What is a "moral"?

[1137]

I was thinking about morality today, and wondered if we could find an axiom for morality, which we could then build upon logically. If you'd unfamiliar, am axiom is something the is self evident, necessarily true, and cannot be argued against without contradiction, yet has no simpler premises. A is A, the law of identity, is an axiom. But I realized that I could not even get a grasp on defining what a moral is, or what makes something moral. In fact, that seems to be the whole question of morality right there! There just doesn't seem to be a proper starting point, especially if we cannot define what a "moral" is in the first place.

Anyone have a definition?

 

[Sunstone]

How about a rule or principle of behavior?

 

[Skwim]

How about a rule or principle of behavior?

I'll go along with that. As the online Oxford Dictionary puts it, a moral (singular noun) is:

1) A lesson, especially one concerning what is right or prudent, that can be derived from a story, a piece of information, or an experience.
2) A person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do.
​

So, I guess if one wishes to construct some kind of axiom the first thing to do is decide which of these to use. If using the second definition it seems the axiom would have to be a dictate of behavior. That said, in as much as I've never heard of an axiom of morality (I once took a course in ethics while in college), but know there are moral axioms, I kind of doubt one has ever been concocted, which would point up a lack of need, and perhaps impossibility.


.

 

[Milton Platt]

I'll go along with that. As the online Oxford Dictionary puts it, a moral (singular noun) is:

1) A lesson, especially one concerning what is right or prudent, that can be derived from a story, a piece of information, or an experience.
2) A person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do.
​

So, I guess if one wishes to construct some kind of axiom the first thing to do is decide which of these to use. If using the second definition, it would seem the axiom would have to be a dictate of behavior. That said, in as much as I've never heard of an axiom of morality (I once took a course in ethics while in college), but know there are moral axioms, I kind of doubt one has ever been concocted, which would point up a lack of need, and perhaps impossibility.


.

Yeah, what he said.....

 

[jeager106]

Morel
A tasty mushroom.

OH! MORAL!

A high standard.
She had great moral values thus I dumped her!

Now that I'm older the lady I'm with now has very high moral standards.
Christian don'cha'know.

 

[Nietzsche]

A moral is an argument some ******* makes to stop you from having fun.

 

[McBell]

Morel
A tasty mushroom.

OH! MORAL!

A high standard.
She had great moral values thus I dumped her!

Now that I'm older the lady I'm with now has very high moral standards.
Christian don'cha'know.

I disagree with adding the word "high".

I am not saying that there are not "higher" morals, just that the standards need not be "high".

 

[idav]

I'll go with unhealthy and dead organisms do not function properly. If some of that is not obvious it can be scientifically validated one way or another. So we have to avoid being physically or mentally unhealthy to the best of our ability. It becomes a moral standard when you have to avoid causing suffering on self and others. I'm sure there is quite the balancing act to make all that happen but its a start.

 

[Tabu]

All those good values which sustain peace , harmony , love and happiness.

 

[Vorkosigan]

How about maximization of wellbeing?

 

[ScottySatan]

I believe it's self-sacrifice in order to make yourself feel good, mostly because you lack the means to do it in more practical ways.

 

[McBell]

in reply to the thread as a whole....

I define morals as a persons understanding of right/wrong
it is not the right/wrong that are morals, but the understanding of right/wrong

Seems that most people look at "moral" as being good only.
Why is that?
I mean, good is about as subjective as it gets AND it severely limits what a moral can be.

Is not a moral merely one piece of morals?
If not, how not?

 

[jeager106]

I see the Christian Bible as a sort of owners manual for people.
How to conduct ourselves using the Bible as a standard.

 

[ScottySatan]

in reply to the thread as a whole....

I define morals as a persons understanding of right/wrong
it is not the right/wrong that are morals, but the understanding of right/wrong

Seems that most people look at "moral" as being good only.
Why is that?

But I think most people would take understanding of right and wrong in morality to imply that you should do what's right. So it would be good only.

You put in my head the idea of a bad moral and I kind of like it. "I solemnly swear I am up to no good", and stuff. Even if that's not what you meant.

Is that what you meant?

 

[McBell]

But I think most people would take understanding of right and wrong in morality to imply that you should do what's right. So it would be good only.

You put in my head the idea of a bad moral and I kind of like it. "I solemnly swear I am up to no good", and stuff. Even if that's not what you meant.

Is that what you meant?

What I mean is that morals is an understanding of BOTH right and wrong.

Everyone has morals.
Meaning that everyone has an understanding of right/wrong.

It is not to say that everyone's understanding is equal, or the same.
When people say someone is "immoral", what they are saying is that their morals are different then the "immoral" persons.
When someones morals are extremely different, it is said they have no morals.

Disclaimer for the semantic whiners:
I understand that there may be some who have no concept/understanding of right wrong.
But I am not talking about infants or coma patients.