What is morality?

Is morality relative, a code of ethics that is unique to every individual or even species? Morality would not be some sort of supernatural force, but instead just a set of instincts genetically hardwired into living creatures, in order to further their survival. For example, vampire bats live in large groups, and often if some are left starving others will regurgitate some blood to feed them, hoping that the favour would be returned if they found themselves in a similar situation. In this respect, morality is not actually something virtuous or selfless, but instead a selfish design to allow individuals to gain the benefits of collective living. Also, since the only morality that exists would be that which is hardwired into each of us, surely nobody would ever deserve to be punished for failing to meet anothers moral standards? Nasty people such as murderers would not be immoral in that they break their moral codes, they would only act the way they do because they lack the moral codes others have.

If this is true, then what are its implications for things we take for granted such as justice? Surely no single person would ever deserve to do jail time? In this respect, I sympathise with those who do not believe that the justice system should punish people. As some of you may have noticed, I never hold individuals accountable for their crimes, because everything from petty burglary to Nazism can be explained by social, economic, political etc forces all working above the individual level. To me, the purpose of jail time should never be to punish people, but should be used constructively to allow people to play a useful role in society when they return to it. Hmm I've been going a bit off topic, but the point was that if you believe in relative morality then surely at least the name of a 'justice' system is inapporpriate?

As far as I can see, only a notion of universal morality, which could presumably only exist at the supernatural level, is in any way virtuous. If we are not all bound by the same system, then even murderers are acting 'morally' by their own understanding of the term. Surely a murderer should not be punished for not having a certain set of rules genetically hardwired into himself? With a system of universal morality, things like our justice system could be said to be legitimate, since they justifiably punish people for their wrongdoings.

Confusingly, I believe in universal morality, while still taking the liberal lefty stance on the purpose of sentencing criminals. But this is not because I think that criminals do not act immoraly, but simply that there are too many forces working above the individual level to truly hold them accountable. Also, my belief in universal morality is why I do not buy it when people tell me that we should be judged on our deeds, since lots of things that appear good such as sharing or mothers loving their children are really just biological functions which we are programmed to do because we also must benefit from them in turn at some stage, or at least have the possibility of doing so. We're not so great as we think they are, realising that is what being a Christian is about (OK horrible off topic evangelising but hey).

Anyway, I'm just wondering how many Orgahs believe in either relative or universal morality.

Woah, what a lot of words.

I think that absolute Morality does exist, albeit as an abstract and fuzzy entity (like love, or Happyness). Basically: do unto others as you expect for yourself. We can also see this amongst a good quantity of the animal kingdom.

From the studies I've seen of it, the way morality works is that we make a snap judgement with one part of our brain, and then afterwards another part comes up with a rationalization supporting it. For example, consider that trolley thought test.

You see a trolley coming along the track at high speed. On its current course, it will kill five men working on the track. However, you are standing next to the switch, and can send it down a different track, where it will kill one person. What do you do?

*****

You are on a bridge over a track that has a trolley coming along at high speed. On its current course, it will kill five men working on the track. The only way to stop it is by pushing the hefty man leaning over the railing down on to the track, where only he will die instead of the five men. What do you do?


The did this test on hundreds of thousands of people from all over and from all demographics, and in all groups there was a significant difference in response to the two questions. They put people in an MRI and did the test, and found that in the first question one section of the brain was activated: the part that made rational decisions. In the second part, the "moral" part of the brain was activated along with the rational part, and the part of the brain that resolves conflicting signals within the brain was active as well.


So it is clear that our sense of morality comes from within us, i.e. there is some feature of our brains anatomy that is responsible. So morals are clearly not completely relative. However, different people believe different things are moral--not an argument against absolute rules on it's own, but something to consider.

They find that there are 5 moral spheres: purity, authority, community, harm, and fairness. Different cultures rate them at a different level. Does that mean each culture is right? I don't think so. As countries become more civilized, the need for authority figures to be treated with huge amounts of respect diminishes. But, morals tend to be tied in with tradition and can easily be out of tune with the country. To me Rhyfelwyr, that is one of the problems of religion.

