Morality

[Shu]

This thread probably could of been written 100 times over with different thread titles, but I'm going to go ahead and post it.

Morality:

1) What is the definition of Morality to you?
2) Do you believe that Morality is from a god, or from human.
3) Do you think it is a Learned or innate (born with)?
4) Why to 1-3.

5) Should laws govern morality?

This thread is supposed to inspire an intellectual debate with free thinkers, religious and non religious all the same. Go nuts.

 

[Sepalcure]

Alright let me approach these in numerical order because I'm sort of obsessive compulsive that way. Lolz.

1) When I personally define morality, I do so from an academic and etymological standpoint. The etymological roots of morality and ethics come from the Greek terms morae and ethos. They both are definitively derived from the idea of customs. So morality in simpler definitions could be dissected as "what is customary" or "what is acceptable and unacceptable in society." Furthermore morality is a complicated construction that is continually studied, defined, and disseminated by philosophers -- the questions of: What is permissible? What is right? What is wrong? Should one have an abortion for an as of yet unborn child? Should one always be honest? Is is acceptable to lie? Should one lie if it will result in the condemnation of a people? Should one engage in an affair and keep it hidden from their lover? Philosophers construct and evaluate these queries. The variegated answers from society to these common questions ultimately make up the normative aspect of morality (so the answers to these questions normalize or attempt to normalize what is the behavioral standard or societal standard of what is permissible and what is unacceptable).

2) Do I think that morality is from a God or from human beings? Well for me to say that I think the concept of morality was provided to us from an omnipotent being would mean that I would in turn have to label myself as a religious or faithful believer of this omnipotent being. I'm an agnostic theist however I do not believe that morality was a purely religious construct, I think it has its roots in the minds of human beings. However I will clarify this further: I think morality is the product of our minds, but our motives for believing in certain moral or immoral situations could have a basis in religious beliefs. What do I mean by that? Well let me give an example: An anti-abortionist who believes that it is wrong to kill a fetus because it has a soul and therefore is a sentient being that has a right to live and eventually carry out his/her purpose in life, could do so from a religious belief. However a pro-abortionist could oppose these views and state that the fetus does not possess a soul and for that matter neither does anyone else; thus no one has the right to an existence. Morality can have its roots in the minds of both religious persons and non-religious persons however to me, it does not necessarily make it the product of a non-thinking entity. I could go deeper into my own beliefs and for the sake of explanation say that God, in my opinion, is an omnipotent entity devoid of feeling, thought, flesh, and blood: a powerful force that is in fact within us and around us and therefore is incapable of conceiving an idea or concept. I could say (because I believe this) that instead morality was discovered by us and questioned, developed, and defined decades after by intellectual thinkers.

3) Do I think it is a learned or innate concept/ability? I believe that morality is something you discover or "stumble upon". I do not think it is something that we intuitively have access to as soon as we are expelled from the womb. I think that morality is something that is taught out of human experience and shapes our personal beliefs. We logically reason and hypothesize about what is deemed permissible, we do not seek out authority to do so, it is at once an individualistic and societal construction. I believe it is something we come upon from say, growing up in certain environments (i.e: the environment I grew up in, the concepts my parents have taught me, and what has been taught to me and advised to me by people has shaped my beliefs; what I have personally witnessed has helped me define what is "right to do" and what is "wrong to do").

4) Why? Well from my personal experiences and beliefs I have formulated these personal opinions. From a logical standpoint I do not think it is logically possible for an entity to construct an idea of what is right or wrong. Thus I don't think that a God could have provided the instructions for what is permissible and unacceptable to do or act upon or think in society. To me Gods do not think, breathe, consciously act or perceive upon what they constructed -- these forces simply do and do not want nor expect anything in return. The idea of morals requires the act of one to think, reflect upon, insert, accept, and reject concepts which is a uniquely human trait. An animal cannot think of a complicated concept such as philosophical morality or wake up and question the validity of their existence or if it is okay for one animal to slaughter another purely for survival, they thrive on instinct. In much the same way, to me, a God cannot think or decide on what is right.

That's my answer for number two.

Concerning number one, morality is an ancient concept. It dates back to tribal civilizations that have long since faded into obscurity. It ties into the delicate processes of lawmaking and is woven into religious beliefs. Morae are complicated sets of rules and personal and societal beliefs. What I believe to be morally acceptable could be different from what you find to be acceptable. For me to answer the question of why I believe the concept of morality is defined as a set of rules of what is normal and abnormal or moral and immoral, I would have to take a page from Brym and Lie. Brym and Lie define the purpose of morality in four reasons, "To keep society from falling apart. To ameliorate human suffering. To promote human flourishing. To resolve conflicts of interest in just and peaceful ways" (Brym and Lie 415). So morality is an entirely logistic and human concept. It has been discovered and created through human experience to maintain the existence of our species, prevent catastrophic conflicts, resolve aforementioned conflicts in a peaceful and justified manner, and keep us from "falling apart."

