What is Morality?

[Webbster101]

How should we as humans define morality?

Where do we get our morality?

How do we know we have the "right" morality?

 

[Webbster101]

I define morality as how we deal with everyday struggles.

I believe that our morality was givin to us by God (I am talkingabout the God of the Bible)

 

[Riverwolf]

Well, for me, there's two kinds of morality: universal and personal.

Universal morality are those things that pretty much all cultures and religions (or lack thereof) can agree upon. Don't kill people, don't steal, don't deceive, don't deliberately harm anyone, etc. It's defined based on what's best for humanity and society as a whole.

Personal morality, IMO, must have universal morality as a basis, and whatever's in that personal moral code can't contradict the universal ones. Once that's in place, there's a ton of different codes. But they need to remain on a personal level. This one is based on what's best for us personally.

 

[Darkness]

Morality is a function of language.

 

[Copernicus]

I love this question. Morality refers to the set of social conventions that allow human beings to interact with each other safely and comfortably. Different cultures arrive at different conventions, but all tend to converge on similar rules. The killing of humans, for example, is taboo because allowing it jeopardizes the well-being of all individuals. Hence, we only allow it under very well-defined circumstances, e.g. capital punishment or war. Lying undermines trust, which we need in order to work together. Sexual promiscuity jeopardizes family cohesion, which makes children less safe. Not to mention the fact that it spreads STDs. In almost every case of moral restriction, there is some issue that has to do with preserving social cohesion.

So-called "objective morality" is anything but. Different cultures can have radically different interpretations of what is morally "objective" or supported by their deities. The reason that people see a need to ground morality in the divine is that gods have the greatest amount of social authority. If all we believed in were kings or the Communist Party, then those would be the source of "objective morality". That kind of morality is just morality grounded in authority. Failure to believe in the authority of the deity undermines morality in that it removes the basis for safe and comfortable social interactions. Hence, atheism is seen as a danger to society in general.

 

[Webbster101]

I love this question. Morality refers to the set of social conventions that allow human beings to interact with each other safely and comfortably. Different cultures arrive at different conventions, but all tend to converge on similar rules. The killing of humans, for example, is taboo because allowing it jeopardizes the well-being of all individuals. Hence, we only allow it under very well-defined circumstances, e.g. capital punishment or war. Lying undermines trust, which we need in order to work together. Sexual promiscuity jeopardizes family cohesion, which makes children less safe. Not to mention the fact that it spreads STDs. In almost every case of moral restriction, there is some issue that has to do with preserving social cohesion.

So-called "objective morality" is anything but. Different cultures can have radically different interpretations of what is morally "objective" or supported by their deities. The reason that people see a need to ground morality in the divine is that gods have the greatest amount of social authority. If all we believed in were kings or the Communist Party, then those would be the source of "objective morality". That kind of morality is just morality grounded in authority. Failure to believe in the authority of the deity undermines morality in that it removes the basis for safe and comfortable social interactions. Hence, atheism is seen as a danger to society in general.

What do you mean by "morality grunded by authority"?

 

[dogsgod]

I love this question. Morality refers to the set of social conventions that allow human beings to interact with each other safely and comfortably. Different cultures arrive at different conventions, but all tend to converge on similar rules. The killing of humans, for example, is taboo because allowing it jeopardizes the well-being of all individuals. Hence, we only allow it under very well-defined circumstances, e.g. capital punishment or war. Lying undermines trust, which we need in order to work together. Sexual promiscuity jeopardizes family cohesion, which makes children less safe. Not to mention the fact that it spreads STDs. In almost every case of moral restriction, there is some issue that has to do with preserving social cohesion.

So-called "objective morality" is anything but. Different cultures can have radically different interpretations of what is morally "objective" or supported by their deities. The reason that people see a need to ground morality in the divine is that gods have the greatest amount of social authority. If all we believed in were kings or the Communist Party, then those would be the source of "objective morality". That kind of morality is just morality grounded in authority. Failure to believe in the authority of the deity undermines morality in that it removes the basis for safe and comfortable social interactions. Hence, atheism is seen as a danger to society in general.

