How is morality defined? What is right and wrong?

So I just had an argument online where someone said God defines morality. Obviously I had to argue that point but how do you define right and wrong, how is the conscious developed, and what is morality exactly?Is there such a thing as right and wrong?

Morality is defined by what the truth is. If everyone just knew what would happen would they think twice?

gseeker said:

So I just had an argument online where someone said God defines morality. Obviously I had to argue that point but how do you define right and wrong, how is the conscious developed, and what is morality exactly?Is there such a thing as right and wrong?

Click to expand...

Morality is subjective, so to define it can be quite difficult. I would say at the very basic level, one's culture or society defines morality. It does so in part by making laws and rules. In addition, people create additional standards in which they teach their children and their communities through different institutions (church, schools, get togethers, etc.).

As for whether or not something is right or wrong, I do think there are a few standards there. Murder is generally something that is considered wrong in most societies. It makes sense as we are social creatures who depend on others. But in general, right or wrong is a subjective matter, as morality does change throughout the ages.

it is the difference between right and wrong, good and bad. Mankind have different standards of morality, so you are not likely to get a definite set of morals that everyone agrees to. I feel that its for this reason that taking our morals from a higher source is wise. It prevents mankind from squabbling over what is right and wrong and gives us all the same goals to strive towards...so it is unifying to have one law maker rather then an 'every man for himself' scenario (which is what we currently have)

fallingblood said:

Morality is subjective, so to define it can be quite difficult. I would say at the very basic level, one's culture or society defines morality. It does so in part by making laws and rules. In addition, people create additional standards in which they teach their children and their communities through different institutions (church, schools, get togethers, etc.).

As for whether or not something is right or wrong, I do think there are a few standards there. Murder is generally something that is considered wrong in most societies. It makes sense as we are social creatures who depend on others. But in general, right or wrong is a subjective matter, as morality does change throughout the ages.

Click to expand...

I agree with you. The Christian is arguing that he has a God given conscience so that deep down inside everyone has an idea of what is right and what is wrong. My argument is that a person's conscience is defined by the society that a person is raised in. Even murder can't be considered wrong though if all morality is subjective it can only be considered wrong in the society the act is performed and since the moral views of society changes over time morality can only be defined through temporal reference.

Pegg said:

it is the difference between right and wrong, good and bad. Mankind have different standards of morality, so you are not likely to get a definite set of morals that everyone agrees to. I feel that its for this reason that taking our morals from a higher source is wise. It prevents mankind from squabbling over what is right and wrong and gives us all the same goals to strive towards...so it is unifying to have one law maker rather then an 'every man for himself' scenario (which is what we currently have)

Click to expand...

That only works if the society has a God like influence and if everyone can agree that said moral standards are from said God. Some say that God has given us an conscience that defines what is right and wrong to the exclusion of society. However, if that were true how would you explain feral children who after being found has been shown to have no moral values.

Jesus described his God as amoral, when he said be ye perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect, letting his sun shine and rain fall on the good and the evil.

So the believers of Jesus' words can start Right There.

gseeker said:

So I just had an argument online where someone said God defines morality. Obviously I had to argue that point but how do you define right and wrong, how is the conscious developed, and what is morality exactly?Is there such a thing as right and wrong?

Click to expand...

As has been mentioned by others, morality is mostly a subjective thing.
Sure, for the vast majority most of our moral codes and ideals are shared with those who spend the most time with and with the society we grew up in, but many of these translate poorly from society to society.
There are, however, certain standards that almost certainly all functioning human societies share, a sort of baseline if you like, containing such things as 'don't commit murder', 'don't steal' and 'don't rape' which can be said to be, if not objective, then at least universal.
There is also the sense of morality that stems from reciprocal altruism, which is a sort of social contract, elements of which can be found in all social mammals that we have so far investigated, including South American vampire bats, making an evolutionary basis for certain parts of our morality likely.
In either case, there is no reason to invoke a deity in order to explain our morals, and, in fact, the vast differences in social codes and morality observed from society to society actually speaks counter to a god-given moral.