So, I would say they aren't relative, but the best we can do is estimate and speculate based of what we know about human nature.

It's a very complicated question though.

Morality is the decision on whether to choose good for the canon ending or evil for the cool extra items and xp you get along your journey as you kill and rob everyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Morality is the decision on whether to choose good for the canon ending or evil for the cool extra items and xp you get along your journey as you kill and rob everyone.

---

"What do I WANT? I don't really know. Most of the time I ignore my quest and walk into the homes of others, riffling through people's shelves..."
--The Chosen One - Fallout 2

[QUOTE=Sasaki Kojiro;2236617]A lot of text.QUOTE]

Morality is hardcoded yes, however, what this morality actually consists of is created by society.

But "moral" behavior can be summed up pretty easy... don't do to others what you wouldnt want others to do to you.

There, we have the only moral principle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fixiwee

"What do I WANT? I don't really know. Most of the time I ignore my quest and walk into the homes of others, riffling through people's shelves..."
--The Chosen One - Fallout 2

---

"So then I thought to myself 'WTF, I just helped all three of these Jedi Counsel ********, and now they want to cut me off from the force?!?'. From then on whenever I found them in later replays I just killed them right then and there, even if I was playing a good character. There is nothing worse then a Jedi ******* other then multiple Jedi ********. At least with the Sith you expect that ****.

And yes, Ed Asner's voice still brings back memories of that frustrating scene."

-Me

I don't know, just look at your average two year old. Selfishness and instant gratification seem to rule them at the core. I think we see a true glimpse of true human nature in how they see the world.

Quote:

---

For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.(Romans 3:23)

---

I began to learn about morality, and it's stepchild-ethics, from my parents and my kindergarten teachers. I am of the opinion that morality is learned from society. Those instincts may have come from human social evolution, but the rules and consequences are taught.

Quote:

---

Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it.(Proverbs 22:6)

---

Quote:

---

Honor your father & mother: that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God gives to you.(Exodus 12)

---

I don't mean to offend anyone by using these as examples, but they were among the earliest rules I remember learning as a child. I would love to read some examples by those of other faiths or beliefs.

What he says: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCL63d66frs :)

I don't think morality is learned. I think empathy is learned.

Once you understand that your actions have consequences for other people, and that those people feel in all the ways you feel, you start to act differently. In my experience this is something small children do not understand, they are selfish not because they do not care but because they do not understand that they should.

The distinction is very important, and no where near as subtle as it might appear.

That's a very good point there PVC. :bow:

Obviously, it is important to me that being moral goes beyond living by the laws of consent. You have given me some food for thought...

Asking "what is morality" leads to perhaps a worthy discussion, but an open-ended one.

It is very similar to asking "what is God?" because ultimately, everyone has their own ideas and no "proof" in the scientific sense. But does that mean the discussion will produce nothing? Not at all. Philosophers have struggled with these questions throughout history, as well as theologians. There are many thought experiments to be had.

1. If we are talking about religious morality, then it is whatever the religion teaches. The trouble here is that some religions for example could teach that capital punishment is immoral, and others could teach that capital punishment is moral. So this ultimately leads to one opinion or culture disagreeing with another and making no progress because they are all subjective opinions.

2. If we are talking about universal morality, we have to assume that it is possible for such a thing to exist, and we must subscribe to the idea that something is right no matter what people's opinions on the matter are, and something is wrong no matter what people's opinions on the matter are, and the source of that rightness and wrongness is something universal and observable. I am not sure that such a discussion would be any less plagued with personal opinion, or if it would lead anywhere productive.

3. If there is a universal morality, how would you determine what it is? And we are obviously discussing a concept, not an energy field or a force or something along those lines. It is not something you can taste or touch... so it is difficult to prove. By what basis do you prove something is moral or immoral?

