• 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!

Morals

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
My view on morals.

Morals are dependent on what your goals are.
"Good" actions are whatever furthers your goals.
"Bad" is whatever obstructs you from your goals.

If your actions get me closer to my goals, then your actions are good.
If your actions make my goals harder to reach, then your actions are bad.
To me, this makes it simple to judge good/bad actions.

We may share the same or similar goals so what we judge as moral can be the same.

However, we may have completely different goals. So while I may judge your morals as immoral/bad/evil, depending on your goals, your actions for yourself and folks who have common goals with you, your actions may be perfectly moral/good.

So while you may judge me or another as immoral as say it all depend on what my/their goals happened to be at the time.

In many cases, events happen in the world which have no bearing or affect on my goals. They are amoral, or I have no reason to pass a moral judgement on. They are just events which happened.

An argument against this would be whether there exits universally oriented goals. I don't believe such exists.
While human kind may have some goals in common. I don't see our, human, goals as universal.

There maybe other arguments against this view to. For example if you believe in a God then maybe you believe that God dictates universal morals. That's fine but not everyone believes in the same God so one God may dictate a different set of morals from another, so still not universal and dependent on the goals of that particular God.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
My view on morals.

Morals are dependent on what your goals are.
"Good" actions are whatever furthers your goals.
"Bad" is whatever obstructs you from your goals.

If your actions get me closer to my goals, then your actions are good.
If your actions make my goals harder to reach, then your actions are bad.
To me, this makes it simple to judge good/bad actions.

We may share the same or similar goals so what we judge as moral can be the same.

However, we may have completely different goals. So while I may judge your morals as immoral/bad/evil, depending on your goals, your actions for yourself and folks who have common goals with you, your actions may be perfectly moral/good.

So while you may judge me or another as immoral as say it all depend on what my/their goals happened to be at the time.

In many cases, events happen in the world which have no bearing or affect on my goals. They are amoral, or I have no reason to pass a moral judgement on. They are just events which happened.

An argument against this would be whether there exits universally oriented goals. I don't believe such exists.
While human kind may have some goals in common. I don't see our, human, goals as universal.

There maybe other arguments against this view to. For example if you believe in a God then maybe you believe that God dictates universal morals. That's fine but not everyone believes in the same God so one God may dictate a different set of morals from another, so still not universal and dependent on the goals of that particular God.
2281.jpg
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Is it moral then to be deceitful and manipulative? That gets people closer to their goals. What about that guy who just got in trouble for election fraud?

IMO, in answer to your first question. Yes, depending on your goals.
In answer to your second question, Only if their goal was to get imprisoned/fined. One ought to consider any possible consequences of one's actions.
Getting caught for breaking the law is always a risk. Actions that can get one confined or paying fines is not the usual goal for most people.

Some though might fail to consider the risks, which would be immoral to most.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
What if you are a mass murderer.
I am a detective trying to catch you, my actions make your goals harder to reach.

Have you ever watched Dexter?
Dexter (TV Series 2006–2013) - IMDb

A mass murderer with his own set of morals who worked for the police.
His sister, also a cop who caught him in the act.
While she didn't know who the mass murderer was, she was doing "good" trying to catch him.
After she found out it was her brother, "good" for her was trying to protect him.

So yes, any actions you do that take you further from your goal of catching me are good.
Things you do that get you closer to catching me are bad.
 

wandering peacefully

Which way to the woods?
I'd have to leave goals out of it. To me, the results of actions upon others would determine if the person doing the acting is moral or immoral. Sounds simple but seems like a good indicator.
 
My view on morals.

Morals are dependent on what your goals are.
"Good" actions are whatever furthers your goals.
"Bad" is whatever obstructs you from your goals.

If your actions get me closer to my goals, then your actions are good.
If your actions make my goals harder to reach, then your actions are bad.
To me, this makes it simple to judge good/bad actions.

For me, a moral system needs to create a society that you would want to live in if others adopted your moral system.

If everyone adopted your morals, it would create a dystopia.

Would you really want to live in a society where most people thought like that?
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
I'd have to leave goals out of it. To me, the results of actions upon others would determine if the person doing the acting is moral or immoral. Sounds simple but seems like a good indicator.
Wouldn't that be a goal?
Having your actions result in something "good" for others?
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
For me, a moral system needs to create a society that you would want to live in if others adopted your moral system.

If everyone adopted your morals, it would create a dystopia.

Would you really want to live in a society where most people thought like that?
I believe we already do. People just come up with creative ways to justify it.
 
