Since morality is entirely relative, how do we know if we're doing good?

[serp777]

So basically, morality changes whimsically depending on factors such as the society you live in,the time period you're born in, and the cultural and political influences that surround you. These factors interact with our genome to produce a moral computer which can make rational moral decision based on some insanely complicated expert system. This has undermined my whole sense of whether I can know if something is right or wrong--it feels like our morality is partially determined. We might have thought that slavery was justified if we were born in certain parts of the world or in the ancient past.

But the question is do you think anything is actually good or right? I only feel like I know what right and wrong are because society has instilled certain rules and beliefs in me; i feel good being helpful and compassionate whenever I can (probably because of genetics), but I don't actually know if that's right or whether you can even determine if something is good or bad.

sometimes reflect that I only act like a good citizen is almost done for selfish reasons--that i feel good helping people and that I know by helping others it helps to create a better society that will help me and vice versa. It also raises my social reputation which makes me more friends. Its the philosophy that if everyone is helping each other as much as possible that everyone will be better off. I can't actually think of why something is truly wrong though. For example, is the wolf that kills the sheep evil? No. This depends on your perspective and when you were born--in other words, no one has the authority to claim whether something is good or evil, right or wrong with respect to morality.

So im looking for opinions on morality and what you use to determine if something is right or wrong and if you think my analysis is logical or not. As bad as it sounds I do not see any justification for being purely altruistic--rather for no self serving reasons at all.

 

[Jumi]

What's moral is what is beneficial for as many people as possible, in the long run.

Sometimes we feel we are doing the right thing, but it can be totally wrong ofcourse. A good example might be destroying people who are born different by pseudoscientific treatments. That's why we must have as much of a real understanding of this world as possible if we want to do good. A little lack of knowledge can be damaging.

 

[LuisDantas]

Morality is by no means entirely relative, far from it.

It is moral realization that is deeply conditioned.

Morality itself is limited by the possibilities of the environment, there included the cognitive and sociological environment. In that sense it is a perpetual intellectual challenge; people are literally only as moral as their understanding of their choices and their consequences will allow them to be.

 

[Father Heathen]

Reason and compassion, cause and effect, etc.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So basically, morality changes whimsically ...

Have you ever taken an anthropology class?

 

[1robin]

So basically, morality changes whimsically depending on factors such as the society you live in,the time period you're born in, and the cultural and political influences that surround you. These factors interact with our genome to produce a moral computer which can make rational moral decision based on some insanely complicated expert system. This has undermined my whole sense of whether I can know if something is right or wrong--it feels like our morality is partially determined. We might have thought that slavery was justified if we were born in certain parts of the world or in the ancient past.

But the question is do you think anything is actually good or right? I only feel like I know what right and wrong are because society has instilled certain rules and beliefs in me; i feel good being helpful and compassionate whenever I can (probably because of genetics), but I don't actually know if that's right or whether you can even determine if something is good or bad.

sometimes reflect that I only act like a good citizen is almost done for selfish reasons--that i feel good helping people and that I know by helping others it helps to create a better society that will help me and vice versa. It also raises my social reputation which makes me more friends. Its the philosophy that if everyone is helping each other as much as possible that everyone will be better off. I can't actually think of why something is truly wrong though. For example, is the wolf that kills the sheep evil? No. This depends on your perspective and when you were born--in other words, no one has the authority to claim whether something is good or evil, right or wrong with respect to morality.

So im looking for opinions on morality and what you use to determine if something is right or wrong and if you think my analysis is logical or not. As bad as it sounds I do not see any justification for being purely altruistic--rather for no self serving reasons at all.

Your presuming something that the entire issue hinges on. How do you know morality is relative? Relative to what? If God exists it is objective. What your describing is better labeled ethics not morality.

 

[1robin]

Reason and compassion, cause and effect, etc.

