychopaths? </p>

<p>Resources:</p>

<ul>
<li><p><a href="https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Is_morality_objective%3F" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Is_morality_objective%3F</a></p></li>
<li><p><a href="https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/scholarly-writings/the-existence-of-god/the-indispensability-of-theological-meta-ethical-foundations-for-morality/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/scholarly-writings/the-existence-of-god/the-indispensability-of-theological-meta-ethical-foundations-for-morality/</a></p></li>
<li><p><a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/</a></p></li>
<li><a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism/</a></li>
</ul>
 -1: <blockquote>
  <p>Does the Dhamma allow the philosophical establishment of an objective and/or universal morality without God?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I'm not entirely sure what "philosophical establishment of an objective and/or universal morality" means, but short answer is yes.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>If yes, how?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Through the idea of dependent origination, which can be likened to a combination of consequentialism and pragmatic ethics.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Do all beings intuitively know what is right and what is wrong deep within their consciousness? Even the worst psychopaths? </p>
</blockquote>

<p>No. Everyone except those fully enlightened suffers from some degree of ignorance (avijja).</p>
 254: <p>In theory, some people could argue all day instead of agreeing, and at the best of times it might be difficult to explain (and need explaining "step by step", need to be "individually ascertained by the wise" and so on).</p>

<p><a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.026.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">MN 26</a> says,</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Having seen this, I answered Brahma Sahampati in verse:</p>
  
  <p>'Open are the doors to the Deathless<br>
  <strong>to those with ears</strong>.<br>
  Let them show their conviction.<br>
  Perceiving trouble, O Brahma,<br>
  I did not tell people<br>
      the refined,<br>
      sublime Dhamma.'  </p>
  
  <p>"Then Brahma Sahampati, thinking, 'The Blessed One has given his consent to teach the Dhamma,' bowed down to me and, circling me on the right, disappeared right there.</p>
  
  <p>"Then the thought occurred to me, 'To whom should I teach the Dhamma first? Who will quickly understand this Dhamma?' Then the thought occurred to me, 'This Alara Kalama is wise, competent, intelligent. <strong>He has long had little dust in his eyes</strong>. What if I were to teach him the Dhamma first? He will quickly understand this Dhamma.</p>
</blockquote>
 -1: <p>Buddhism has nothing to do with morality.  It's aim is enlightenment.  Not holiness, great emptiness. Head in the direction of emptiness and you will begin to see past the subjective and the objective.  Without emptiness, there is no right action.</p>

<p>Emptiness, no holiness --<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Empty -- nothing holy:<br>
the questioner's far off.<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The approach is far off.<br></p>

<p>-- Hongzhi's comment on Case 1 of the Hekiganroku </p>
 7309: <p>The law of kamma-vipaka is objective, in the sense that it is entirely consistent. It is Newton's third law of motion, for intentional action. </p>

<p>As all things are empty from their own frame of reference - not-self, there is no thing made or no thing destroyed through it, just a linear wobble around emptiness for some subjectively delineated self. Good actions get good results, bad actions get bad results linearly, when summed through all time (rebirths (an impermanent object (human) cannot have a permanent property (death)) for that delineated self. </p>

<p>But then the Buddha didn't say 'this=this and that=that' (which are 0 information tautologies anyways), but 'treat this as this, and that as that, not this as that and that as this'. It's not an objective thing earning an objective action, but a subjective thing existing within a linear correlation between action and result of action. </p>

<p>So the law of action is objective, but it only describes how it affects subjective things. </p>

<p>Nibbana however, and the end goal is not objective, not not objective, not both, not neither - it is 'no thing'.</p>
 471: <p>This is an interesting question. Is morality objective?</p>

<p>I recently watched a video where Tovia Singer, an orthodox Jewish rabbi, claimed that he once debated with an atheist. The atheist apparently stated that he did not need God and he is aware by himself that murder, theft and other immoral actions are wrong. To this, the rabbi responded that humans were made in God's image, and that's why he has intrinsic awareness of morality - because God put it in him.</p>

