What is morality?

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
Prof
Posts: 421
Joined: April 29th, 2010, 8:49 pm

Re: What is morality?

Post by Prof »

Mistery wrote:Ill look at it tomorow....
That speaks well of you, showing you are willing to learn, that you don't pass up opportunities to educate yourself, that you have a mind open to new experiences, and that - as a student - you have a good attitude.

Happy reading !!
Mistery wrote: What a culture believes might be not moral according to you, according to them it is.
Are you saying then, Mystery, that anything goes when it comes to "morality"?

Are you declaring that "Fifty million Frenchmen can't be wrong" as the old cliche said? How about when the majority of the Earth's people believed strongly that the Earth was flat? It seemed quite reasonable to them. But they were wrong.

So if cannibals believe that it is all right to eat people, their view is as "moral" for you as the view of anyone else? And if another culture holds slaves you see nothing "immoral" about that -- for. after all, that is morality !??

So there are no standards in ethics.... Is that your position?

Actually, cultural relativism has serious problems; and it usually ends up as moral nihilism. What guidance does it provide toward living an ethical life? ...Just be a conformist to your local customs?! Is that a theory on which we can rely to account for the data, such as acts of kindness, capacities for empathy, heroism, altruism, impulse to do volunteer work, civil behavior, courtesy. These are found across all cultures. How does your theory explain such facts?

A theory that can't order and explain its data by showing some relationships may be an inadequate theory, isn't that so?
To learn more on ethical topics, check out these references:onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/viewtop ... amp;t=6097
Mistery
Posts: 90
Joined: April 7th, 2014, 10:54 am

Re: What is morality?

Post by Mistery »

If everyone believed the earth is flat or not is not the same with what people think it's moral or amoral. You have material proof that earth is not flat, morality is a concept that has nothing to do with material stuff therefore you cannot have material proof about it.

In this topic I argue that morality is what the majority of people believe is moral or amoral.

If cannibals in africa think it's moral to eat people then for their community it's a moral value, In a world scale opinion the majority thinks that cannibalism is something ammoral so in that sense it is something amoral, However if the population of earth was half the people thought that cannibalism is moral and the other half that is moral then you would not be able to tell which one is it from a neutral point of view. If everyone on earth believed that cannibalism is moral then it would be something perceived as good even from a neutral point of view.


An act of kindness is something you do for someone that you believe is moral, it still doesn't give the definition of absolute morality (a cannibal tribesman can offer you human flesh out of kindness and empathy).

Heroism is a great feat someone performed with beneficial results for his community (and possibly bad about another) it has nothing to do with good or bad (a nazi took down an american airplane and now he is a hero for nazis but a great villain for americans).

The rest come from whatever you learned it is something moral, Christianity deems these things as moral and since it is spread all over the world it means that people are adapting their morality and they see volunteer civil work, altruism etc. as something moral. But the fact that christianity has spread out through force and not through conviction means that these things are not naturally deemed as moral from people and they were just ignorant about them until christianity arrived (they would not need to use any kind of force if that was the case).

Another proof is that since christianity did not reach cannibal tribes they have a whole defferent sense of morality. The same with feudal japanese and acient greeks, both thought that "love thy enemy" is something stupid before christianity stomped them (source book "shogun" really epic book about japanese culture, and the fact that I was forced to learn about acient greeks since I'm greek lol).


Of course like I said people needed to work together and something not harmfull to their community is something moral (cavemen that adapted their behaviour) but since you they see someone who greatly harms an opposing comunity as a hero then it means that it is not something absolute.


In your book you say that aristotle concluded that everyone tries to work for good but he gives no absolute definition of what is good. Therefore you cannot say a criminal is ignorant about the good. At best you can say he is ignorant about your definition of good (as you are about his definition of good).
Wilson
Posts: 1500
Joined: December 22nd, 2013, 4:57 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eric Hoffer
Location: California, US

Re: What is morality?

Post by Wilson »

Prof, I agree with Mistery - completely. The problem with moral absolutism is precisely the argument you presented against moral relativism. You are saying that because you and every decent person - those with a normal dose of empathy - believes in the golden rule, and that's the majority view, it has to be the standard.