If you read Hitler's own words he thought what he did was beneficial for the human race as a whole. He thought destroying the weak would strengthen the strong and used evolution as proof. He considered his actions both compassionate and reasonable for mankind as a whole. A by your standards Hitler was right. He did not live long enough to see if his actions produced what he thought they would but he used your criteria.

 

[Augustus]

Human nature contains both the capacity for altruism and cruelty. Both are part of our nature though.

Given the 'right' conditions almost all of us could carry out acts of great cruelty or depravity. That we do or don't is somewhat a quirk of fate.

We can construct a morality and reasoning behind this, but it is subjective, no more than a reassuring fiction subject to change and revision, perhaps sudden and drastic.

If there is no God, we need to accept that 'morality' is man-made and that cruelty and oppression are perfectly natural. Humanity is deeply flawed and there is no reason why the 'golden rule' reflects our nature any more than human sacrifices and slavery do.

Pretending otherwise is approaching 'young earth creationist' level avoidance of the evidence.

 

[DawudTalut]

So basically, morality changes whimsically depending on factors such as the society you live in,the time period you're born in, and the cultural and political influences that surround you. These factors interact with our genome to produce a moral computer which can make rational moral decision based on some insanely complicated expert system. This has undermined my whole sense of whether I can know if something is right or wrong--it feels like our morality is partially determined. We might have thought that slavery was justified if we were born in certain parts of the world or in the ancient past.

But the question is do you think anything is actually good or right? I only feel like I know what right and wrong are because society has instilled certain rules and beliefs in me; i feel good being helpful and compassionate whenever I can (probably because of genetics), but I don't actually know if that's right or whether you can even determine if something is good or bad.

sometimes reflect that I only act like a good citizen is almost done for selfish reasons--that i feel good helping people and that I know by helping others it helps to create a better society that will help me and vice versa. It also raises my social reputation which makes me more friends. Its the philosophy that if everyone is helping each other as much as possible that everyone will be better off. I can't actually think of why something is truly wrong though. For example, is the wolf that kills the sheep evil? No. This depends on your perspective and when you were born--in other words, no one has the authority to claim whether something is good or evil, right or wrong with respect to morality.

So im looking for opinions on morality and what you use to determine if something is right or wrong and if you think my analysis is logical or not. As bad as it sounds I do not see any justification for being purely altruistic--rather for no self serving reasons at all.

Peace be on you.
God has granted us internal compass -- conscience. If it is rusted it may not work well.
There are certain morals which are taught by religion.
Society may make certain morals, they may contradict religious morals or may not.

The morals [like user manual] are taught by the One Who engineered us.

At complex situations God-made morals prove their superiority , For example:
Who would like to be nice with enemy but religion ask to do so: [Quran @ alislam.org ch5: v9] O ye who believe! be steadfast in the cause of Allah, bearing witness in equity; and let not a people’s enmity incite you to act otherwise than with justice. Be always just, that is nearer to righteousness. And fear Allah. Surely, Allah is aware of what you do.


At times, people may not able to make good judgments but religion tells:
[6:152] Say, ‘Come, I will rehearse to you what your Lord has forbidden: that you associate not anything as partner with Him, And you do good to parents, and that you kill not your children for fear of poverty — it is We Who provide for you and for them — and that you approach not foul deeds, whether open or secret; and that you kill not the life which Allah has made sacred, save by right. That is what He has enjoined upon you, that you may understand.


What if there is great threat to someone's life (on street), and person is passing by on his way to offer prayer, here the believer should use internal compass, first save the life then go to prayer....Thus at times, moral depends on situation.

But certainly it is no morality that a religion keep following the majority votes and keep compromising its teaching.

Plz find the word 'moral' in https://www.alislam.org/library/books/IslamsResponseToContemporaryIssues.pdf

wwwDOTalislamDOTorg/library/books/IslamsResponseToContemporaryIssues.pdf

There is much on morals with respect to modern society and religion.

 

[viole]

But the question is do you think anything is actually good or right? I only feel like I know what right and wrong are because society has instilled certain rules and beliefs in me; i feel good being helpful and compassionate whenever I can (probably because of genetics), but I don't actually know if that's right or whether you can even determine if something is good or bad.