An objective morality could be a morality based on principles that are the same for all. An example would be torture, in any functioning society or culture torture is recognized as something that no one should have to endure. A culture or people influenced by those that can justify torturing those that "worship the wrong god" for example are not thinking objectively, they are instead harboring beliefs that are subjective, beliefs that favour or support their own prejudices towards those that don't believe as they do, or don't appear as they do.

 

[Penumbra]

How should we as humans define morality?
Where do we get our morality?

Biology and Reason.

How do we know we have the "right" morality?

Reason and Observation.


Based on the way the universe seems to operate, morality in its primal understanding is subjective. Things simply "are" and that's that. But humans, as social animals, have developed instincts that we refer to as morality. Morality has changed over time and across regions, but the basic idea is that our instincts allow us to seek friendship, work together, defend each other, and so forth. Without such instincts, we never would have gotten this far.

When a goal is agreed upon, there are objectively better or worse ways of achieving it, and morality is no different. Morality can become objective when it is in relation to a goal. For instance, if maximum human happiness, satisfaction, and flourishing is the goal, then genocide, torture, and rape are objectively immoral in relation to that goal.

 

[Nothing]

Yes, a very interesting question indeed! I don't believe there is a definitive answer, for what we each believe to be moral seems to me at least to be entirely subjective. That we seem to have "objective morality" imposed upon us by something greater then ourselves appears true, but it is not. I am not disputing the existence of a diety or a power greater then us, nor do I dspute that such a Power has provided us with the knowledge of what objective morals are. The only thing that is imposed upon us is done by us. It is the interpretation of morals we are expected to accept or reject and these interpretations are made by us not our dieties. Whether we believe in God or not, we have free will. Perhaps morality is defined by respecting our free will.

 

[Copernicus]

What do you mean by "morality grunded by authority"?

The authority is seen as defining morality. In theory, it can make any act moral, including the mass murder of innocent people. Generally speaking, the people who speak for divine authority tend to promote more pragmatic rules, such as taboos against lying, stealing, and murder. Killing is usually considered moral in war, so gods tend to approve, if not command, it. Non-authoritative morality is that based on principles such as a sense of reciprocity in relationships.

An objective morality could be a morality based on principles that are the same for all. An example would be torture, in any functioning society or culture torture is recognized as something that no one should have to endure. A culture or people influenced by those that can justify torturing those that "worship the wrong god" for example are not thinking objectively, they are instead harboring beliefs that are subjective, beliefs that favour or support their own prejudices towards those that don't believe as they do, or don't appear as they do.

I think that you misconstrued what I said. I do not deny that "objective morality" is seen to be the same for all, but the reality is that people make very subjective judgments about what that set of moral principles is. Hence, the label is something of a misnomer. Ideally, there is only one moral code for any given society, because morality lays the ground rules for human interactions.

It is possible to have a moral code that permits torture, as long as that torture has practical limitations on its practice. The Catholic Inquisition sanctioned torture as morally justifiable, but only under very strict conditions. The point of it was at least partially to remove the perceived threat against divine authority, so it couldn't just be done willy-nilly to anyone the Church wanted. Stalin had people tortured for the good of the Party. It all depends on what the authority defines as morally permissible.

 

[Nothing]

It is possible to have a moral code that permits torture, as long as that torture has practical limitations on its practice. The Catholic Inquisition sanctioned torture as morally justifiable, but only under very strict conditions. The point of it was at least partially to remove the perceived threat against divine authority, so it couldn't just be done willy-nilly to anyone the Church wanted. Stalin had people tortured for the good of the Party. It all depends on what the authority defines as morally permissible.