Here's the explanation for why "kindness, capacities for empathy, heroism, altruism, impulse to do volunteer work, civil behavior, courtesy" are found across all cultures. It's in our DNA. Those characteristics evolved because they helped our survival. I believe that empathy evolved initially so that mamas would take care of their babies until they could take care of themselves, and then once that capacity for empathy and altruism was in our DNA code, it extended to wherever it was useful. I believe that group selection, which is controversial, was the mechanism for promoting cooperation and the extension of empathy within hunter-gatherer groups - while maintaining hostility toward those outside the group.

Believe me, I share your gut feeling that kindness, compassion, altruism, and similar tendencies are moral virtues. I feel strongly that cruelty, rape, stealing for gain, and the murder of innocents are morally wrong. But there's no logic that makes those opinions universal or absolute. I'm all for punishing those whom I see as wrongdoers, and I'm capable of wanting revenge against those I consider evil. So I want society to adopt policies that represent your moral ideals and my ideals and those of all "right-thinking" citizens. It isn't that I give a pass to the bad guys. I just don't fool myself that my strongly held beliefs of right and wrong are universal.

There are a huge number of Muslims in the world who believe that it is evil to reject the prophet and those that do should be punished. And I recognize that they believe that just as strongly as I believe otherwise. They feel it in their hearts in very much the same way that I feel that it is evil to commit spousal abuse. They feel the same moral outrage. Why, in an absolute sense, are they wrong and I'm right? So once again, we should craft our laws and our ethical standards to promote what we see as moral virtues and punish those acts that we see as morally repugnant. But let's be honest and recognize that there's no logic that proves that our moral standards are the gold standard, in an absolute sense.
User avatar
DoubtnThink
Posts: 103
Joined: April 10th, 2013, 1:56 pm

Re: What is morality?

Post by DoubtnThink »

Prof wrote: Actually, cultural relativism has serious problems; and it usually ends up as moral nihilism. What guidance does it provide toward living an ethical life? ...Just be a conformist to your local customs?! Is that a theory on which we can rely to account for the data, such as acts of kindness, capacities for empathy, heroism, altruism, impulse to do volunteer work, civil behavior, courtesy. These are found across all cultures. How does your theory explain such facts?

A theory that can't order and explain its data by showing some relationships may be an inadequate theory, isn't that so?
I skimmed through the references you gave. Hard going. Not so much theory as many, many examples. Some interesting thoughts, but very wordy. Hard for people to follow. I will try to read more of the various articles.

Briefly one could give a list of "good" values, and "bad" values. Most people would understand these words and their meanings.
Article One. The people of the planet, Earth, shall exhibit compassion and respect for all others regardless of creed, complexion, location, gender, occupation, status, origin, beliefs, or who they love.
Does this apply to the Nazis? Or to Genghis Khan? Or Vlad the Impaler? Or does one wipe them out or hunt them down and kill them? Regarding opposing viewpoints I find it interesting that Henry Kaufman published a book in 1941 entitled "Germany Must Perish" in which he advocates the extinction of the German people by mass sterilization (a humane method) and he calls it "a final solution". The Nazis used the same terminology 10 months later, although they used it independently.
from goodreads site : Kaufman wants to be clear that "as a human being I deplore war; as a civilized member of a civilized nation I hate it", which rules out "quite naturally, massacre and wholesale execution" because "in addition to being impractical when applied to a population of some seventy million, such methods are inconsistent with the moral obligations and ethical practices of civilization."
People who are immoral or unethical "know" what they doing is not altruistic or good. But they justify their actions by twisting the moral premise they are going against - and using "exceptions". Such as torture is wrong but it is permitted if it is the "national interest". A perversion of the "greater good".

South Africa was vilified during Apartheid for its detention without trial of those supporting terror - and what are those same democracy-loving critics doing today?

I see that while writing this, Wilson has just posted a reply. I pretty much agree. His example of Muslims was a good one. Which is why I posted the Kaufman quote.

