What is Morality?

[Nothing]

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.

Yes, authorities are based on ideals, often at the expense of an opposing authority I suppose. I am with you and do believe there is still room for discussion. I hope that we are right.

 

[idea]

How should we as humans define morality?

Anything that edifies, ennobles, and uplifts the human soul: charity, integrity, purity, self-mastery, honesty, etc. etc.

Where do we get our morality?

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

We get it from our conscience. We know we are right, when we are not at odds with our conscience.

(Bible Dictionary | C Conscience:Entry)
Conscience. The word is not found in the O.T. The chief passage in the N.T. is Rom. 2:14–15. The concept is that we are born with a natural capacity to distinguish between right and wrong, due to the light of Christ that is given to every person, D&C 84:44–53. We have a faculty by means of which we can pass judgment on our own conduct, either approving or condemning it, so anticipating the divine judgment on it. This faculty is called conscience. The possession of it at once makes us responsible beings. Like other faculties it needs to be trained, and may be deadened through misuse. Bible teaching on the subject may be classified as follows: an accusing, Gen. 3:10; 42:21; 1 Sam. 24:16–22; Prov. 20:27; Matt. 14:2; 27:3; Mark 6:16; Luke 9:7; John 8:9; Acts 24:25; Rom. 2:15; an ill-informed or ill-trained, John 16:2; Acts 8:1, 3; 26:9; Rom. 9:31; 10:2; Gal. 1:14; 4:9–11; Col. 2:16–18; 1 Tim. 1:13; a good, Acts 23:1; 24:16; Rom. 2:15; 9:1; 2 Cor. 1:12; 4:2; 1 Tim. 1:5, 19; 3:9; Heb. 13:18; 1 Pet. 3:16, 21; 1 Jn. 3:21; an evil, 1 Tim. 4:2; Titus 1:15; 1 Jn. 3:22; working of, Rom. 13:5; 14:22; 1 Pet. 2:19; respect for a weak, Rom. 14; 15:1; 1 Cor. 8:7–13; 10:23–33; purification of the, Heb. 9:14; 10:22; 1 Pet. 3:21.

 

[Copernicus]

It must be a comfort to parents to know that all children are born with a natural capacity to distinguish right from wrong. All the more reason to get angry at them when they fail to exercise good judgment.

 

[Thesavorofpan]

How should we as humans define morality?

Where do we get our morality?

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

What we view as wrong and right

From the culture around us.

You can't know that because people sense of morality differ's from person to person.

 

[Debunker]

How should we as humans define morality?

Where do we get our morality?

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

These are really simple questions to answer and there can be no other answers than the following. If you believe that God is, then to follow God's innately written laws is morality. This is where morality comes, that is, from God.

If you do not believe in God, then morality is whatever man says it is. In this case morality is relative to what man wants or lust for it to be. Considering the crazy lust that mankind has, I choose to trust God's ideas for man's behavior.

 

[jmvizanko]

These are really simple questions to answer and there can be no other answers than the following. If you believe that God is, then to follow God's innately written laws is morality. This is where morality comes, that is, from God.

If you do not believe in God, then morality is whatever man says it is. In this case morality is relative to what man wants or lust for it to be. Considering the crazy lust that mankind has, I choose to trust God's ideas for man's behavior.

The problem being, how do I know which god's laws I am supposed to be following?

And why is it that if atheists base their morality on nothing but "crazy lust," they seem to converge on ideologies like humanism and living and letting live? Look at Sweden and Japan. They are highly irreligious and yet they aren't raping stealing and murdering any more than anyone else.

 

[PolyHedral]

Morality should come from Game Theory, which, arguably, is even more universal than God.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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.

Empathy plays a major role. Seeing and "feeling" from another's eyes from which emotion rises. Even in reverse, where we see and "feel" repugnant behavior in the eyes of an aggressor.

 

[Debunker]

The problem being, how do I know which god's laws I am supposed to be following?

And why is it that if atheists base their morality on nothing but "crazy lust," they seem to converge on ideologies like humanism and living and letting live? Look at Sweden and Japan. They are highly irreligious and yet they aren't raping stealing and murdering any more than anyone else.

