[Chills]

I see the word moral used a lot.

I am not sure I agree with its use all the time.

I tend to think of morality simply as a code of behavior generally specific to a group that is basically designed to insure the health harmony and survival of that group.

I tend to think it can only exist in the presence of more than one individual.

I tend to think it is NOT absolute.

What do others think about morality.

[Robert]

For me any action that harms another individual is immoral regardless of the believed justification.
The moral side to this is of course, harm none.

[Avatar]

I think morality is the inate instinctual sense of right or wrong that is hard wired into every human.
Not what any religious book or dogma dictates as right or wrong.

Robert "harm none"?
No, not in the case of self defense or the defense of others in need.
But that's the only exception.

[Robert]

I think morality is the inate instinctual sense of right or wrong that is hard wired into every human.
Not what any religious book or dogma dictates as right or wrong.

Robert "harm none"?
No, not in the case of self defense or the defense of others in need.
But that's the only exception.

I understand what you are saying and while non of us knows exactly how we would act in a situation where a ‘little old lady’ was being mugged for her purse I think that harming none is the only truly spiritual avenue that is moral. This is why I said regardless of believed justification.

We could go into several scenarios on helping the woman and the results of those attempts but this enters a whole new area of discussion on pacifism.

[Avatar]

I see your point but wouldn't your inaction also be causing harm to the lol?
And that's my point. By sticking to a set of rules (dogma) whether imposed internally or externally you risk turning away from that core instinct of right and wrong.

[SmartAZ]

I think this topic ties in very closely with the thread on religious illiteracy. That is to say we have a similar problem with moral illiteracy, and the two are closely linked. Everybody knows what morality is, but nobody knows what morality is.

The most significant thing about morality is that it is learned. It comes from outside oneself. That concept is a direct attack on certain religions that advocate relying on things from inside oneself. The modern world is being flooded with teachings advocating that morality should be a product of reasoning, usually stressing something "within" or the "inner" something. Traditional morality is based on taboos or laws or scriptures, things outside of any person, and judgments based on those stated principles.

The difference between the inner basis, intellect or reasoning, and the outer basis, taboos, laws, or commandments, is that the inner basis is no basis at all. One's behavior is subject to any brain fart that happens along. The outer basis allows revue by all concerned to determine the rightness of application to this or that case. That is the purpose of the jury system; if the jury members judge that a law would be unjust if applied to the case at hand, they have the power to set the law aside and deliver a more just verdict. The converse, based on inner morality, is "lynch law".

Another significant thing about morality is that it is not the same for all people, but within a culture it balances itself. Example 1: Modern Americans are horrified by the thought of slavery, but for most of the world's history slavery was just another form of employment. A slave owner's authority over a slave was balanced by his need for the slave's services. He was free to beat a slave to death, but then he had to buy another slave to get the work done. Example 2: Modern Americans have strict laws about sex with children, but in ancient societies there was no such prohibition. A master could have sex with any of his servants he chose. But if he did, even only once, she automatically became a concubine, which was a much nicer job than whatever she had been doing before. So a master could not afford to have sex with just any servant. He needed somebody to wash floors and serve food.

Knowing this, we should be careful to avoid projecting our morality onto other cultures. If muslim women cover themselves completely, it is probably because muslim men are awfully horny. If polynesian women wear grass skirts with no panties, it is probably because polynesian men need more enticement. And as for slavery, it is pushed out by prosperity. A horse costs five times as much as a man, eats five times as much, and does five times as much work. But a slave is five times as hard to get along with. Alert businessmen also notice that hired workers do better than slaves and cause less trouble. So the sensible businessmen eventually replace their slave economy with something more like a free market economy. Not because slavery is wrong, but because it is uneconomical.

[lars]

So the sensible businessmen eventually replace their slave economy with something more like a free market economy. Not because slavery is wrong, but because it is uneconomical"

The morality of the Invisible Hand. It works.

[Plaid-Man Individual]

Ahhh... questions that need to be answered. For me personally, the most pressing questions do not necessarily concern the what? of the issue, but more so concern the who? or the whys?:

1) If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?

2) Who was the first person to look at a cow and say, "I think I'll squeeze these dangly things here, and drink whatever comes out?"

3) Who was the first person to say, "See that chicken there? I'm gonna eat the next thing that comes outta it's butt."

4) Why is there a light in the fridge and not in the freezer?

5) If Jimmy cracks corn and no one cares, why is there a song about him?

6) Why do people point to their wrist when asking for the time, but don't point to their crotch when they ask where the bathroom is?

7) Why does your OB-GYN leave the room when you get undressed if they are going to look up there anyway?

