How is morality defined? What is right and wrong?

[McBell]

Well, you'd have to know how they wanted to be treated and sometimes that would not be what they really need or deserve, or what is best for them.

and how is it any different with the "Golden Rule"?

 

[waitasec]

Here is a really novel idea...
talk to them...

that would be boring...

Not necessarily

how so?

 

[Father Heathen]

people break laws, but moral people dont

Incorrect. What's legal isn't always moral and just, and what's moral and just isn't always legal. In fact, opposing corruption and tyranny is the moral thing to do.

It's okay to put that moldy old tome down and invest some thought into things.

 

[Sir Doom]

I believe that objective morality CAN exist, but currently does not due to our human compulsion to divide ourselves into a subjective hierarchy of worth.

I think that all things can be quantified under the heading of power. In the most general terms, power is our ability to control the universe we find ourselves in. Moral actions are those that gain power and mitigate the inevitable loss of power. Immoral actions are those that remove power or squander it.

I believe that moral relativism would disappear completely if we, as a species, began to examine morality in this way. No simple task, of course. Our survival instinct weighs on us from an individual standpoint. This is how the hierarchy I mentioned before is created. We assign value based on proximity, essentially. Generally speaking it goes individual first, family and friends next, community after that. Of course we always belong to a variety of communities and these are ranked against each other in a completely subjective way. What we consider moral is often a function of increased worth of any given group. This is the biggest stumbling block in the way of objective morality. We almost never consider the human species as a whole, preferring to gain or preserve power for the smaller groups we inhabit. Nations, races, cultures, etc. We consider these groups to be more important than the whole as we happen to be part of these groups. It's an extension of the individual worth we place on ourselves. The more fundamental we consider each group, the more absolute morality becomes. The more estranged we are from a group, the more relative morality becomes.

I don't know if we will ever get rid of this mentality completely, but I think we are moving in that direction as the world becomes smaller and smaller. Social media has made it so that it is now very easy to identify with someone on the other side of the planet. Other nations and peoples no longer exist in obscurity. We are now subjected to a much more precise global awareness. I think that this will continue to increase, and so moral relativity will decrease as a result, hopefully disappearing altogether as we begin to work towards the common good of the entire species.

But then again, I'm a bit of an optimist

 

[Curious George]

There are no absolutes in life.

I think the head of the satanist church said it best when it came to a concept of pain being immoral. You have a a person who enjoys pain and a sadist. The person says to the sadist hurt me and the sadist says no. Out of the two who's moral value was correct? Again that proves that you can't define moral values by pain vs pleasure.

Now if a person enjoys "pain" wouldn't that make pain pleasure. But your question is a little more complex than that. We do not live in a vacuum. Thus, there are many consequences beyond the obvious. This chain reaction is what we need to interpret when weighing the scales. Given nothing else in the scenario, I would suggest that your question is not necessarily a moral one.

And food for thought: if the sadist denied pleasure to the masochist isn't that fulfilling there want to hurt them by satiating the sadists desire to also hurt them.

To say there are no absolutes in life is essentially to create an absolute.

 

[JustWondering]

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?

Humans are genetically wired to act certain ways. Despite the difference of environments and beliefs, different cultures/groups will generally have very similar ideas of what is right and wrong. Which is why I believe if there is a god, its already wired us to act the way it wants us to act. It does not need to send prophets, angels, miracles, or inspire gospels to fulfill whatever plan/purpose it has for us.

 

[camanintx]

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?

We each have our own idea of what is right and wrong, derived from the values our society impresses on us as children. Morality is just the consensus of that society.

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.

Murder is defined as killing another without justification. While murder has generally be considered wrong, what is considered justified has not. History is full of societies which condoned killing within (human sacrifices) and outside (war) of the group.

the golden rule is fine as far it goes.

I prefer the Platinum Rule:

Treat others as they would like to be treated.
​

Knowing how others want to be treated can be difficult. I think Confucius put it best as "What you do not want others to do to you, do not do unto others."

Morality is the manner in which one conducts oneself when interacting with others. It's also justice and balance. The best morality is guided by reason and compassion rather than by arbitrary social norms and superstitions. Dignity and integrity, honor and honesty, etc. all ties into the depth and worth of the self.

I totally agree with this.

