-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What is morality?
- Thread starter nilsz
- Start date
Morality- what a specific group of humans thinks is the difference between good and bad.
It can help create valuable laws and practices to help local society function.
It should be revalued at specific periods to keep current with the changes in the local society.
It can help create valuable laws and practices to help local society function.
It should be revalued at specific periods to keep current with the changes in the local society.
nilsz
bzzt
Morality to me means that one agrees to a conduct not necessarily in one's self-interest, but benefits society as a whole. You benefit from living in a society in which people act morally, and to instill this morality in others it is likely in your long-term interest to practice what you preach. Morality is the answer to the question: What kind of society do you wish to live in? Or, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
It is no more or less an illusion than the will to live instilled into us by natural selection, and we may freely choose to behave morally even when it isn't in our self-interest. As there is no true purpose to life, I believe one can choose one for oneself, and it is valid to prioritize morality, in the sense of playing one's small role in contributing to the well-being of a society as a whole, over genetic progeny.
This thread is prompted by the abortion debate in other threads. I believe some might change their opinions if they thought through what morality really is.
Would you personally judge one stance on morality as better or worse than another one? If just for a given situation?
It is no more or less an illusion than the will to live instilled into us by natural selection, and we may freely choose to behave morally even when it isn't in our self-interest. As there is no true purpose to life, I believe one can choose one for oneself, and it is valid to prioritize morality, in the sense of playing one's small role in contributing to the well-being of a society as a whole, over genetic progeny.
This thread is prompted by the abortion debate in other threads. I believe some might change their opinions if they thought through what morality really is.
Would you personally judge one stance on morality as better or worse than another one? If just for a given situation?
I see morals as a type of ethics; specifically a form of ethics where humans project their personal or cultural values onto other aspects of reality (nearly always other humans) in order to evaluate whether or not it is "good" or "bad" or engaging in "right" or "wrong" behavior. Such judgements are typically limited to humans because my culture believes that only humans have the necessary consciousness or free will to be deemed moral agents (and often, moral subjects as well, unfortunately).
The Sum of Awe
Brought to you by the moment that spacetime began.
The code of rules based around what is ethical and unethical.
No, it is prescribed by the beholder.
A somewhat hypocritical one.
Some might find that it gives us comfort, but in fact it takes away comfort. The beholder sets out these things that you can or cannot do, but another beside the beholder may be allowed to do these things, therefore not only are they meaningless, they are of destructive value to the beholder, they're a burden.
NobodyYouKnow
Misanthropist
I can only answer according to how I was raised by the 'Silent Generation' and not according to Generation X or Y who wouldn't know what morality means anymore imho.
Morality means to put the needs of others before yourself - to give up your seat on a bus to an elderly person or pregnant woman (I have never seen anybody do this anymore).
Morality means to treat your elders with respect and not admonish them with a 'the world has changed since your time, old geezer, so nothing you say applies anymore, now just go and die already'.
Morality means to act with discretion in all manner of personal affairs, leaving what happens in the bedroom, in the bedroom.
Morality means to respect the opinions of others, even if you don't necessarily agree with them.
Morality means to share what limited resources one has and not go "I am okay, so screw you".
It seems that morality isn't needed in society anymore and the world is going to hell because of it...I have had folks tell me 'the world has always been crap and you are just noticing this now?'
I shall wait for a 60+ year old person who has actually lived through it all to tell me this and not some young 'whipper snapper' who got their ideas out of a 'Morality for Dummies' book. *shakes cane* lol
illykitty
RF's pet cat
How would you, personally, define morality?
Defining what is right and wrong, good and bad. It affects how we behave. I think the golden rule is a good guideline.
Is it a conduct prescribed by the metaphysical?
Not necessarily, each individual has their own sets of right and wrong depending on how they were raised, society, religion and also personal experience. I think most are able to know morality due to their innate nature too but sometimes that be overridden by the conditioning mentioned above.
Innate traits most possess, which we can use to know... For example empathy. Someone with high empathy would avoid doing harm as much as they can, be polite to others, etc. I think we are born with these traits and can either develop them or suppress them.
Does it have a societal function?
I think it keeps us from killing/harming each other. I think it can also extend to other things too, like nature, which is important for our survival.
Is it meaningless?
I don't view it as meaningless at all. It just has to keep going. It is something that evolves too, imo. I think it's important for our survival and if we want to have an easier life or harder.
Defining what is right and wrong, good and bad. It affects how we behave. I think the golden rule is a good guideline.
Is it a conduct prescribed by the metaphysical?
Not necessarily, each individual has their own sets of right and wrong depending on how they were raised, society, religion and also personal experience. I think most are able to know morality due to their innate nature too but sometimes that be overridden by the conditioning mentioned above.
Innate traits most possess, which we can use to know... For example empathy. Someone with high empathy would avoid doing harm as much as they can, be polite to others, etc. I think we are born with these traits and can either develop them or suppress them.
Does it have a societal function?
I think it keeps us from killing/harming each other. I think it can also extend to other things too, like nature, which is important for our survival.
Is it meaningless?
I don't view it as meaningless at all. It just has to keep going. It is something that evolves too, imo. I think it's important for our survival and if we want to have an easier life or harder.
The ability to differentiate between "right" and "wrong", "good" and "bad".
No, for organisms living in groups a certain conduct was selected for as it enhanced chances of survival.
If people in the society follow the same moral codes it stabilizes the society and increases chances of survival.
Not if you want to survive...
Morality does indeed have a societal function and a meaning. It does not have a metaphysical origin far as I can tell or care.