9) Why does Goofy stand on two legs while Pluto remains on all fours? They're both dogs!

10) If Wile E. Coyote had enough money to buy all that Acme crap, why didn't he just buy dinner?[ ][ ][ ] :)

[SmartAZ]

How come "burn up" and "burn down" mean the same thing?

How come we drive on parkways and park on driveways?

No cat has eight tails. All cats have one more tail than no cat. Ergo, all cats have nine tails.

Nothing is better than a ham sandwich. A poop sandwich is better than nothing. So a poop sandwich is better than a ham sandwich.

[Chills]

Well that was an interesting turn of thought. :P

[Hokey]

Morality is relative, there are no absolutes.

Take killing another human being. Some say its wrong under any circumstance. What about self preservation, like in self defence of an axe murderer? Is human sacrifice acceptable? Perhaps not to most present day civilization but in ancient times in some societies it was common and accepted. Maybe even the one to be sacrificed accepted it as part of their duty to placate some god or another? What about mercy killing? Cannibalism? Abortion? What about in times of war where a king or countries cause is not your own? Thou shalt not kill is catchy rule, but there is a whole subset of rules in the fine print that regulates the boundaries of this moral code. Over time religions and societies may adjust these moral regulations. What is good and what is evil? Again, thats not absolute and differs between religions and societies. Morality is a relative concept and IMO not an innate quality of the human species.

Thats my take.

[SmartAZ]

Morality is relative, there are no absolutes.
That makes no sense. Relative to what? And "there are no absolutes" is an absolute statement, contradicting itself.

[Chills]

Smart Az....

Speaking for myself.. I tend to think ... morality is relative..to the group espousing it... However I hasten to add that relative may actually be the wrong word to use there.

As far as 'Absolute' goes... I am not sure I understand the word and its implication.
However I think of it as something we could apply to situations universally... regardless of time and place etc.
Which leads me to believe that morality may vary from time and place to time and place... from group to group...
With the exception being the nature/purpose of the code itself which I tend think of as a code of behavior that is designed to insure the health harmony and survival of the group.

[Meg]

Honesty, honor, integrity; grace, merit, quality, superiority

[SmartAZ]

Chills, that was a very good exposition. My compliments.

[Robert]

…. which I tend think of as a code of behavior that is designed to insure the health harmony and survival of the group.

Then you think war is moral?

[Chills]

Then you think war is moral?

What I personally think is moral or immoral is of no consequence, in the context of this discussion. The context being, the question What is morality?
as compared to What is moral or immoral?

If any group anywhere at any time considered war moral... then in my view it was indeed moral to that group at that time.

Again I view morality as a code of behavior that insures the health harmony and survival etc of the group.

[Robert]

What I personally think is moral or immoral is of no consequence, in the context of this discussion. The context being, the question What is morality?
as compared to What is moral or immoral?
.


Webster:
morality:
“A doctorinte or system of moral conduct.”

moral:
“Of and relating to principles of right and wrong behavior.” “Ethical”

So in order to establish morality we must first establish what is moral.

If any group anywhere at any time considered war moral... then in my view it was indeed moral to that group at that time.

Group consensus doesn’t establish morality if it did Hitler’s Germany would have been 'moral'.
You’re defining morality on subjectivity. What’s the difference if one person or a country of people, believe something is moral? Does it make it right? I don’t think so.

Again I view morality as a code of behavior that insures the health harmony and survival etc of the group

Again, Then you think war is moral.

[Chills]

Webster:
morality:
“A doctorinte or system of moral conduct.”

moral:
“Of and relating to principles of right and wrong behavior.” “Ethical”

So in order to establish morality we must first establish what is moral.
Actually I would think we would have to establish what is right and wrong behavior according to definitions supplied.

I submit right and wrong is based on what is best for the harmony health and survival etc of the group for that group at that time and place.




If any group anywhere at any time considered war moral... then in my view it was indeed moral to that group at that time.

Group consensus doesn’t establish morality if it did Hitler’s Germany would have been 'moral'.
You’re defining morality on subjectivity. What’s the difference if one person or a country of people, believe something is moral? Does it make it right? I don’t think so.

Again I view morality as a code of behavior that insures the health harmony and survival etc of the group

Again, Then you think war is moral.

Robert you seem to be assuming those in Germany during Hitlers regime were consciously behaving immorally.
Do you believe that?

Do you believe that the people who are at this very moment waging war on each other, in Iraq,for example, are consciously acting immorally? Or do you believe that they believe they are behaving morally or at least amorally?