There is no such thing as morality. It is just a stick with which to beat the poor and the weak. Even ideas like 'do not steal' or 'do not kill' can be interpreted differently - they simply help society stay afloat. It is all a matter of convenience.

gseeker said:

I agree with you. The Christian is arguing that he has a God given conscience so that deep down inside everyone has an idea of what is right and what is wrong. My argument is that a person's conscience is defined by the society that a person is raised in. Even murder can't be considered wrong though if all morality is subjective it can only be considered wrong in the society the act is performed and since the moral views of society changes over time morality can only be defined through temporal reference.

Click to expand...

Being a Christian myself, and having had a similar discussion as you have had, I have run into the same type of statements. The biggest problem is that no one can really even agree what God is supposedly saying. We can take the issue of same-sex marriages right now. We can find Christians on both sides claiming that the Bible, or God is on their side.

So I would largely agree with your stance as well.

gseeker said:

So I just had an argument online where someone said God defines morality. Obviously I had to argue that point but how do you define right and wrong, how is the conscious developed, and what is morality exactly?Is there such a thing as right and wrong?

Click to expand...

Well, I think I threw away my old college books on ethics and morality. But, you ask a sticky question on which not everyone agrees. There are many differing views on morality, some suggest subjective morality, others suggest an objective morality, and still others suggest no morality. Most Moral view points in western society are a branch of moral relativism. If you Google these terms they should get you started on your way to understanding the arguments for each of them. I would also imagine that you could Google the terms along with "criticisms" to find objections to the arguments. Any ethics class text would also have much information on the subjects. In short there is no easy answer; and, while I am willing to debate any of these ethical systems with you, it would only be fair if we were on the same page.
Moral Relativism
Moral absolutism
Divine Command Theory
Moral Universalism

jarofthoughts said:

As has been mentioned by others, morality is mostly a subjective thing.
Sure, for the vast majority most of our moral codes and ideals are shared with those who spend the most time with and with the society we grew up in, but many of these translate poorly from society to society.
There are, however, certain standards that almost certainly all functioning human societies share, a sort of baseline if you like, containing such things as 'don't commit murder', 'don't steal' and 'don't rape' which can be said to be, if not objective, then at least universal.
There is also the sense of morality that stems from reciprocal altruism, which is a sort of social contract, elements of which can be found in all social mammals that we have so far investigated, including South American vampire bats, making an evolutionary basis for certain parts of our morality likely.
In either case, there is no reason to invoke a deity in order to explain our morals, and, in fact, the vast differences in social codes and morality observed from society to society actually speaks counter to a god-given moral.

Click to expand...

So therefore morality shouldn't be used to define right and wrong but rather gold morality helps keep a society functioning and a bad morality causes society to break down?

Curious George said:

Well, I think I threw away my old college books on ethics and morality. But, you ask a sticky question on which not everyone agrees. There are many differing views on morality, some suggest subjective morality, others suggest an objective morality, and still others suggest no morality. Most Moral view points in western society are a branch of moral relativism. If you Google these terms they should get you started on your way to understanding the arguments for each of them. I would also imagine that you could Google the terms along with "criticisms" to find objections to the arguments. Any ethics class text would also have much information on the subjects. In short there is no easy answer; and, while I am willing to debate any of these ethical systems with you, it would only be fair if we were on the same page.
Moral Relativism
Moral absolutism
Divine Command Theory
Moral Universalism

Click to expand...

I would rather not study another's arguments based on their studies but instead argue based on my own experience and understanding. For the past seven years I have worked in positions that success is dependent on my ability to read other people and to understand a variety of view points. I do have a basis on divine command theory and relative morality what is the argument for absolutism and universalism.

gseeker said:

That only works if the society has a God like influence and if everyone can agree that said moral standards are from said God.

Click to expand...

and that is why it doesnt work...everyone's ideas of God are different and they have different gods. Some gods are ok with child sacrifice, so the people who worship such gods think it is ok to do such a thing.

some gods are ok with promiscuous sex, so the people who worship such gods are ok with promiscuous sex (eg, some pagan religions had established prostitution at religious temples as a way to please their gods)

So i agree with you, it only works if everyone has the same God and the same beliefs.

gseeker said:

Some say that God has given us an conscience that defines what is right and wrong to the exclusion of society. However, if that were true how would you explain feral children who after being found has been shown to have no moral values.

Click to expand...

the conscience is really an inner alarm bell which sounds when we are about to do something that we have been taught is wrong. So if a person has never been taught that it is wrong to steal, then stealing is not going to affect the persons conscience.