I believe we already do. People just come up with creative ways to justify it.

While it's certainly true that people will create moral principles that are really justifications for self-interest, jealousy etc., the idea that most people think purely in terms of "if it benefits me it's good, if it doesn't it's bad" is clearly untrue.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
While it's certainly true that people will create moral principles that are really justifications for self-interest, jealousy etc., the idea that most people think purely in terms of "if it benefits me it's good, if it doesn't it's bad" is clearly untrue.

That's not what I'm saying though. There is no necessity that your goal are one of self benefit. Your goals can be 100% percent altruistic and still be deterministic of your morals.
 

Hermit Philosopher

Selflessly here for you
What if you are a mass murderer.
I am a detective trying to catch you, my actions make your goals harder to reach.

Perhaps the murderer finds the detective “morally dreadful” for attempting to prevent them from reaching their murderous goals.

Admittedly, that does sound a little weird. Possibly even unlikely? Would you not agree @Nakosis ?

Humbly
Hermit
 

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure
Morality centers around harmfulness vs. helpfulness, and vices vs. virtues. It's moral to do no harm to those who have done no harm. It's moral to be helpful where no harm is caused.
To be moral means you are in right standing, as opposed to being in the wrong, or immoral.

Morality also centers on what people deserve in regards to the common good. Goodness would be anything that promotes the general welfare. Badness would be anything that harms the general welfare. Being neutral means that a person has done nothing to harm or help the general welfare.

Qualities of good character are virtues and thus moral. Vices are immoral. Honesty as deserved is a moral virtue. Murder and cheating are vices meaning they are immoral.

That's my take on it.

Morality is a judgment call about goodness, and badness. There are obvious actions and intentions that are bad. There are obvious actions and intentions that are good.

The motives, the actions, and effects are highly important in determining morality vs. immorality.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
My view on morals.

Morals are dependent on what your goals are.
"Good" actions are whatever furthers your goals.
"Bad" is whatever obstructs you from your goals.

If your actions get me closer to my goals, then your actions are good.
If your actions make my goals harder to reach, then your actions are bad.
To me, this makes it simple to judge good/bad actions.

We may share the same or similar goals so what we judge as moral can be the same.

However, we may have completely different goals. So while I may judge your morals as immoral/bad/evil, depending on your goals, your actions for yourself and folks who have common goals with you, your actions may be perfectly moral/good.

So while you may judge me or another as immoral as say it all depend on what my/their goals happened to be at the time.

In many cases, events happen in the world which have no bearing or affect on my goals. They are amoral, or I have no reason to pass a moral judgement on. They are just events which happened.

An argument against this would be whether there exits universally oriented goals. I don't believe such exists.
While human kind may have some goals in common. I don't see our, human, goals as universal.

There maybe other arguments against this view to. For example if you believe in a God then maybe you believe that God dictates universal morals. That's fine but not everyone believes in the same God so one God may dictate a different set of morals from another, so still not universal and dependent on the goals of that particular God.
I have heard this view on morals before, usually leading up to utilitarianism. And while I don't see it as essentially false, it has to be encapsulated with so many caveats that it is worthless as a moral teaching.
You will have to question your goals and see if they are temporary or ultimate and that isn't easy to do as goals are very subjective.
With your approach you could end up with a "morality" like Gnerdel or you could fail to judge actions like Gnerdel's as immoral.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Perhaps the murderer finds the detective “morally dreadful” for attempting to prevent them from reaching their murderous goals.

Admittedly, that does sound a little weird. Possibly even unlikely? Would you not agree @Nakosis ?

Humbly
Hermit

Well, not being a mass murder myself, yes.
If I was though, I suspect my morals would be much different than what they are.
 
That's not what I'm saying though. There is no necessity that your goal are one of self benefit. Your goals can be 100% percent altruistic and still be deterministic of your morals.

The other day I got in a taxi and there was an iPhone on the seat. The other passenger had just left and gone into the hotel.

I gave the phone to the taxi driver and told him to go and find the other passenger.

I obviously thought "should I just pocket it?" but decided it was the right thing to give it back.

Giving a phone to a stranger didn't meet any goals, I wouldn't have felt guilty about keeping it as I've lost a phone in the same circumstance, didn't really feel like I'm 'good' for giving it back.

It was basically 'irrational' sentiment that "it's what you do".

If I'd thought about it in terms of goals, I'd have sold it and used the money to buy something.
 
Top