4. Can we assume that, for example, if murder is wrong for one culture, it is wrong for all cultures? Can we agree that culture is simply a word for a collection of people who share common beliefs or values? Can we also agree that something being popular does not mean something is correct? What makes something correct, if not popular opinion, or the opinion of those who wield force?

5. If we do not agree that murder is either correct or incorrect for all cultures, then we must accept there is no such thing as morality, only popular opinion.

6. What is immoral? Does it always have to deal with an injustice? What is an injustice? Does it always have to deal with sin? What is sin? By what basis do you define injustice or sin?

7. To make progress, we must attempt to theorize about what is right and wrong, and whether or not it is appropriate to call it moral or immoral. Is it right to spend 18 hours a day playing video games? What if that is what you do as a profession? What if you're a video game tester? Ah, but what if all that inactivity makes you fat, and all that button pushing and typing gives you carpal tunnel syndrome? Can we not now say that our behavior was unhealthy and excessive, and ultimately self-destructive, and therefore wrong? But is that immorality, or is that simply unhealthy excess? Is there an injustice here, or is it simply a case of actions having consequences, and therefore no punishment or law being necessary to curtail such behavior?

8. If we do an unhealthy behavior, is it necessarily wrong? If it is wrong, is it necessarily immoral? If it is immoral, should it necessarily be illegal? If it is illegal, how should we enforce such laws and what punitive actions should be taken if the law is broken?

9. Is there a difference between unhealthy personal choices which affect only one's own life, and more malignant, destructive choices which affect the lives of others, and intrude upon other's lives? Should we intervene when someone's freedom treads upon someone else's freedom, and under what circumstances? How do we determine what circumstances? What authority do we have, as imperfect human beings, to exert governance over other people's lives? What gives us that authority, if we have it?

10. If choices end up destroying lives, are they necessarily immoral? What if they are accidental? What if the effects of those choices could not be foreseen? What if we commit an action with an intent to harm, is it always immoral? What if we end up failing in our attempt to harm, is it still immoral? Should we intervene? Under what circumstances is it right to do so, if it is ever right to do so?

11. Is all destruction the same? Is all corruption the same? Are all deaths equal? Does everyone deserve equal rights and equal treatment and equal protections? Does every person who commits a crime deserve an equal punishment, regardless of other circumstances or concerns? What do we do when there is an imbalance of rights? Do we have a right to intervene in other cultures which do not subscribe to our viewpoint on these matters, and under what circumstances?


I'm afraid when it comes to morality, you will only encounter an endless sea of questions. Questions that some think they have the answers to, but because this is philosophy, not science, there is no answer sheet... and the only answers are the ones we provide.

I think that whoever has the best reasons and the best philosophy which creates the fairest treatment for all (not most) is the correct philosophy. And I do believe there are some universal truths that are worth fighting for (to prevent the extermination of civilian populations, for example) and others which are not (some people believe in forcing a child to undergo circumcision, and I disagree, but I cannot intervene using force).

Ultimately any non-religious morality is a work in progress. And as we have seen, even religious authorities often amend what they consider right and wrong. So I don't think anyone has all the answers, but I believe if we sit down and think carefully, we can find most of them together and have those answers make sense and be fair for everyone.

That was very well said Askthepizzaguy. I particularly like this bit:

Quote:

---

I'm afraid when it comes to morality, you will only encounter an endless sea of questions. Questions that some think they have the answers to, but because this is philosophy, not science, there is no answer sheet... and the only answers are the ones we provide.

---

Good food for thought there.

This kind of reminds me of the "Why shouldn't we kill ?" topic.

To be honest, I don't know what morality is.

I think I'm a moral person, believe that my moral (partly based on the christian morality, partly based on the French Enlightment and 1789) is the parangon of civilization and better than say, a radical muslims' morality or a chinese secret police officer's morality, but they'd probably disagree.