I even find his DNA and evolution explanation very compelling. However, I cannot help but feel that many people find guidance and strength to do the right thing in their belief of a Higher Power.
Prof
Posts: 421
Joined: April 29th, 2010, 8:49 pm

Re: What is morality?

Post by Prof »

Ethics, the body of useful knowledge, informs us that those with normal (non-damaged) brains are prewired to be ethical in this sense: we have a moral intuition (largely operating in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex) and a more calculating thought process (situated mostly in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex.) And we have mirror neurons which pick up the vibes of others as shown by the varying degrees of empathy which individuals have. Some have a greater capacity for empathy - for Intrinsic valuation - than others do.

Our intuitions can be trusted when they are confirmed by the calculations of the cerebral cortex, and our calculations can be relied upon when confirmed by our "gut instincts," ...our intuition. The two do not have to conflict, and they usually don't in life - except when we make up hypothetical dilemmas that force them to do so - such as Phillipa Foot's Trolley Dilemma (which, when she first propounded it, she hoped it would support Virtue Theory by ridiculing Consequentialism.) As I argue in my pamphlet, BASIC ETHICS 2014, 23 pp. if printed out on both sides of the page (- to which you will find a link in the signature below -) we need them both.... the perspectives and tools of Virtue Theory and Consequentialism ... and those of Deontology as well. {In fact, all these perspectives are absorbed into the system, the Unified Theory of Ethics [the UTE] ...or simply, Ethics, for short. Supplement what you studied in that pamphlet with the recent upgrade offered here, namely the thread entitled "The Axiom of Ethics: A breakthrough in Ethical Theory." The axiom reads: Make things morally better !!

The Principle of Inclusivity is spelled out in that theory, in the UTE. The principle directs us to extend our 'ethical radius', our ethical compass, as far as we can. It unites us with them (those of us in our in-group with those who are outside of it.) BASIC ETHICS argues that for all practical purposes "there are no strangers." In this global village we are all neighbors.

Ethical people get beyond tribalism.

I predict that in less than 100 years from now you will witness a planetary consciousness (that the human species is all one family) along with a planetary civilization.

We have less wars than in the 20th century; cannibalism has died out; we still have a little slavery but we are working on it to make it extinct. Things are changing. More changes are clearly in the works. Ethics is catching on. I see evidence of it all around. Muslims are not as bad as Mystery paints them out to be. They want the same thing we all do: a Quality Life. We could possibly show them how to attain it, but first we have to have our priorities straight. Actions speak louder than words. By our moral actions is the example set. So be true to your own true self. Keep in mind the ultimate purpose -- which is a quality life for one and all. {Go take a look at the Axiogenics web site.}


What do you say to all this?? I want to hear your opinions.
To learn more on ethical topics, check out these references:onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/viewtop ... amp;t=6097
Wilson
Posts: 1500
Joined: December 22nd, 2013, 4:57 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eric Hoffer
Location: California, US

Re: What is morality?

Post by Wilson »

Prof, I agree that in general we should try to get beyond tribalism but the principle of inclusivity shouldn't be absolute, in my opinion. Someone who is attacking a loved one of mine will be outside my circle of compassion, and I feel no moral need to include him. A serial killer or someone who enjoys cruelty to others or a despot or a career criminal is mostly outside my line of empathy. In war - hopefully a just war - we must shelve our compassion for the other side to some extent. For the most part sociopaths - who are human beings as much as we are - are beyond the reach of my sympathy. You probably wouldn't feel much empathy for a mob intent on hurting you and yours.

The reason that we are more inclusive nowadays is largely due to the influence of the media - television, magazines, and so on. We see other cultures, we see that they are not so different, they have the same desires and needs, and to some extent we take them under our umbrella of empathy. We see gay people and black people on TV and we see that at least some of them are funny and smart and likeable and not really a separate kind of human and we take them into our hunter-gatherer tribe. But the dividing line between us and them isn't a hard line. We still feel more kinship with our families, a little less with our community, a little less with other races, nations, religions, and sexual orientations. But more kinship for all of them than in the past. Improvement.

