How is morality defined? What is right and wrong?

[waitasec]

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.

moral people and immoral people live by their own laws...

laws are relative.

 

[Thief]

Morality is relative.

If I were living self-sufficiently, no one around for hundreds of miles....
whatever is on my mind is my own.

But we humans gather in numbers, and then work way too many hours....
and then what goes through our heads, never has enough time in our hands.

So, now and then, one of us will 'pop', and the concept of morality simply disappears.

Most of us find some harmless means of release....
scary movies, novels to read, hanging out in bars....whatever.
But a few, take matters into their own hands.
As if it were something waiting for the right moment.

Most indiscretions are just that....
firing someone just cause you felt like it...
jacking someone's reputation just because they don't like you...
punching the guy in the eye because the girl you want, wants him....

How about we kick this to the next level?

Heaven is a place of peace.
It is maintained by sword.

It is given to you to deal with indiscretion, and what you allow to pass,
will affect everyone else's peace.

So....the knock at the door...and someone of indiscretion enters.
You've got the sword.
It's your call.

 

[McBell]

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.

Yes, each person has their own objective right and wrong.
However, these individual objective right and wrongs are not universally the same.

 

[McBell]

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.

circular reasoning.

The reason adultery was against the law is because those in that particular society believed it was immoral.

Now if what you say is true, that moral people do not need laws because they are moral, then what have you really shown?
Nothing more than a group of people made their subjective morality into law that everyone was supposed to follow.

Now, pray tell, what is your version of the reason why adultery is no longer against the law?

 

[Father Heathen]

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

The parents brought it into the worl and thus are responsible for it. The child is victimized by the parent's neglect and abuse (they allowed this to happen and continue to perpetuate it). An innocent person victimzed = injustice.

 

[Father Heathen]

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.

Different societies have different cultural norms and different laws. Again, legality and morality are two different things. For example, I find a lot of your religious beliefs to be immoral, but I do not think they should be illegal.

 

[camanintx]

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.

Does the fact that each of us has some measure from which to judge beauty mean that there is an objective beauty against which everything can be measured?

 

[Pegg]

Now, pray tell, what is your version of the reason why adultery is no longer against the law?

probably because it is a moral law drawn from religious sources

separation of church and state has made many religious laws no longer laws in society

but that doesnt mean that non-religious people dont abide by them...many do.

 

[Curious George]

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.

So, whenever one does something and finds their intended results actualized, they are acting with the good morals?

 

[McBell]

So, whenever one does something and finds their intended results actualized, they are acting with the good morals?

How did you come to that conclusion on what was actually posted?

 

[McBell]

probably because it is a moral law drawn from religious sources

separation of church and state has made many religious laws no longer laws in society

but that doesnt mean that non-religious people dont abide by them...many do.

Interesting.
I doubt that separation of church and state had anything to do with it.

I suspect that those who made adultery legal did so because they did not want to end up in jail...

You know, all those god fearing Christian lawmakers who were having affairs left and right....

 

[The Sum of Awe]

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.

It's measuring an imaginary line, the thing I'm measuring is subjective, which causes the "Yes, it's moral" and "No, it's immoral" to be subjective.

 

[Curious George]

How did you come to that conclusion on what was actually posted?

Since his rationale for judging morals as good or bad is based on whether a decision "makes sense." If we are to say one version of morals is better than another there is an implied scale on which we are then judging the morals. If this scale is based off what makes sense versus what is not logical then the best morals would be ones that made sense. Thus, if one acts according to logic and does something that makes sense then they would be acting with good morals. This, however, does not distinguish between ones objectives. So we could then derive the statement that anything one does as long as the intended results are actualized makes sense, therefore is based on good morals.

 

[McBell]

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.

So, whenever one does something and finds their intended results actualized, they are acting with the good morals?

How did you come to that conclusion on what was actually posted?

Since his rationale for judging morals as good or bad is based on whether a decision "makes sense." If we are to say one version of morals is better than another there is an implied scale on which we are then judging the morals. If this scale is based off what makes sense versus what is not logical then the best morals would be ones that made sense. Thus, if one acts according to logic and does something that makes sense then they would be acting with good morals. This, however, does not distinguish between ones objectives. So we could then derive the statement that anything one does as long as the intended results are actualized makes sense, therefore is based on good morals.

Why did you insert "decision"?
Why the assumption of comparison?
why are you confusing "makes sense" with "logical"?
why the insertion of the assumption of intentions?

