Define morality?

Post Reply New Topic

Simply put; what, if anything, is the equation/formula/standard of measure to decide if something is moral or immoral? Good or evil?

I propose that no such animal exists. No matter how immoral you or I might find an act or ideal to be, someone, somewhere, can claim it to be moral. How do we argue the point other than to ping-pong forever with no-it-isn't/yes-it-is?

Here's an example: The one time this came up on a discussion board of ages past, someone stated "If it promotes the stability and welfare of a society then it is good. If it does not, then it is evil."

A number of us had great fun proving that Rape can therefore be deemed good, citing many ways Rape can be good for a society (keep the powerful in power, encouraging obedience of the law through fear but encouraging obedience nonetheless, most every society has had leaders who rape and many of those were/are successful societies).

Any other attempts? Or do we say that morality is ultimately relative to the individual?



- Jo

This is how I see morality defined by a high-ranking church official:

1. If I'm not able to have sex, then no one else should either.

2. Fun is noisy, messy, and costs money. Besides, you didn't invite me, so no more fun!

3. Alcohol and drugs lead to fun and sex - sometimes both - so no more alcohol!

4. You should be in church, giving me ... *ahem* ... the Lord your money. So for one day out of the week, be here to listen to how sinful you are, and to put more money in the collection than you can afford.

5. Speaking of money, the more you spend on yourself, the less you have to give to the Lord. So you should live in abject poverty - no display of wealth - no matter how much money you make.

6. I will deny every accusation of immorality directed at me, even if you catch me in the act. I am a church leader, so I am above all the rules that I ... *ahem* ... the Lord makes for you.

7. Smile. Be happy. Enjoy your misery. Have a nice day.

I think the following Rule will set you on the road to Morality: Do not do unto others what you would not want others to do to you. There is a good start.

ruveyn

remember the "five people on the railway tracks" test?

evolutionary psychologists, sociologists, behavioural economists etc made loads of such "ethics tests" and it's clear that people respond the same regardless of their religion, nationality or lifestyle.

morality is imprinted in our brains and does not come from an outside source.

@Fnord - Well, that certainly seems to be some folks' standard of morality.

@ruveyn - While I do try to hold to the do-unto-others-as-you-would-have-others-do-unto-you rule, and it's a good personal guard against hypocrisy, it still allows for plenty of dissent from the outside.

E.g.; pedophilia. "I will gladly do sexual acts unto the 6 year old as I would have the 6 year old do those same sexual acts unto me"

Millions of us however will disagree that this makes pedophilia moral.


- Jo; still trying to figure out how that multimillion dollar church was something Jesus ordered the church leader to do with his money versus, say, feeding the poor.

Hi anna-banana. The more I get to know you and Fnord, the more I wish I were as cool as you guys!

Anyhow ... Not familiar with the "five people on the railway tracks" test. Eager to look that one up. But the qualifier there is still the word 'some.' Some, even most people in the world, regardless of religion or nationality, will agree on several morals, such as it's wrong to torture and murder someone because their nosehair annoys you. But the person who did the torturing and murdering would still disagree.


- Jo

++++++
"There are some things worse than death. Let me show you."
- Vlad the Impaler

thanks Jo, the cool kids club is open to join in hehe

here is the moral sense test: http://moral.wjh.harvard.edu/eric1/test/testN.html

I would have to go with skepticism. As jojerome points out, even if you have a number of people who disagree with a proposition, the question of morals is still why the person who disagrees with that proposition still ought not to go their own direction. And if a person can go in any direction that they feel like, then the question becomes one of how moral propositions could ever matter. I mean, the issue will really go down to one of ethics both being real and non-trivial, if ethics are real and trivial, then they aren't what people talk about when bringing up ethics as usually ethical terms are universalized and applied against those who disagree, if ethics are not real but important than we have some form of existentialism, and if ethics are not real and not important then we likely understand the world through egoism.

God?


well, the 911 attacks may have been considered something moral that Allah aproves, to the extremist islamic terrorists.


well, the question is, for how long that stability lasts, some have argued that the fall of a society to be related to the way that society was held, like the USSR for example, although the reason why if felt could be debated I think, as well as other ancient empires to have fallen, it has been stated that the changes through revolution, insurrection and conflicts in history have changed or evolved in the way on mantaining control in a given society, with movements and fights against opression, slavery, etc. Such events in history that lead to movements such as the enlightment and that have played a role into the birth of today's western concepts such as freedom, justice, human rights, genocide, etc.


well, in ancient societies they had slavery and I assume that included sex whenever and however you wanted, now about raping non-slaves, I don't know. Some people think of arranged marriages such as in the middle east, to have been a form of rape.

well, as time changes, moral values change, nowadays, it could be said something like this: if you don't want to get screwed, don't screw with people, that could be a simplistic position that many take, and it does make sense, so there you can have a reason why that could be considered a bad thing to do, not in an idealistical way but perhaps egotistical.