<p>How would Buddhism respond?</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><strong>OP:</strong> Does the Dhamma allow the philosophical establishment of an objective and/or universal morality without God?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Yes, of course.</p>

<p>According to the <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an11/an11.001.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Kimattha Sutta</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>"Skillful virtues have freedom from remorse as their purpose, Ananda,
  and freedom from remorse as their reward."</p>
</blockquote>

<p>You can read the whole sutta to see how skillful virtues lead to enlightenment. It starts from freedom from remorse, which leads to joy and so on.</p>

<p>So, if skillful virtues result in freedom from remorse, then immoral behavior lead to remorse. So, this means that virtue is universal or objective in Buddhism.</p>

<p>Well, some things are not universal or objective. For example, should you try to beat the lights when the traffic light is red? Now with the pandemic, many governments enforce social distancing rules - should you follow them? These are not universal or objective. These are learned.</p>

<p>But some things like taking a life, taking what belongs to others, speaking untruth and adultery are definitely universal or objective.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><strong>OP:</strong> If yes, how?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Where is this source of objective morality?</p>

<p>According to <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.5.01.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Udana 5.1</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near
  Sāvatthī at Jeta's Grove, Anāthapiṇḍika's monastery. And on that
  occasion King Pasenadi Kosala had gone with Queen Mallikā to the upper
  palace. Then he said to her, "Mallikā, is there anyone dearer to you
  than yourself?"</p>
  
  <p>"No, great king. There is no one dearer to me than myself. And what
  about you, great king? Is there anyone dearer to you than yourself?"</p>
  
  <p>"No, Mallikā. There is no one dearer to me than myself."</p>
  
  <p>Then the king, descending from the palace, went to the Blessed One
  and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was
  sitting there, he said to the Blessed One, "Just now, when I had gone
  with Queen Mallikā to the upper palace, I said to her, 'Mallikā, is
  there anyone dearer to you than yourself?'</p>
  
  <p>"When this was said, she said to me, 'No, great king. There is no one
  dearer to me than myself. And what about you, great king? Is there
  anyone dearer to you than yourself?'</p>
  
  <p>"When this was said, I said to her, 'No, Mallikā. There is no one
  dearer to me than myself.'"</p>
  
  <p>Then, on realizing the significance of that, the Blessed One on that
  occasion exclaimed:</p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p>Searching all directions<br>
    with your awareness,<br>
    you find no one dearer<br>
    than yourself.<br>
    In the same way, others<br>
    are thickly dear to themselves.<br>
    So you shouldn't hurt others<br>
    if you love yourself.</p>
  </blockquote>
</blockquote>

<p>Also found in the <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.10.budd.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Dhammapada 10</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <ol start="129">
  <li><p>All tremble at violence; all fear death. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.</p></li>
  <li><p>All tremble at violence; life is dear to all. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.</p></li>
  <li><p>One who, while himself seeking happiness, oppresses with violence other beings who also desire happiness, will not attain happiness
  hereafter.</p></li>
  <li><p>One who, while himself seeking happiness, does not oppress with violence other beings who also desire happiness, will find happiness
  hereafter.</p></li>
  </ol>
</blockquote>

<p>What does this show?</p>

<p>Morality is objective, not because it has a source like God.</p>

<p>Rather, it's because we know that nobody is dearer to us than ourselves (if we still have self view and conceit), and we recognize that this is also the case for other unenlightened sentient beings.</p>

<p>So, you would feel remorse when hurting others, because you know that if others did that to you, you would feel pain. The basis of morality is compassion towards the suffering of others, because we can relate to it due to our own suffering.</p>

<p>How do I know this to be true?</p>

<p>Simply list out every possible way you can hurt another person, and most likely, you would have derived the basic code of morality found in most religions by negating every item in your list.</p>