The conscience will work for everyone, but it will only act upon things that the person has already been taught. Adam was taught directly by God, so his conscience was based on what he had learned from God (and for that reason his offspring had some knowledge of those morals, which are today universal). But someone who has never learned anything of right and wrong standards (such as the ones in your example) have nothing by which the conscience can judge itself. And for that reason the bible even says that
Romans 5:13 '...sin is not charged against anyone when there is no law'
Romans 4:15 In reality the Law produces wrath, but where there is no law, neither is there any transgression.

So God will not bring adverse judgment against a person who has no knowledge of his laws.

Chisti said:

There is no such thing as morality. It is just a stick with which to beat the poor and the weak. Even ideas like 'do not steal' or 'do not kill' can be interpreted differently - they simply help society stay afloat. It is all a matter of convenience.

Click to expand...

Agreed, so morality is not there to define right and wrong but rather to define what improves society and what destroys society.

Morality is a thing of the past, a left over from the days ruled mainly by strict religious ideas. I think morality has been replaced by the law.

If there are any objective moral absolutes there is no agreement about what they are. I follow the so called Golden Rule; Treat others as you would like to be treated yourself; and don't treat others in a way you would not like to be treated.

gseeker said:

I would rather not study another's arguments based on their studies but instead argue based on my own experience and understanding. For the past seven years I have worked in positions that success is dependent on my ability to read other people and to understand a variety of view points. I do have a basis on divine command theory and relative morality what is the argument for absolutism and universalism.

Click to expand...

There are different versions of either of these. However, if we were to look at one concept of moral universalism we could take concepts such as pain and comfort. Then we could suggest that morally right or wrong is objectively based on a scale of one's actions. Thus, if one had two choices of which both caused pain, the right choice is that which minimizes the pain. The limit to one's ability to choose right and wrong under this philosophy are only the limits to one's ability to see the ramifications of their actions.

Moral absolutism would suggest a morality in which the ends never justified the means leaving certain actions completely taboo. One could argue that this morality stems from a biological level. Such as the drive to protect our children. To go against this drive and kill our children under moral absolutism would always be wrong. How one derives there morals within moral absolutism varies from different people, yet the focus in moral absolutism is to classify certain acts as unequivocally wrong.

Morality is a social construct which differs wildly from person to person much less institutions. Personally I think it would be more useful to teach society to truly think for oneself and go from there, that way you don't limit people to the beliefs of who they where raised by. I believe morality means more if you earn it. To choose what is right not because some big sky daddy says that is what is right but because you see how it is right all on its own.

gseeker said:

So therefore morality shouldn't be used to define right and wrong but rather gold morality helps keep a society functioning and a bad morality causes society to break down?

Click to expand...

That depends on what you mean by 'right' and 'wrong',
There is nothing that is objectively right or wrong in this universe.
Nature simply works in accordance with the laws of physics, which dictate the laws of chemistry, which dictates the laws of biology, and so on.
And as for living things (i.e. biology), survival and reproduction are the baselines upon which everything else is based.
Right or wrong are points of view, and therefore, by default, subjective.
This also means that if there was a personal god, even if he did create the universe, his morality would also be subjective.

But as an overarching 'theme' you might say that what causes society, or 'the flock' to function badly or even break down is 'wrong', and consequently, what causes society to function well and prevents it from breaking down is 'good.
One could even imagine a process not unlike natural selection in which the societies that had the 'best' morality survived better than those that didn't.
And if you think about a society in which murder, theft and rape was not only allowed, but considered good and therefore encouraged, well, I don't see such a society working very well.

Mind you that our morals developed under quite different circumstances than what we currently live under.
For the majority of our evolutionary history we lived in 'flocks' consisting of no more than 100-150 people, and even these basic rules (don't kill etc...) only applied to those within the flock.
Which means that stealing from and murdering those outside the flock could, and would in certain circumstances, be allowed and even encouraged.
(Here is a slightly tongue-in-cheek article dealing with just the subjects we've been discussing: What is the Monkeysphere? | Cracked.com).
In modern global society things get to be a bit more complicated though, which means that in order to reach some kind of 'morality' that works on a global scale we must apply logic and reason on a level we've never had to comprehend previously.