Morality is the foundation with which we base our societies on, it is the medial line to which we separate "good" from "evil." Without morality societies would fall into chaos and disarray, everyone would pillage, slaughter, and destroy each other to ultimately "get ahead." Thus it seeks to keep us in check and to ensure that the "bad apples" or society (i.e: murderers, rapists, thieves, other evildoers) get put away under lock and key. We are the Devil and we are God. In sum, I think the reason as to why morality is ... is because of humans' definitions and internal reflections on what is right and what is wrong. We simply gave this divisiveness of right and wrong a name: "morality" and continue to define it and debate it and ponder over it as we see fit.

5) I personally don't think that laws should govern morality. I know that it does not play and should not play a role when it concerns etiquette: it does not dictate whether one should eat with one's fingers or use utensils to cut into meat and vegetables. It does not tell us whether we should shake a foreign leader's hand or bow to them on certain occasions and in certain places.Laws can only limit us to committing a crime however it cannot restrict us from thinking to do so. However the law cannot restrict everything that is socially acceptable and unacceptable, there are certain lines it cannot cross. If laws governed reality then we could not think of anything that was deemed immoral without being punished, we could not exercise our right to think and hypothesize and act on thoughts or impulses. We could not simply be and either better or worsen the human condition or even our own individual condition. I think the law cannot penalize one for wearing inappropriate attire however it can penalize you for murdering someone or cultivating an illegal drug and distributing it for profit. The law should not and cannot penalize you for conceiving the idea of killing someone or thinking about growing marijuana; however the act of thinking to do either of these things would be deemed immoral. So back to etiquette, etiquette is what is polite to do in public, that is not morality. Morality is what is just and fair it governs us in how to better society and thus on how we should live to attain that status of societal grace and happiness. It should be constructed by you, by your family, and by your friends. Morality should be what you personally make of it and how you feel you should live -- it should be a culmination of what was dictated to you by your peers, educators, relatives, etc. and should reflect how you feel society should better themselves. It should not be the sole representative thought or duty of the lawmakers to enforce. Their job is to ensure that laws outlines in constitutions and other such similar governmental documents are adhered to. Their job is to ensure that laws that are broken are punishable and that those punishments and sentences are inflicted upon the criminal and enforced, that is my opinion on the matter.

 

[coffeecup]

1) I believe in a subjective measure of morality. In other words, morality is defined by the individual. I do not follow the belief that there is One Moral Truth. If you analyze anyone's stance in morality down to its foundation, there is a personal and normative judgment. Most secular philosophers call it "common sense." And those of the religious leanings attribute it God or Nature or some other supernatural cause. It's interesting how everyone has faith in something, even if it isn't a God.

2) Imo, the root of "moral" conduct is likely attributed to the fact that human beings are social beings and have evolved towards conduct that is socially advantageous for our species. For example, whenever we see someone in pain we may also feel pain or feel the need to help. But I doubt this is due to any kind of "inner-morality" but rather a beneficial form of behavior called empathy. Now people have come up with a lot of ways to attribute this conduct or feeling towards some concept of "morality." To get back to answering the question, the closest I can think is to say that morality is a construct of man. However, our leanings towards "moral behavior" is from nature.

3) Depending on how you look at it, it can be both. The concept may be man-made, but the underlying dispositions towards "moral behavior" is likely innate. So if you combine the two, morality is both innate and learned. Again, humans are social creatures, and we have the unique ability to reason. So even if we may have a natural tendency to act in one manner, we could be heavily influenced by social perspective of morality or freely act in opposition to our natural impulses if we truly desire to do so. History (and the present) is replete with such examples.

4) Incorporated in the answers to (1)-(3)

5) No on so many levels. First, morality is almost impossible to define. Second, the subject itself, morality, should not be determined by the government but the individual. Government encroachment on something as personal as this is an overextension of its police power. Third, the government should not ever be allowed to regulate thought. The oppressiveness of such a measure is something I hope I do not need to elaborate. Fourth, even if the State were able to define and regulate"morality," it is impossible to do as a practical matter. In essence you would be regulating not the act but the motivation behind the act. The present courts have enough trouble determining whether someone does something intentionally, recklessly, or negligently. We don't need to make things even more difficult by determining whether a person's action was morally right. I'm sure there are a lot more, but those are the four that come off the top of my head.

 

[Richard B Riddick]

This thread probably could of been written 100 times over with different thread titles, but I'm going to go ahead and post it.

Morality:

1) What is the definition of Morality to you?
2) Do you believe that Morality is from a god, or from human.
3) Do you think it is a Learned or innate (born with)?
4) Why to 1-3.