Again as far as what I think or do not think about war is of no consequence to the context of the question What IS morality?

Why not simply explain what it IS you think morality actually is?

[Robert]

Actually I would think we would have to establish what is right and wrong behavior according to definitions supplied.

I submit right and wrong is based on what is best for the harmony health and survival etc of the group for that group at that time and place.

Moral isn’t an aspect of the group. Right and wrong rise above the individual and the group.

Robert you seem to be assuming those in Germany during Hitlers regime were consciously behaving immorally.
Do you believe that?

What they believed was ‘moral’ didn’t establish it as moral. The opinion of the group, country, society, religion, etc. doesn’t establish morality. I can kill another individual and believe it is moral. Is it? Paul Hill killed two innocent people because he thought ‘god’ told him to do it. He believed his action was moral. Was it?

Do you believe that the people who are at this very moment waging war on each other, in Iraq,for example, are consciously acting immorally? Or do you believe that they believe they are behaving morally or at least amorally?

Again, what they think doesn’t establish morality. Do I think war is immoral, regardless of the believed justification. Yes.

Again as far as what I think or do not think about war is of no consequence to the context of the question What IS morality?

Exactly, morality rises above subjective opinion. We can give it but is our opinion moral? Maybe, maybe not.

Why not simply explain what it IS you think morality actually is?

Look back, I did. “Harm none”.
Basically, do not create, enable or foster suffering in another individual.

[Chills]

Robert..

I see we have two very distinctly different idea's as to what is morality.

Whether one of ours is more accurate or not, I could not for the life of me say.

However this brings me to the point of the exercise for me and that is this..

Can I use my idea of morality to judge your behavior or vica versa?

I can I guess but I would be out of the ball park so to speak.

[Hokey]

A moral standard is not set it stone. It will change over time and it may change from individual to individual and social group to social group. Its a moving target. That is what I meant about a 'moral' not being absolute.

[Robert]

Robert..

I see we have two very distinctly different idea's as to what is morality.

Whether one of ours is more accurate or not, I could not for the life of me say.

However this brings me to the point of the exercise for me and that is this..

Can I use my idea of morality to judge your behavior or vica versa?
.

This, to me, is a good question because man does exactly that and we have chaos in the world.

I wrote a piece on this subject awhile back.

Basically when our actions bring suffering to another individual we are responsible for them. So the individual who acts, say, through nationalism or a religious system, outwardly towards another individual in a violent manner is, in effect, acting on subjectivity. Regardless whether that subjectivity is reflected through a country or a religion because neither is provable as absolute truth. The moment the individual does this he or she is acting immorally because absolute truth is not established. So unless we can prove our actions are a product of absolute truth we can never act outwardly through violence.
The individual who believes his perception of God is truth ( which most people do) but whose actions are internal and never reflected upon society through violence can be moral because his actions are only reflected inwardly and no one suffers for his subjectivity but himself.

Paul Hill is an example of an individual who believed his perception of ‘god’ was truth and he acted outwardly, violently towards other with respect to that assumption. His actions were immoral as were the actions of those individuals who participated in the Inquisition.
War is immoral because it creates suffering in others.

Obviously we can never establish our perceptions of ‘truth’ as absolute. This would require us to be Gods. The thing to think about is that the world would be a moral place if we understood that. Understood that we are fallible and peace would prevail regardless of whether ‘god’ existed or not.

[Robert]

A moral standard is not set it stone. It will change over time and it may change from individual to individual and social group to social group. Its a moving target. That is what I meant about a 'moral' not being absolute.

I disagree. I don’t think morality is a product of time I think it is a product of compassion and compassion is timeless.
Is morality subjective and societal? I don’t think so. Was the bomb dropped on Hiroshima any more moral then the gas chambers? Both lacked compassion and both were the product of individuals who thought their actions were moral and justified. Did that make it so?

Can we agree that when we bring suffering to others we are immoral?

[Chills]

Can we agree that when we bring suffering to others we are immoral?
NO. Sorry I just cant agree with that.
Based on my view of what morality is, anyway.

If we accept your definition than maybe, that may be true...but I am not convinced of that. I would have to think about it a bit more to decide one way or the other.

Chills

[Robert]

NO. Sorry I just cant agree with that.
Based on my view of what morality is, anyway.

If we accept your definition than maybe, that may be true...but I am not convinced of that. I would have to think about it a bit more to decide one way or the other.

Chills

Would you call bringing suffering to others moral then?
Would you call killing moral?
We can't define moral on our terms.
Is war moral?

[Chills]

Robert

Would you call bringing suffering to others moral then?
Would you call killing moral?
We can't define moral on our terms.
Is war moral?