I would like to think that your prediction of one big happy family in 100 years is correct. But I'm skeptical. We are also wired to want to be special and better than others and to keep some people outside our circle of sympathy. I don't see any evidence that Pakistan is becoming any warmer or fuzzier, or that African nations are becoming better at caring for their people. A charismatic leader may emerge somewhere in the world who feeds the desire for respect and power in his followers and leads them on a destructive adventure. But I hope you're right.
User avatar
DoubtnThink
Posts: 103
Joined: April 10th, 2013, 1:56 pm

Re: What is morality?

Post by DoubtnThink »

Prof - I just saw Wilson's reply after I finished mine. I tend to agree with most of his post. But my two cents for what it is worth.

I think you attribute a bit too much to the “hard wiring” of the brain as a machine. The human brain only reaches full development at the age of eight – and during this time there is substantial environmental learning. You also presume that this ethical programming is somehow patterned in the DNA of the first cell, and that pattern is imposed from the moment of conception.

As a teenager I was coldly logical, somewhat autistic. When a kitten was mauled it was the logical thing to put it out of its misery – although it was also logical to me that suffering is part of life. It was others who insisted that it be put down, and I had little feeling when I drowned it. So where was my empathy? Now I am very compassionate, and very empathetic.

As for ethical people getting beyond tribalism, I would say you are quite wrong. That is a hope and desire you have.

I consider myself extremely ethical, to the point that I do not put my own survival above my moral principles. But if I find that my family and friends are being disadvantaged by another group (a different tribe) to an extreme point, and violence appears to be the only answer, then I will resort to violence. If the other tribe has no empathy or compassion for my tribe – or has a distorted rationale for what they are doing, then my logic and my ethics would over-ride my inclination to avoid violence to solve matters. (I just saw Wilsons reply and I tend to agree with most of his post).

With the problems of over-population, and rising elitism where a small percentage of people control much of the wealth, ethics are diminishing. If the Ultimate Purpose of life is for quality of life, and that quality is being reduced by others who live by a set of standards that are selfish (immoral) then conflict is an inevitable result.

Where does religious teaching figure in your scenario? I have seen people endure suffering rather than compromise the ethics they have been taught in their religion. And I would ask - what if a soul guides and directs the programming, and ethics is not only DNA driven, but takes on the ethics of the God given soul (new or reincarnated makes no difference in this scenario)?

What you also cannot answer is why humans you would consider “damaged” because they murder, rape and rob without compassion can be changed by four days of guided wilderness therapy where they connect with a higher power. It appears that there is a wholesale change in their ethical values. The success rate was about 80% for many hundreds. I have personally seen it work.

You may think you are very ethical. What it would take to evaluate your ethics would be a set of situations where you are asked what you would do. The set would range from obvious to the well-known dilemmas. The problem comes about that as the nuances get more subtle the situations must be more defined, otherwise the person starts making assumptions to justify the answer. I hear people in all walks of life make statements about why they do this or that – and many statements are unethical because they are selfish and self-serving.

Do you ever lie? If so, when? Do you cheat on your taxes? Why? If is it legal, but gives an unfair advantage, would you do it? If it is illegal but quite profitable, and the chances are nearly zero you would get caught, and it is a “victimless crime”, would you consider doing the deed? If so why? Do you break a law that is unjust? If so, why? Is civil disobedience ethical under some circumstances? What kinds?

Finally, can an unethical person be taught to be ethical – and vice versa?
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: What is morality?

Post by Spectrum »

Prof wrote:Ethical people get beyond tribalism.

I predict that in less than 100 years from now you will witness a planetary consciousness (that the human species is all one family) along with a planetary civilization.

We have less wars than in the 20th century; cannibalism has died out; we still have a little slavery but we are working on it to make it extinct. Things are changing. More changes are clearly in the works. Ethics is catching on. I see evidence of it all around.