In the big scheme of things? Nope. Nature is amoral. There is no objective morality that trascends our biology or our parochial perceptions.

Someone will tell you that objective morality cannot exist without God, and she will be right, since there is no God. Some will even tell you that the existence of objective morality is proof of this God, and they will be wrong, because of the obvious circularity.

What we call morality should be called rules of engagement, and there is some interesting mathematical research concerning how they can emerge within social organisms like us. Search for theory of games, the prisoner dilemma or the trolley experiment.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Nakosis]

sometimes reflect that I only act like a good citizen is almost done for selfish reasons--that i feel good helping people and that I know by helping others it helps to create a better society that will help me and vice versa. It also raises my social reputation which makes me more friends. Its the philosophy that if everyone is helping each other as much as possible that everyone will be better off. I can't actually think of why something is truly wrong though. For example, is the wolf that kills the sheep evil? No. This depends on your perspective and when you were born--in other words, no one has the authority to claim whether something is good or evil, right or wrong with respect to morality.
.

Pretty much. I suspect genetics has a lot to do with personality. Culture may has less to do with it, but considering genetics the DNA of a region maybe stacked towards aggressive violence or peaceful compassion. So culture maybe a development brought about by genetics.

However I'd assume survival would pass along certain genetic markers. So right is pretty much whatever allows you to survive to pass along your DNA. The circumstances of the world change as well so what allows survival in one era may be counter productive in another.

Basically morality is your feelings. Whatever you feel is good is good and whatever you feel is bad is bad. You may not be able to do much to change that. What is good and bad for me maybe entirely different than what is good and bad for you. So I don't pass judgement. It's a waste of time. Me passing judgement isn't going to change your feelings about right and wrong.

Now your personal morals may change over time. However how you change will likely still be based on the genetic personality you were born with.

Still we are left to deal with each others actions where is comes down to might makes right. Whomever can enforce their sense of morality, can do so.

The government of the US basically tries to determine a compromise. Not everyone is happy about every rule but there is enough common benefit that the majority accept the rules and accept enforcement of those rules.

So what I see it comes down to is that what is right and wrong to you, may not be what is right and wrong for someone else. Although we may also have common values. We act according to our morals but we also have to deal with the consequences of that action.

 

[Father Heathen]

If you read Hitler's own words he thought what he did was beneficial for the human race as a whole. He thought destroying the weak would strengthen the strong and used evolution as proof. He considered his actions both compassionate and reasonable for mankind as a whole. A by your standards Hitler was right. He did not live long enough to see if his actions produced what he thought they would but he used your criteria.

Not really, no.

 

[jeager106]

Lots of rules for ethics and morality in the owners manual for people.
The Bible.
Even an atheist would benefit from the guidance and moral compass in the Bible.
No one need be "religious" to benefit from the wisdom in that book.

 

[Jumi]

Your presuming something that the entire issue hinges on. How do you know morality is relative? Relative to what? If God exists it is objective. What your describing is better labeled ethics not morality.

Depends on which god would exist and what interpretation of what book or set morality... since we don't know which we would pick, it's better to choose a morality that's useful for most people and one that doesn't discard those who are weak either.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

So basically, morality changes whimsically depending on factors such as the society you live in,the time period you're born in, and the cultural and political influences that surround you. These factors interact with our genome to produce a moral computer which can make rational moral decision based on some insanely complicated expert system. This has undermined my whole sense of whether I can know if something is right or wrong--it feels like our morality is partially determined. We might have thought that slavery was justified if we were born in certain parts of the world or in the ancient past.