Well, I could say morality is a human concept that came out of necessity, and the existence of such ideological, political and philsophical views on morality is due to the human species capability of cognition, and that is relative to the culture and history of a given society, ultimately it becomes relative to the individual, at least that is my position, although I believe my position is close to that of existentialism and relativism.

Whose god? Which version of that god? And who decides that Bob's interpretation of god is moral and Ralph's interpretation of god isn't? E.g.; ...



Just like responding to said attacks by killing 100,000 civilians ... er ... 'collateral damage' ... in a country that had little or nothing to do with 9/11 is considered something moral which the conservative christian god approves of, to the extremist christian terrorists. (And before anyone jumps on that phraseology - I guarantee someone on the other side of the world is calling us that for the same reasons that we call them extremist islamic terrorists; because civilians get killed in the name of their god).

So how do we measure whose god is right? The one that said it's ok to kill 3,000 Americans because the American government inhibits their political interests? The god who said a few centuries ago that it's ok to kill several million Americans because they were in the way of our Manifest Destiny to redefine 'Transplanted Europeans' as 'Americans?' The god who said it's ok to call a woman a witch and kill her without trial or anyone questioning whether she's really a witch or you just wanted her property? The god who sought to take over India? The god who sought to take over Iraq? The god who slaughtered the native Britons 1400 or so years ago? The god who seeks the destruction of Israel? The god who seeks the destruction of Gaza? The god who said it's not nice to criticize the president ... until the president is a democrat? The god who says love one another ... except for homosexuals and non-believers? The god who got mad at Moses because his armies left some people on the losing side alive and failed to take the virgin girls as sex slaves? The jesus who said love your parents? The jesus who said hate your parents? The god who supported American slavery? The god of the republicans? The god of the democrats?

The question here is: Is there a universal standard/test/formula to show what is moral and what is not? Or is it simply a majority rules thing. "I say this law is right, and I have the bigger gun/bigger majority/better army/most votes ... so there. Neh."

{Jo approaches the clubhouse and like a Gryffindor seeking to enter and chill out in the common room utters the password} "Rational Empiricism!"

Took the test. Wow! They don't pull any punches, do they?



- Jo

If I defined morality for you, I would have to give it an objective, measurable basis, and this would make it harder to hold myself up as a paragon of virtue while denouncing you as an evil heathen. So I will keep a vague, undefined morality simply to keep you in the dark and avoid any direct, objective comparison.

Morality is convention, custom and opinion. When it is united with brute force it can get really ugly.

ruveyn

I do not can give a definition for other, but I follow the ideas of the Stoics; What is reasonable is moral, moral and reason are only words for the basically same think. Marcus Aurelius says this in the following manner:

"If thou shalt intend that which is present, following the rule of right and reason carefully, solidly, meekly, and shalt not intermix
any other businesses, but shall study this only to preserve thy spirit unpolluted, and pure, and shall cleave unto him without either hope or fear of anything, in all things that thou shalt either do or speak, contenting thyself with heroical truth, thou shalt live happily; and from this, there is no man that can hinder thee."

But this abstains me from given general rules of moral. Anyone has his share of reason, so I can't put my reasoning above others. The only obligation have morally is my behaviour, not others. If someone does real harm to other, I may have stop him, but it is not my mandate to judge or is it in my option anyone's mandate.

The interesting thing about what you said here is that if you replace all the "the god" and "the jesus" with "they/he/she", the assigned responsibility is effortlessly transferred to mere mortals without any objections. So now the real question is, who or what is primarily responsible? Does it seem rational to blame God(s) for the questionable conducts of humans? To point the finger at the God(s) would imply determinism. Wouldn't it seem more logical for humans to be accountable for their own actions and shift moral focus to an individual level?

Please read what I wrote carefully. I am an Aspie (which is why I post here). I best understand what I do not like done unto me. So I do not do it unto the other (except in self defense). I generally require very little positive good from others beyond good manners and plain old courtesy.

ruveyn