I have the same optimism as above with reference to Ethics and also Religion within the next 75-100 years.
There will be a paradigm shift in Ethics and Religion when continuing from past progressive trends, the rate of exponential expansion of knowledge and technology [one need to be up to date on these matters] will converge into a single focus as team human. Then all religions (starting with the Abrahamic ones) will be replaced with spirituality to deal with the unavoidable existential issues. Ethics will then be moving toward a common platform of human-system-based ethics, rather than Abrahamic and religious ones.
Muslims are not as bad as Mystery paints them out to be. They want the same thing we all do: a Quality Life. We could possibly show them how to attain it, but first we have to have our priorities straight. Actions speak louder than words. By our moral actions is the example set. So be true to your own true self. Keep in mind the ultimate purpose -- which is a quality life for one and all. {Go take a look at the Axiogenics web site.}

90% of Muslim are good people, but Islam itself is 10% malignant with 90% criticality (note Pareto). Islam must be weaned off to be replaced by net-positive spirituality.

Those who do not agree with moral absolutes do not seem to understand the systematic approach of Pure and Applied ethics working in complementarity.

-- Updated Mon May 26, 2014 8:37 pm to add the following --
DoubtnThink wrote:I think you attribute a bit too much to the “hard wiring” of the brain as a machine. The human brain only reaches full development at the age of eight – and during this time there is substantial environmental learning. You also presume that this ethical programming is somehow patterned in the DNA of the first cell, and that pattern is imposed from the moment of conception.
The propensity for continuous improvement is programmed in the human DNA. This drive for improvement and adaption is applicable generally, thus will include ethics. Note the trend on ethics within the world since 100,000 years ago to now.
Finally, can an unethical person be taught to be ethical – and vice versa?
Your own case is an evidence that progress in ethics is possible for all humans (unless brain damage).
As a teenager I was coldly logical, somewhat autistic. When a kitten was mauled it was the logical thing to put it out of its misery – although it was also logical to me that suffering is part of life. It was others who insisted that it be put down, and I had little feeling when I drowned it. So where was my empathy? Now I am very compassionate, and very empathetic.

From a neuro-psychological perspective, it is obvious your brain has been rewired and is now different from what it was when you were a teen. In this case, there are significant changes in the activation of your mirror neurons and other relevant circuits that support empathy, conscience and compassion.
One constraint is the detailed mechanics of these circuits are VERY complex to decode at present. Nevertheless humanity is making tremendous progress in this area. Note we have now been able to decode the human genome (once thought impossible) and are moving towards Connectome, i.e. mapping all the connections in the brain (a mammoth task).

Once humanity has understood the detailed machinery of how evil, compassion, empathy and other complex human drives are activated, humanity will (next 75-100) be able to make progress (without side effects) to modulate these impulses for the betterment of mankind and other species.

I anticipate some will counter with the usual 'frankenstein' warning and I can assure this 'danger' will be taken care of before anything is to be implemented.
Finally, can an unethical person be taught to be ethical – and vice versa?
An ethical person can become unethical via brainwashing or due to damage to the ethical circuit in the brain which enable the 'evil' circuit to dominate. The easiest experiment is to subject an ordinary known ethical person to severe, tremendous, continual stress, he will manifest evil in a matter of time.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
Prof
Posts: 421
Joined: April 29th, 2010, 8:49 pm

Re: What is morality?

Post by Prof »

Wilson wrote:Prof, I agree that in general we should try to get beyond tribalism but the principle of inclusivity shouldn't be absolute. .. .
Greetings, Wilson

Nothing in the Unified Theory of Ethics or its sequels and upgrades is absolute. I conceive of Ethics being a science some day, an am preparing the groundwork to get it there. integrating it with Brain Neurology, efficient methods of self-development, with what Psychology tells us about efficacy, with Moral Psychology, etc. I envision it as a study as fully legitimate and widely-accepted as is Economics, at least, or Civil Engineering. Hence, Ethics dispenses with any model or formula that does not work any more, and seeks to substitute a better one in its place. Every proposition in science is tentative, and subject to revision. It is the same with my proposed system of Ethics.