 

[Curious George]

The best morality is guided by reason and compassion rather than by arbitrary social norms and superstitions.

If you maintain that right and wrong are social or personal creations, how can any morality be better than another?

 

[waitasec]

If you maintain that right and wrong are social or personal creations, how can any morality be better than another?

there is no objective morality....so there is no way to answer that question.

if it is against your morality to support chick fil a then don't support them...and the other way around.

 

[Father Heathen]

If you maintain that right and wrong are social or personal creations, how can any morality be better than another?

Cause and effect, evidence and logic, etc. For example, X is good/bad because it makes sense vs. X is good/bad because some guy claimed a goblin told him.

Edit: Fixed an embarrassing typo...

 

[jasonwill2]

i define it on "denial of self", which is more of a code.

Basically:

Only hurt people in self-defense or vengeance
Vengeance matches the offense
Embrace/accept yourself, rather than deny it
Only hurt animals in self-defense or kill them for food
Don't eat domesticated animals
Eat sacrifices and give the blood to Ha-Satan


To make a point of a lifestyle of consciously breaking this code is to be an Infidel, less of someone who doesn't believe in the code so much as someone who doesn't trust in the sacredness of the essential spirit of the code.

Hence jerks who hurt lots of people, people who kill animals for fun, or people who deny themselves and live a spiritual life of denial and abstinence, as if their nature is inherently evil, are infidels. However if one is inclined to break this code by their nature, the greater parts of their nature must work to correct it, least their inclination to break this code destroy their entire nature. It is better that one tiny part of their nature be pacified, than should that one part take down the entire being.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Nice straw man.

I said nothing at all about giving others what they want.
I said treated as they want to be treated.

Isn't that just a different way of saying the same thing?
Please elaborate as I find the distinction to be almost completely semantic in this context.

 

[jasonwill2]

That's it, I've broken due to many things. No more messing with it. I'm abandoning my codes and abolishing them (at least for now)

Forget morality, it's not real. There is only what you want and what you are willing to do for it and what consequences you know you can live with.

 

[confused453]

How does morality work in this case? Opinions?
[youtube]x4c_wI6kQyE[/youtube]

 

[The Sum of Awe]

How does morality work in this case? Opinions?
[youtube]x4c_wI6kQyE[/youtube]

It's immoral to you, but not to me or him.

And saying something is immoral to you is pointless, which makes it pointless to have morals, since when does someone with a different moral code care about your opinion? Since when does a criminal care about the law?

 

[Willamena]

It's immoral to you, but not to me or him.

And saying something is immoral to you is pointless, which makes it pointless to have morals, since when does someone with a different moral code care about your opinion? Since when does a criminal care about the law?

The part in brown is irrelevant to objectivity. That there is even one person--you--who has some measure from which to judge "Yes, it's moral," or "No, it's immoral," means that there is an objective right.

 

[arthra]

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 to me is definitely essential today and much of it we owe to religious values that have been instilled in us...

You can better understand the need for ethics and morality when you consider cases such as Peenemuende where slave labor was used to build factory for rockets that destroyed civilians in London... or where people were used as experiments testing radiation or chemical weapons...

Military experiments: Using chemical weapons and drugs on humans - by Dana Kadir - Helium

Without standards of morality people will be at the mercy of the unscrupulous.

 

[Pegg]

Your logic is saying that laws==morality, and I don't think anyone here would agree.

no body seemed to get the point that moral people dont need laws

they are above law because they are moral. Will moral people break some laws created by other people, yes...and christianity makes allowance for such breaking of law if the law is immoral.

 

[Koldo]

no body seemed to get the point that moral people dont need laws

they are above law because they are moral. Will moral people break some laws created by other people, yes...and christianity makes allowance for such breaking of law if the law is immoral.

By saying: "people break laws, but moral people dont", it was understood as : 'People break laws, but moral people don't break laws'.

 

[Pegg]

By saying: "people break laws, but moral people dont", it was understood as : 'People break laws, but moral people don't break laws'.

here's an example,

years ago adultery was a crime punishable by law...nowadays its not. There is no law against it in most places. But not everybody commits adultery. Many still choose to be faithful to their marriage mate even though there is no law against adultery.

so those who have such morals do not need a law to prevent them from being unfaithful. These sorts of people are above law.