So what you are saying if I am understanding you correctly is that what is moral is whatever we decide it to be? hmm... I would like to dispute you but unfortunately there is no shortage of evidence to support the complete subjectivity of morality. You could say that "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is a moral code, but are you saying it is only moral if accepted as moral? Morals must be manifested to either work or not work of course, but what DEFINES them as moral? I guess we do, each in our own way. No wonder this question is so confusing!!

 

[Copernicus]

So what you are saying if I am understanding you correctly is that what is moral is whatever we decide it to be? hmm... I would like to dispute you but unfortunately there is no shortage of evidence to support the complete subjectivity of morality. You could say that "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is a moral code, but are you saying it is only moral if accepted as moral? Morals must be manifested to either work or not work of course, but what DEFINES them as moral? I guess we do, each in our own way. No wonder this question is so confusing!!

I'm not saying that. I'm saying that authoritarian morality is arbitrary, because it is based on whatever the authority says. It is a "Simon Says" game, where somebody just has to get you to play along. That's what got a bunch of young religious idealists to crash jetliners full of people into buildings on 9/11. If you base morality on principles such as "Do unto others...", then one can still disagree about what is moral, but there is a basis for rational argument. Morality is and should be about what is best for the survival and prosperity of the species.

 

[Riverwolf]

I'm not saying that. I'm saying that authoritarian morality is arbitrary, because it is based on whatever the authority says. It is a "Simon Says" game, where somebody just has to get you to play along. That's what got a bunch of young religious idealists to crash jetliners full of people into buildings on 9/11. If you base morality on principles such as "Do unto others...", then one can still disagree about what is moral, but there is a basis for rational argument. Morality is and should be about what is best for the survival and prosperity of the species.

Right. The "do unto others" style of morality may be a good starting point, but it's not an ending point, as its literal wording is easily exploited.

 

[Nothing]

Morality is and should be about what is best for the survival and prosperity of the species.

I agree.
It SHOULD be...
So would it be fair to say that the concept of morality has been taken hostage by ideals?

 

[ellenjanuary]

Morality... isn't that how sexually repressed people decide the social fitness of others?

 

[Copernicus]

I agree.
It SHOULD be...
So would it be fair to say that the concept of morality has been taken hostage by ideals?

Fanaticism--idealism gone wild--is a serious problem, but I don't think that that is the ultimate problem. In my opinion, it has more to do with whether there is any rational basis for discussion. If it is just a matter of which authority one chooses to obey, then there is little room for anything but brute force to resolve the dispute. If morality is about what kind of personal behavior is best for human society, then there is bound to be a lot of disagreement, but there is room for discussion.

 

[Father Heathen]

How should we as humans define morality?

Where do we get our morality?

How do we know we have the "right" morality?

Morality is a code of conduct that is measured by honor, honesty, reason and compassion.

 

[Mister Emu]

Morality is a system of judging actions as right and wrong.

Wherever we want...

Because it it ours, and whoever disagrees with us is clearly wrong.

 

[ChristineES]

How should we as humans define morality?

Where do we get our morality?

How do we know we have the "right" morality?

Morals come in play when we deal with the world. We have to live around other people and at least try to get along with them. There are some universal laws- such as not murdering someone in cold blood, not stealing (particularly not stealing something that you don't even need), not hating someone because he or she is more intelligent, beautiful, etc (jealousy). Other morals are subjective- things like eating meat; some people find it immoral and are vegetarians or vegans, while others don't believe it is wrong.

Sometimes people can break the morals and not be immoral; such as stealing food when your children are starving, etc. You'll find that most things are at least a little subjective.

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

I think most morality is emotionally driven. Anything we may react emotionally against such as a physical assault to oneself we feel emotionally driven to get revenge or we see an animal squealing in pain from being tortured by someone we also get emotionally involved to punish the perpetrator. Also the emotion of disgust as some walks up and defecates on your desk; we also view that as being morally repugnant.