Be careful not to presume that if cultural relativism is refuted whoever does the refuting is therefore an "absolutist." This is either/or thinking. To coin a word - it is dyssystemic thinking; a disvalue. The living world is not 'black or white'; there are shades of gray and there are all the colors and hues. Beware of thoughts like "It's got to be this or that!" One can be - for example - cautious, in a sense, and a risk-taker at the same time. Likewise for other opposites. Educating, nursing, life coaching are some of the various ranches of Ethics.
Wilson wrote: ...For the most part sociopaths - who are human beings as much as we are - are beyond the reach of my sympathy. You probably wouldn't feel much empathy for a mob intent on hurting you and yours.
To the extent one fails to Intrinsically value anyone, to that extent one is not being ethical though. As Gandhi so clearly pointed out, it is with those sorts that nonviolent direct action is called for, and nonviolence requires a proper spirit of caring ...even for your oppressor. I am sorry to hear that your loved one has been attacked, and that a mob, intent on hurting you, came after you. At another Philosophy Forum on Ethics a psychopath actually spoke up, and he invoked my empathy. He said in his post that he couldn't help being what he is (lacking in feeling for others), has not hurt anybody {yet}, and would like to change for the better but didn't know how. He said he sought therapy for it.
Wilson wrote:... we are more inclusive nowadays... more kinship for all of them than in the past. [This is an] Improvement.
Yes, I agree. ...Whatever might be the reasons for it, we are.
Wilson wrote: I would like to think that your prediction of one big happy family in 100 years is correct. But I'm skeptical. We are also wired to want to be special and better than others and to keep some people outside our circle of sympathy.
Would you please cite the evidence for that last statement - that part about our being "wired" for it. Science encourages evidence-based thinking. In my research I have not come upon those studies. True, some folks act that way, and exhibit cultural mores to that effect, but that is not sufficient to claim that our brains make us so.
Wilson wrote: ... But I hope you're right.
Thank you. I give you credit. You at least read the pamphlet, BASIC ETHICS. You are open to learning something new. This will serve you well in the future. Did you read it all the way through? Then did you re-read it so as to absorb the points it was making? Did you see the set of derived ethical principles at the end of the paper ASPECTS OF ETHICS: Views through a new lens. Those principles were deduced from the system.

Your impressions? questions? comments?
To learn more on ethical topics, check out these references:onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/viewtop ... amp;t=6097
Wilson
Posts: 1500
Joined: December 22nd, 2013, 4:57 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eric Hoffer
Location: California, US

Re: What is morality?

Post by Wilson »

Prof wrote:
Wilson wrote: I would like to think that your prediction of one big happy family in 100 years is correct. But I'm skeptical. We are also wired to want to be special and better than others and to keep some people outside our circle of sympathy.
Would you please cite the evidence for that last statement - that part about our being "wired" for it. Science encourages evidence-based thinking. In my research I have not come upon those studies. True, some folks act that way, and exhibit cultural mores to that effect, but that is not sufficient to claim that our brains make us so.
Prof, here's my take on how we evolved, mostly through group selection during hunter-gatherer days. Empathy for others - particularly non-family members - was not made absolute; universal empathy would not have been ideal for the survival of either the individual or the group. It was useful to promote cooperation, altruism, and concern for others within the group - but would have been counterproductive if those same attitudes were felt for those outside the group. Sympathize with members of another tribe or group, and you'd give up food; you might put yourself and your group in danger if you helped protect the other group; allow them to come in, and they might betray you and take your women. So it was logical, from a standpoint of survival, that we should feel animosity toward those outside our group. That, I believe, is the basis for racism, nationalism, and religious animosity - in other words, tribalism.

That's what I mean by saying we are wired to feel hostility toward some other people. In other words, the capacity for that is within us. And certainly, as I pointed out, there are circumstances when the appropriate response to certain individuals is animosity.

I too have the capacity for feeling sympathy for sociopaths - but I'm perfectly okay with punishing them appropriately when they misbehave. The person you mentioned was an example of someone with limited empathy but no pleasure in hurting others, and those individuals can be productive members of society.