5) Should laws govern morality?

This thread is supposed to inspire an intellectual debate with free thinkers, religious and non religious all the same. Go nuts.

1. What is the definition of Morality to you?
Morality is defined by what's ideal for people and humanity in general. It doesn't imply perfection nor infallibility, only a best option for a specific set of circumstances or a choice of less evil.

2. Do you believe that Morality is from a god, or from human.
Morality exists independently of human capacity to observe or define it. A deity may offer a good set of morals & values for a specific set of circumstances. The origin story of morality involves dealing with first causes & those are iffy at best.

3. Do you think it is a Learned or innate (born with)?
I think its vaguely innate in the form of instinct and emotion. A person's conscience which causes them to feel bad when they believe they've done wrong could be considered an innate form of morality. There could be other examples..

5. Should laws govern morality?
We govern morality by making and enforcing laws. Laws and ethics are strongly bound within the grand scheme of things and may be close to being one and the same.

 

[Valkyrur]

Gosh. This is one of the questions that I dare not think too much about. As I approach the subject, I realize there's just too many ways to go about thinking it and just too many factors to consider. Etcetera. But oh well.

1. Regarding the definition of morality... I suppose what I think of it is the typical, and naive-sounding, knowing if an action is right or wrong. And this so-called "right" and "wrong" are considered based on the outcomes of the actions being defined. In a sentence, "the end justifies the means". So in my perspective, no matter what you do, so long it's for the greater good, it's not "wrong" - it's "right". The only problem that I have with this line of thinking is the severely impaired ability to know if one negative move will have benefits in the long run or not.

2. Now this is a tough one. I'm inclined to believe that morality is a human invention. Hell, I'm even inclined to believe to some degree that God is also a human invention. I had been under the impression that humans had always been looking for some form of explanations for things they couldn't explain - and God happened to be a really convenient explanation. Going by that line of thinking, I extrapolate that they further derive morality from this concept, God being the avatar of goodness and the Devil being the avatar of evil.

3. The nature or nurture debate. Ever present in the recent things I've been learning it seems. Though, for the issue of morality, I'm pretty set on believing that morality is learned. In other words, there's no innately good or innately evil babies. Just. Babies. Straight and simple. Follows much of Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development. As they grow older, they begin to learn the concepts behind morality and stuff - and also, perhaps, develop their own ideas of morality.

And I cannot acknowledge conscience as an explanation for morality being innate. I tend to think that conscience is based on definitions of the outcomes of certain actions. Meaning, I feel my guilty conscience acting up when I lie and push the blame, and punishment, to another person because of what should have happened to me and which has happened to someone who shouldn't be experiencing this. Not because some unexplainable feeling wells up and prompts this feeling of discomfort.

4. Why hm... I tend to prefer a more logical approach. Logical... The socially understood "logical", that is. It's logical that you do this because it benefits you more than the other. It's logical that you buy this particular product because it's cheaper than the other, even though it's similar. Something along that line. Like imagining a scale and weighing your options. The logical one would be the one with more weight (benefits). That's for (1).

For (2). It's touchy. I hate to admit it, but I'm still religious "just in case". Which is blasphemous, I suppose. But the main reason why I would think morality to be a human invention came largely from randomly thinking one day about how God came to be. That, and I also recalled having read, or heard, somewhere about the people of China, some of whom believe in no God. I began wondering at that point how was it that they could go through stressful events without a God to believe in, and then I started to think about how people needed something to believe in. Then the pieces started falling in for me. I started to think that it may be possible that humans were just trying to explain that which they could not explain.

And perhaps because they needed something to believe in. This actually leads me to think perhaps even further before this, other religions may have sprouted as a tool to fight another group of people. But yeah. I'm seriously veering off topic here.

Simply put, I think it's human thinking out of my own personal thoughts which seemed logical enough to me.

For (3)... Well, I would have thought I've seen enough in my studies recently, even though I'm sure there's more to be seen. I'm still sticking firmly to nurture, however. It should be clear from my explanations for why I think how I thought for (1) and (2).

5. Laws governing morality huh. I take this to mean "laws should control how we perceive what is good and what is evil"... Which I believe to be walking against the notion of free will. I don't think laws should govern morality. In the first place, morality itself is so subjective. That, and laws are usually, and I suppose, have to be, strictly defined. Add the defying the idea of freedom of thought and stuff... And talking about thought. How do they regulate how you think anyway? Mind reading?

 

[Mr. Zombie]

1) Morality is a set of basic rules of formal social behaviour.
2) Morality can come from various sources, but it's basic purpose is to bring social order, so one can say that morality comes from the need of social order.
3) Every knowledge that's learned came from somewhere. No one learns what they're not prepared for.
4) For 1, 2 and 3: It's the result of my own experience and observation.
5) Morality governs laws, not the opposite.