What terms are you using if not your own?

Earlier you said
I don’t think morality is a product of time I think it is a product of compassion and compassion is timeless.

How do you define compassion?


BTW
Would you call resistance to oppression immoral?
Does it not often entail making war on ones oppressor?
Etc.

Interesting stuff … anyway..

[Robert]

Robert

Would you call bringing suffering to others moral then?
Would you call killing moral?
We can't define moral on our terms.
Is war moral?

What terms are you using if not your own?

First I asked if we could agree on the premise that causing suffering to others was immoral. You said no we couldn’t agree on that.

Then I asked the above question. “Would you call bringing suffering to others moral then?”

Again, I defined why I thought causing suffering was immoral.
Man can not establish absolute truth, his perspective is subjective and he has no way of knowing how valid his subjective premise is. Acting outwardly towards others, that causes suffering, is immoral. Basically who is to say who is correct? Is our subjective opinion correct? What right do we have to create suffering on our subjectivity? I say none.

We can act outwardly ONLY if our actions are non violent and bring no harm to others.

Any inward actions that are violent based on our subjectivity ONLY affect us. The world, in effect, is not affected by those actions.

I don’t think morality is a product of time I think it is a product of compassion and compassion is timeless.

How do you define compassion?

Unconditional love.



BTW
Would you call resistance to oppression immoral?

If it is non violent, no.
Does it not often entail making war on ones oppressor?
Etc.
When we make war, as man has done unceasingly since the beginning of recorded history and probably long before that, we are saying our subjective truth is the justification for our actions. This is why I made the statement about inward and outward actions.
So basically we are saying that it is more important that you suffer then I suffer. Unfortunately in the end we all suffer. Whether that suffering is the gas chambers of WW2 or the fire bombing of Tokyo, which killed one hundred thousand innocent people in one night, in no less horrible a fashion, I might add.

Interesting stuff … anyway..

Very, it is the core reason of man’s suffering.

[Chills]

Perhaps a better question would have been, Morality: what do you think other people think it is?

Or something along those lines.

[Robert]

If we ask that all we have established is peoples opinions of morality.
Can morality be subjective? If one million people think something is moral does it make it any more moral then if one person thinks it? No.
I think morality is an aspect of God not man. All man can do is not act overtly, violently, towards society based on his subjective opinion.
If he did that then there would be peace in the world, suffering between individuals would stop. Would that be moral?
Personally at that point I think man would begin to approach morality at the least civility. It fits my opinion of moral, to not be the avenue of suffering for any living thing.
I don't think man is civilized. I don't think cell phones and power windows civilize a society. I think when man no longer uses war to resolve his problems he will beging to approach civility.

[Chills]

If we ask that all we have established is peoples opinions of morality.
Can morality be subjective? If one million people think something is moral does it make it any more moral then if one person thinks it? No.
I think morality is an aspect of God not man. All man can do is not act overtly, violently, towards society based on his subjective opinion.
If he did that then there would be peace in the world, suffering between individuals would stop. Would that be moral?
Personally at that point I think man would begin to approach morality at the least civility. It fits my opinion of moral, to not be the avenue of suffering for any living thing.
I don't think man is civilized. I don't think cell phones and power windows civilize a society. I think when man no longer uses war to resolve his problems he will beging to approach civility.

So you are you suggesting that you are morally superior to others or mayhaps more morally advanced or something like that?

Just wondering.

[Robert]

Not at all! I think your missing the point.
Look at what I’m saying.
Since man’s morality is subjective he shouldn’t use it as a base to act violently towards others. If, by chance, man stumbled on absolute truth he wouldn’t know it because he has no frame of reference to base it on. So the only ‘source’ that can act outwardly is God.
Now if God doesn’t exist, as some people believe, it still doesn’t change the equation. That is man still is not justified in acting overtly on his subjectivity.
It’s simple logic and if you wish to disagree then please do but give your reasons.

[Chills]

Not at all! I think your missing the point.
Look at what I’m saying.
Since man’s morality is subjective he shouldn’t use it as a base to act violently towards others. If, by chance, man stumbled on absolute truth he wouldn’t know it because he has no frame of reference to base it on. So the only ‘source’ that can act outwardly is God.
Now if God doesn’t exist, as some people believe, it still doesn’t change the equation. That is man still is not justified in acting overtly on his subjectivity.
It’s simple logic and if you wish to disagree then please do but give your reasons.

Robert...

I neither agree or disagree. I was simply asking what you thought of your own behavior as compared to others based on your earlier post, where you outlined your thoughts on what you thought was moral and immoral etc.