Evolution also gave us some qualities of personality that could be considered antisocial - the desire to dominate, to be better than other people, to accumulate more than others, envy, jealousy, desire for revenge, and so on. Those qualities made individual survival more likely and probably gave the individual a greater chance of reproductive success. In today's world our species would be better off with less of some of those - though some of them have positive effects, such as creativity, hard work, economic success - but they were presumably useful for survival and procreating in early humans, and we're stuck with those emotional tendencies. Because we are hard wired that way, logic - the knowledge that mankind would be better off if we loved our neighbors - will sometimes be overcome by our baser instincts - in particular, our desire to dominate and be important.

When I was a young man, I assumed that with time the world would get smarter, people around the planet would become more tolerant, and our species would get nicer to each other. I've seen very little evidence of that. I suspect that we'll still have wars in a hundred years.
Prof
Posts: 421
Joined: April 29th, 2010, 8:49 pm

Re: What is morality?

Post by Prof »

Prof. Appiah, of Princeton University, has put out a book on this topic. Read the reviews of it, by clicking on Reviews after you google it and go to the Amazon site. This is the title: Cosmopolitanism-Ethics in a World of Strangers. Or google it by author: Kwame Anthony Appiah.
To learn more on ethical topics, check out these references:onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/viewtop ... amp;t=6097
User avatar
Beena Jain
New Trial Member
Posts: 2
Joined: June 11th, 2014, 8:50 am

Re: What is morality?

Post by Beena Jain »

Ethics is certain rules and principles. Morality is following what our heart says, and the inner voice, voice of conscience speaks. Now if we don't follow what the heart says or the inner voice says, only then we act immorally. So, we may have been brought up in certain norms by society, and so murder may be okay, hurting may be okay, harming may be okay, bothering, and other things may be okay according to those norms, and so according to God will not be held immoral although they would certainly not be right. The reason is because for some to be brought up in abnormal norms, they would not know or understand that that is not right, and so when they don't even know that something is wrong, to do it, from God's perspective is not immoral but is simply wrong and they need to learn the right thing. What I am saying is this - Murder, killing, hurting, harming, bothering, may not be immoral. What is immoral, and will not make us rise up towards Heaven is, to not listen to our heart and not listen to our conscience, for no matter what norm we may have been taught, the heart and conscience are always there to guide us into righteousness, the right way of things. This way, Heaven has a fool-proof way of judging all souls on earth, despite the circumstances or norms we may have been brought up in.
snt
Posts: 110
Joined: June 2nd, 2022, 4:43 am

Re: What is morality?

Post by snt »

Morality concerns a quest into 'good' which requires a potential to do so.

It isn't the case that certain acts are not immoral for certain people or cultures but simply that a factor is missing that enables moral consideration within a certain context. From that perspective, a barbarian can still be held accountable for a lower quality moral state compared with more civilized folks. Also, killing an animal for food is still immoral. The perspective of the animal and it's natural environment is never lost but is merely neglected by a human in a certain context.

Only when the potential for moral consideration is present, someone can be considered responsible in the face of his/her dignity.

Morality is about the potential for moral consideration. It is about a quest into 'good'. Negligence, laziness and barbarianism are possible. An asteroid can strike earth. A moral life is not a given life. A moral life involves an eternal effort on behalf of 'good'. A moral life, according many wise people, requires that one first gives before one receives.

When it is considered that 'good' necessarily precedes human nature, which many profound philosophers have shown, it is possible to overcome the hurdle of subjective laziness and drive people principally to consider the good of others and beyond. In such a situation, moral consideration would become a quality that can be demanded in the face of dignity. As the comments in this topic have shown, a cultural demand can be a very strong demand. Humans will transform almost automatically into ever improving moral beings.
User avatar
Arbu123
Posts: 38
Joined: March 22nd, 2022, 10:15 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Me
Location: Midtown
Contact:

Re: What is morality?

Post by Arbu123 »

Skycloudnz wrote: April 27th, 2014, 12:40 am Is morality the set of ideas that lead to the ends we want to achieve? So is it relative to our values and goals?
I think it’s something like this, too…as if morals were relative to goal. This notion gives way to nihilist beliefs, though.
Post Reply

Return to “Ethics and Morality”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021