I agree, humanism is the default moral code of atheist. If you have the humanism of Red China, for example, you get millions and million of rape, murders, tortures,etc. If you are a humanist in a free society where society is ruled by God's self evident truths and laws, then you have to abide by these self evident laws. I would rather live under self evident truths than rules put forth by man alone. Man;s law may not always lead to rape ,murder and other evils but I will take my chances with God's laws, even though these do not change. Where else would man's laws come if it were not from his own wants or lust, by the way?

 

[ninerbuff]

Morality is subjective. Depending on how you were raised is what you will believe in most cases. What some deem as moral, others may not.
My take is that from long ago, kings, emperors, dictators, etc. set the moralities for their own followers and whom they governed.

 

[Debunker]

Morality is subjective. Depending on how you were raised is what you will believe in most cases. What some deem as moral, others may not.
My take is that from long ago, kings, emperors, dictators, etc. set the moralities for their own followers and whom they governed.

What you say is true but what you say is not evidence that there are not self evident truths and moral codes that do not come from God. Rulers of old were notorious for making their own laws. This is only more examples of humanism and moral relativity.

 

[ninerbuff]

What you say is true but what you say is not evidence that there are not self evident truths and moral codes that do not come from God. Rulers of old were notorious for making their own laws. This is only more examples of humanism and moral relativity.

Where is the evidence that they do come from god?

 

[Copernicus]

I agree, humanism is the default moral code of atheist. If you have the humanism of Red China, for example, you get millions and million of rape, murders, tortures,etc...

In fact, crimes of this sort are far more common in the US, which is a strongly religious country by comparison. A larger proportion of our population is in prison--686 per 100,00, as opposed to 111 per 100,000. The US has one of the highest rates of incarceration in the world, and our crime rates are through the roof, as well. Religion doesn't seem to be the answer to good behavior.

...If you are a humanist in a free society where society is ruled by God's self evident truths and laws, then you have to abide by these self evident laws. I would rather live under self evident truths than rules put forth by man alone. Man;s law may not always lead to rape ,murder and other evils but I will take my chances with God's laws, even though these do not change. Where else would man's laws come if it were not from his own wants or lust, by the way?

If your god's rules were self-evident, we would not have had centuries of Christians and Muslims fighting wars over who gets to determine what is "self-evident". Nor would we have all those different versions of Christianity working so hard to point out what should be so self-evident and obvious. Let's face it. All one really needs is a self-proclaimed Debunker to explain the self-evident.

 

[jmvizanko]

I agree, humanism is the default moral code of atheist. If you have the humanism of Red China, for example, you get millions and million of rape, murders, tortures,etc. If you are a humanist in a free society where society is ruled by God's self evident truths and laws, then you have to abide by these self evident laws. I would rather live under self evident truths than rules put forth by man alone. Man;s law may not always lead to rape ,murder and other evils but I will take my chances with God's laws, even though these do not change. Where else would man's laws come if it were not from his own wants or lust, by the way?

It seems you like to assume that without a belief in a magic sky daddy, people are incapable of empathy. You really need to talk with more atheists, because you're just flat out wrong. It only takes a combination of common sense, the experience of pain and happiness and love, and the recognition that other people experience these things to create a sense of empathy. I like to be happy. Other people like to be happy. Pretty simple stuff here. Why should I need god telling me to be a utilitarianist in order to be one?

And like my signature says, why is your brand of religion, or even brand of Christianity, self evident, if most the world sincerely doesn't find it to be true? Why are there over 30,000 sects of Christianity, which makes it the most sectarianized religion by far, if it is "self evident?"

 

[Midnight Pete]

The variance of individual belief-systems is of no importance if we can all reach a consensus from wherever we are as individuals. As long as there is some kind of semi-coherent universal morality, we're good.

 

[Copernicus]

The variance of individual belief-systems is of no importance if we can all reach a consensus from wherever we are as individuals. As long as there is some kind of semi-coherent universal morality, we're good.

That consensus is as illusory as your god.

 

[jmvizanko]

Well at least we can pretty much all agree about rape, murder, and theft...

 

[Penumbra]

Well at least we can pretty much all agree about rape, murder, and theft...

People rarely agree about murder and to some extent, theft. Instead they just redefine them.

 

[Muri27]

I am a ferm believer that everyone has the same morals as anyone else.
We just give eachother and ourselves excuses not to lissen to our moral since we have a thingy called free choice.

we all know killing and stealing is bad deep within, we just dont always lissen/are aware of it.