What you actually think or do not think, what you believe or do not believe in no way impacts how I behave one way or another.

As far as morality goes. I basically was looking at it from outside the issue.
Not asking what is or is not moral. But what is morality. What is its function within society or perhaps the human experience and human evolution..etc.

I think or should I say speculate that it is actually a survival mechanism.

I arrived at my conclusions ..which I articulated... as a code of behavior that was designed to insure survival harmony etc of the group... by looking at how it seems to have been used in various groups and societies.
Nothing more nothing less. Simply my observation for what ever it is worth.

[Robert]

Robert...

What you actually think or do not think, what you believe or do not believe in no way impacts how I behave one way or another.

It does!
Or perceived morality is the justification for our actions. We justify our wars on our ‘morality’ regardless of whether those actions are moral or not. I can think it is moral to cheat people for my own good because I’m ‘entitled’ to be rich. You could be the victim of that. So it affects us all very much.

As far as morality goes. I basically was looking at it from outside the issue.
Not asking what is or is not moral. But what is morality. What is its function within society or perhaps the human experience and human evolution..etc.

If we want to talk about morality we have to define what it is to be moral, don’t we? Isn’t the definition of morality the act of being moral.

Is society moral? My opinion is that man is basically not moral because he brings suffering to his fellow man in the name of his ‘god’, country or whatever and he has done that unceasingly since the beginning of recorded history.

I think or should I say speculate that it is actually a survival mechanism.

Is morality a variable? It can’t be. Morality has to be a constant in the equation. Fear is a survival mechanism. Morality is ethics acting right or wrong regardless of the outcome. It isn’t a survival mechanism.

I arrived at my conclusions ..which I articulated... as a code of behavior that was designed to insure survival harmony etc of the group... by looking at how it seems to have been used in various groups and societies.

Survival of the group has little to do with morality. Again survival of the group is a product of fear. I might die from doing the right thing, acting morally, is that survival? The group can massacre a race of people to ensure its own survival. Is that moral?

Again morality isn’t a variable, isn’t an aspect of societal subjectivity because if it is then every society that raped and plundered to ensured its own survival, would have been acting morally.

[Chills]

Robert--

No what you think or believe has no impact on me or my behavior.

Your 'behavior' may but until such a time as your thinking and beliefs actualize into behavior, your thinking and beliefs have no impact what so ever.

--------------
Apparently I failed to communicate what I was trying to.

[Robert]

Robert--

No what you think or believe has no impact on me or my behavior.

Your 'behavior' may but until such a time as your thinking and beliefs actualize into behavior, your thinking and beliefs have no impact what so ever.

--------------
Apparently I failed to communicate what I was trying to.

If we don’t learn from others how do we change? My actions are constantly being affected by my environment.
Actually everyone’s are. If we weren’t 'effected' we would never learn to speak.

The question is can we learn from our environment and not be ‘seduced’ into the thinking that creating suffering is acceptable and civil? Because if we can then we are no longer apart of the immorality that society accepts everyday in the form of war, hatred, xenophobia and all the rest.

Because it seems to me that morality only exists on the individual level and not the group The individual can take responsibility for his actions completely which can never transpire in the group. The politician gets his bylaws and the religious advocate gets his book to establish their morality and if the books and bylaws are distorted or the interpretation is distorted then the individual is in distortion, is immoral.

So how do we act morally in our life?
My thinking is that we must first learn to be individuals which is where the premise that bringing no suffering to others allowed me to be a ‘moral’ person. Because even if my premise of morality is flawed no one suffers for my thinking but me. No one suffers regardless of whether empires rise or fall or God exists or doesn’t. So, regardless of how valid my perception of morality is, it exists beyond the distortions of social and religious systems.
The individual who draws his morality from a book, system, country or society has relinquished his individual responsibility, has closed the door on thinking. Systems invariably breed violence as witnessed by history over and over again and unless we can think beyond that we become a part of it.

[Chills]

Robert

How do I act morally in my life?

I am not sure that I do or have.

I have tried to behave much the same as you suggest, harm no one.
Whether this is moral or not. I am not sure.

But speaking for myself... I have failed rather miserably at even that.
Simply because I only found empathy with others through my own suffering whether that suffering was a result of my own poor choices or the result of other peoples indifference.

I did not know for example that with the best of intentions I could and have harmed others. Until I recognized their pain and could empathize.

My own mistakes and experience give me a reference point to work from. I continue to learn and develop from experience.

I have come to the conclusion

That we tend to judge ourselves by our intentions.
And all others by the consequences of their behaviors.

just some thoughts.