I define morality as the study and behavior that aim to sustain a healthy, stable society. While many seem to believe that morality must be either arbitrary (and therefore strictly personal) or supernaturally guided, I disagree with both stances. Morality is (or should be) guided by Utilitarian Ethics, by the actual observable or reasonably expected consequences of choices and actions. Moral values should be established by ecological, sociological and economical guidelines in order to allow for optimal balance among conflicting goals and their susteinance.
I define morality as the study and behavior that aim to sustain a healthy, stable society. While many seem to believe that morality must be either arbitrary (and therefore strictly personal) or supernaturally guided, I disagree with both stances. Morality is (or should be) guided by Utilitarian Ethics, by the actual observable or reasonably expected consequences of choices and actions. Moral values should be established by ecological, sociological and economical guidelines in order to allow for optimal balance among conflicting goals and their susteinance.
Morality is something humans invented, and has been used more often than not as a means to show superiority between neighbors and cultures. If country A wants to take control over country B forcefully, but wants to do it with a clear conscious, how does it do it? By saying that it wants to teach country B about "moral" living.
There are Universal morals that seem to be prevalent in all cultures, usually morals against killing and stealing. There are some countries however that don't have morals against rape but do have strict morals against blasphemy. There are others who have morals against integrations but also have some for education.
Valuing morality is has become purely an imperialist value. It's not only limiting, it's dangerous. Convincing people that it's okay to invade another's home and life because of subjective reasons has caused most of the world's genocides and most of the world's cultural conflicts. Rome killed and enslaved thousands of Celts because of this idea. The United States murdered and assimilated many more Native Americans because they claimed that they wanted to bring "civilized" and "moral" living to them. Thousands of Saxons and Angles laid their lives because they didn't want to give up their "immoral" way of life to the church.
There are Universal morals that seem to be prevalent in all cultures, usually morals against killing and stealing. There are some countries however that don't have morals against rape but do have strict morals against blasphemy. There are others who have morals against integrations but also have some for education.
Valuing morality is has become purely an imperialist value. It's not only limiting, it's dangerous. Convincing people that it's okay to invade another's home and life because of subjective reasons has caused most of the world's genocides and most of the world's cultural conflicts. Rome killed and enslaved thousands of Celts because of this idea. The United States murdered and assimilated many more Native Americans because they claimed that they wanted to bring "civilized" and "moral" living to them. Thousands of Saxons and Angles laid their lives because they didn't want to give up their "immoral" way of life to the church.
Gjallarhorn
N'yog-Sothep
A system of determining or the values determined as what one ought to do.
Not always.
Not always.
Not always.
InformedIgnorance
Do you 'know' or believe?
Personally I view morality as a subjective construct used by the majority of people within their largely intuitive subconscious processing (and perhaps in some circumstances, rational conscious processing) to facilitate comparison of certain subjects (outcomes, actions, behaviors, individuals etc) - in particular with regards to attempting to discern the subjects from a perspective other than self interest, most notably the simulated perspective of a perceived stakeholder (though there could be other perspectives, such as for example, some perceived societal standard).
For example one might construct a simulated perspective based on a series of 'rules' that one infers about the nature of the perspective and how this might relate to the subject (eg a set of 'commandments' from a 'god' with regards to certain behaviours); rule based systems of morality are not the only such (merely very common). One could for example consider that in a situation where one person's property was broken by another, the attempted perception of the situation from the owner's perspective by the one who broke their property could be the basis by which one can determine the moral implications of the situation in terms of the simulation allowing you to recognise the undesirability of having 'your' property broken and this effect translating to a negative moral association.
For example one might construct a simulated perspective based on a series of 'rules' that one infers about the nature of the perspective and how this might relate to the subject (eg a set of 'commandments' from a 'god' with regards to certain behaviours); rule based systems of morality are not the only such (merely very common). One could for example consider that in a situation where one person's property was broken by another, the attempted perception of the situation from the owner's perspective by the one who broke their property could be the basis by which one can determine the moral implications of the situation in terms of the simulation allowing you to recognise the undesirability of having 'your' property broken and this effect translating to a negative moral association.
Epic Beard Man
Bearded Philosopher
If there is a definition of morality, surely there is no universal definition of that.
The word itself in English derived from Latin refers to what is and what is not proper behavior.
Virtually every moral system is based around conscious creatures. That is, nobody really worth talking to has anything to say about how you treat a rock in your spare time, but almost every culture everywhere has something to say about how you treat another human being or another animal during your encounters in life, because those things seem to have conscious experience. Virtually every moral system is based on understanding what does and does not have consciousness, to what degree, and how it is affected by its environment.
So more specifically when people are talking about morality, they're generally talking about proper behavior with regards to how that behavior affects conscious experience of humans and other creatures.
Metaphysics is the study of what exists and what it's like, which is as broad as it sounds, encompassing all of existence.
I'm certainly not a moral relativist so yes, I think that the existence of things in a certain arrangement leads to better and worse answers regarding what coherent and rational moral behavior is. Different behaviors in different contexts have different effects on conscious experience, so anyone that accepts the axiom that conscious well-being is a good thing, can understand that there are ways to affect the conscious experience of a creature on its spectrum of well-being and suffering and that there are better and worse answers about behavior as it affects conscious experience.
I think it's clear that it does, from an evolutionary, cultural, practical, philosophical and legal point of view.
It affects the well-being of conscious creatures so it's worth doing well.
Mycroft
Ministry of Serendipity
Morality is a set of values that determine the conditioning and conduct of an organism. These values, however, can differ between countries, religions, cultures, societies, etc.