Seems to me you have created quite the strawman...

 

[Curious George]

Why did you insert "decision"?
Why the assumption of comparison?
why are you confusing "makes sense" with "logical"?
why the insertion of the assumption of intentions?

Seems to me you have created quite the strawman...

pretty sure that I have not created quite the straw man. But let us investigate further.

Why did you insert "decision"?

If something is "better" because it "makes sense" vs "some guy claimed a goblin told him" i.e. based on superstition- then we are saying that one made a decision based on what made sense vs. another who made a decision based on what the goblin told them. Thus, I insert the word decision.

Why the assumption of comparison?

The assumption of comparison came from an earlier statement

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

In order to have a best morality there must be a comparison. Otherwise the term best becomes irrelevant. Moreover, when someone makes a this vs. that statement, then a comparison has been set. I am not really sure why you wouldn't assume comparison.

why are you confusing "makes sense" with "logical"?

Because that was the example given in order to depict the standards of applying cause and effect, evidence, and logic etc. If you can come up with a more precise phrasing go ahead and insert it into my reasoning as I am sure it will fit, since that is how I used the phrase "makes sense" within my address to you.

why the insertion of the assumption of intentions?

Well if we are determining whether a decision is made with consideration of cause and effect, evidence, and logic then we would have to take into considerations intentions. For instance, the value judgement placed on the moral reasoning:

In the context of the discussion there is an implication in the statement:

"For example, X is good/bad because it makes sense vs. X is good/bad because some guy claimed a goblin told him."

We are saying that "X is good/bad because it makes sense" is better, even if "X is good/bad because some guy claimed a goblin told him" directs us to do the very same thing as the former. This places specific emphasis on the intention.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

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 cannot be defined because it is subjective. Morality of a generation can be defined by actions that the majority of people of that generation deem right or wrong.

 

[McBell]

If something is "better" because it "makes sense" vs "some guy claimed a goblin told him" i.e. based on superstition- then we are saying that one made a decision based on what made sense vs. another who made a decision based on what the goblin told them. Thus, I insert the word decision.

O.
that makes sense.
i was applying the decision decision to the wrong part.

The assumption of comparison came from an earlier statement

Fair enough.

In order to have a best morality there must be a comparison. Otherwise the term best becomes irrelevant. Moreover, when someone makes a this vs. that statement, then a comparison has been set. I am not really sure why you wouldn't assume comparison.

Fair enough.

Because that was the example given in order to depict the standards of applying cause and effect, evidence, and logic etc. If you can come up with a more precise phrasing go ahead and insert it into my reasoning as I am sure it will fit, since that is how I used the phrase "makes sense" within my address to you.

There are a lot of things that are illogical that people say makes sense.
The terms simply are not as synonymous as you would have us believe.

Well if we are determining whether a decision is made with consideration of cause and effect, evidence, and logic then we would have to take into considerations intentions. For instance, the value judgement placed on the moral reasoning:

In the context of the discussion there is an implication in the statement:

"For example, X is good/bad because it makes sense vs. X is good/bad because some guy claimed a goblin told him."

We are saying that "X is good/bad because it makes sense" is better, even if "X is good/bad because some guy claimed a goblin told him" directs us to do the very same thing as the former. This places specific emphasis on the intention.

I still fail to see the intentions or how intentions apply the statement.

 

[McBell]

Morality cannot be defined because it is subjective.

And yet there are a vast number of defines moralities the world over.
Thus the REASON morality is subjective...

Morality of a generation can be defined by actions that the majority of people of that generation deem right or wrong.

Morality of generation seems a bit worthless when you stop and consider the vast number of moralities each generation has.

 

[gseeker]

Time+culture+society+religion+individuality=morality.

Morality itself is subjective but the reason so many people believe in similar moralities is not because God gave man a moral code but rather because society, for it to function, must have the same basic moral code.

Now we have found out that you cannot define morality through law, but is morality and ethics the same thing?

 

[Curious George]

O.

I still fail to see the intentions or how intentions apply the statement.

In order act using logic, cause and effect, evidence, etc we must have intent. There must be reasoning present and we must consider the consequences. To use these qualities successfully means that our intent is actualized. If I act and consequences arise that I did not intend then I did not understand the full scope of my actions. If I did not understand the full scope of my action then I did not fully apply cause and effect. Thus a better moral decision will have existed.