But the question is do you think anything is actually good or right? I only feel like I know what right and wrong are because society has instilled certain rules and beliefs in me; i feel good being helpful and compassionate whenever I can (probably because of genetics), but I don't actually know if that's right or whether you can even determine if something is good or bad.

sometimes reflect that I only act like a good citizen is almost done for selfish reasons--that i feel good helping people and that I know by helping others it helps to create a better society that will help me and vice versa. It also raises my social reputation which makes me more friends. Its the philosophy that if everyone is helping each other as much as possible that everyone will be better off. I can't actually think of why something is truly wrong though. For example, is the wolf that kills the sheep evil? No. This depends on your perspective and when you were born--in other words, no one has the authority to claim whether something is good or evil, right or wrong with respect to morality.

So im looking for opinions on morality and what you use to determine if something is right or wrong and if you think my analysis is logical or not. As bad as it sounds I do not see any justification for being purely altruistic--rather for no self serving reasons at all.

If morality is relative then we can only be good relatively by the defined criteria of the place and age. There would be no ultimate good or bad.

 

[Revoltingest]

If morality is relative then we can only be good relatively by the defined criteria of the place and age. There would be no ultimate good or bad.

That's it in a nutshell.
I do what I want, which is good enuf for me.

 

[Revoltingest]

Reason and compassion, cause and effect, etc.

It's weird to see the Superjail Warden talk about compassion.

 

[1robin]

Not really, no.

By your standards yes.
Acts done in an effort at compassion (for mankind in general) you justified. Hitler thought his acts met that standard. Lets say it was 1940, prove he was wrong. Keep in mind you must either prove him wrong to a certainty that would justify us losing million of our own while killing million of others to stop him, or leave him to do as he wished.

 

[Jumi]

If you read Hitler's own words he thought what he did was beneficial for the human race as a whole. He thought destroying the weak would strengthen the strong and used evolution as proof.

He didn't understand evolution and the Nazis were against some of it as hurting the soul. He didn't think he was doing what was beneficial for the whole of humanity. Instead he believed that only his race and the Jews were capable of succeeding and he wanted to eliminate both the weak and the strong if he considered them enemies.

 

[leibowde84]

So basically, morality changes whimsically depending on factors such as the society you live in,the time period you're born in, and the cultural and political influences that surround you. These factors interact with our genome to produce a moral computer which can make rational moral decision based on some insanely complicated expert system. This has undermined my whole sense of whether I can know if something is right or wrong--it feels like our morality is partially determined. We might have thought that slavery was justified if we were born in certain parts of the world or in the ancient past.

But the question is do you think anything is actually good or right? I only feel like I know what right and wrong are because society has instilled certain rules and beliefs in me; i feel good being helpful and compassionate whenever I can (probably because of genetics), but I don't actually know if that's right or whether you can even determine if something is good or bad.

sometimes reflect that I only act like a good citizen is almost done for selfish reasons--that i feel good helping people and that I know by helping others it helps to create a better society that will help me and vice versa. It also raises my social reputation which makes me more friends. Its the philosophy that if everyone is helping each other as much as possible that everyone will be better off. I can't actually think of why something is truly wrong though. For example, is the wolf that kills the sheep evil? No. This depends on your perspective and when you were born--in other words, no one has the authority to claim whether something is good or evil, right or wrong with respect to morality.

So im looking for opinions on morality and what you use to determine if something is right or wrong and if you think my analysis is logical or not. As bad as it sounds I do not see any justification for being purely altruistic--rather for no self serving reasons at all.

I think that morality is relative no matter how you look at it, so "right" and "wrong" in this context are merely just words. Here's an example:
Everyone pretty much would agree that killing mass amounts of human beings is "wrong", right? We think this because 1. life is precious and 2. we have empathy for our fellow human beings (empathy, btw, is part of brain chemistry ... sociopathy is when someone's brain has not developed in this respect) and other living things (usually that also have a sense of pain). We naturally think that pain and death, especially for our fellow humans, is "wrong".

Now, look at it from an objective viewpoint. The world as a whole would most likely be a lot better off if human's weren't around, so, from this view, the mass execution of human beings could be seen as a positive or "right" thing for the world as a whole. When you look at things from a more general perspective (all living things instead of just human beings) our perception of "right" and "wrong" changes.