Despite that, I know that my supposedly universal, western morality is in fact objective, the result of a sociological, economical, historical and personal process. Furthermore, it's on some aspect quite different from the morality of other european, progressist liberals.

Morality is a set of ethics made by a society, changed by a society, and ultimately determined by a society. What was moral thousands of years ago is not anymore, and what is immoral now can become moral in the future.

Society is like an organism and morality is just a set of rules that the organism needs to function as an organism.

I'm surprised at the above two answers since they come from Christians. Do you not believe in any form of universal morality? Of course, a lot of principles are invented by societies for their own use, but are there not some universal principles?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

I'm surprised at the above two answers since they come from Christians. Do you not believe in any form of universal morality? Of course, a lot of principles are invented by societies for their own use, but are there not some universal principles?

---

It's my Christain belief that basic moralities, such as justice, affairs, murder etc, stem from the Bible and Christain philosophy. However, anything not determined in Scripture is determined by society.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

I'm surprised at the above two answers since they come from Christians. Do you not believe in any form of universal morality? Of course, a lot of principles are invented by societies for their own use, but are there not some universal principles?

---

LOL

I believe in a set of universal principles, and I'm a non-religious person. :laugh4:

A bit different from what you expected, Rhyf?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

LOL

I believe in a set of universal principles, and I'm a non-religious person. :laugh4:

A bit different from what you expected, Rhyf?

---

Well you did tell me about if before.

Of course, it is just as possible for a non-religious person to believe in universal morality as it is for a religious fellow.

One could argue there is no such thing as morality if it is determined by a vote or by the sword.

What makes something moral is not whether it is popular or whether someone will imprison you or kill you for doing it, because then morality is fluid, subjective, and determined by humans, who can't seem to stop killing each other.

Morality I feel should be based on logic, on objectivity, on cause and effect consequences for actions, motivations, and the precise circumstances. These are factual, neutral things which don't change whether they are popular or under threat.

If there is a God who created this universe, which seems to based upon some kind of logical premises, then that very logic applies equally to religious folks as non-religious folks. And if there is no God, but the universe just happens to be based upon laws and consistency, then the underlying logic applies equally to religious folks as to non-religious folks.

Whichever the case may be, if there is a big man upstairs or not, I tend to agree that morality doesn't change, our perception of it and our understanding of it does. Much like mathematics or physical sciences; the nature of reality has not changed, but our understanding of it has, and so we have reached different conclusions over time. But it never was based on our opinion; it was always wrong to burn a child to death or rape someone or enslave someone. We are now understanding the principles behind human rights, but those rights aren't based on what is popular, because what has been popular since ancient times is that most people didn't have ANY rights. What overturns the majority and causes human rights to exist is that we all yearn for them, because there is an inherently logical part of our minds which cannot stand oppression and injustice, because it is better for society and for the survival and happiness of all if we stop oppression and injustice.

In the end, morality even reflects on trivial things, like what and how much we eat.

If we allow ourselves to become a junk food addict, and eat nothing but Whoppers and french fries, we are committing an excess against our body which is unhealthy and unbalanced. The result is that we get obese and die early. It is a more minor offense to be sure, than a serious crime; but unhealthy and self-destructive behavior could be considered immoral.

The question is; do we as a society have a right to step in and prevent immorality? Or should we only focus on criminal behaviors which we deem dangerous and destructive to society itself? I vote no to the first question and yes to the second.

I believe that there are certain moral values wich cultures of all times and places would agree upon, and so are universal. A society that allows murder wouldn't last long, for example.
That's a pretty small set though - all else is dependent on time and place.

Quote:

---

As some of you may have noticed, I never hold individuals accountable for their crimes, because everything from petty burglary to Nazism can be explained by social, economic, political etc forces all working above the individual level.

---

Quote:

---

Also, my belief in universal morality is why I do not buy it when people tell me that we should be judged on our deeds, since lots of things that appear good such as sharing or mothers loving their children are really just biological functions which we are programmed to do because we also must benefit from them in turn at some stage, or at least have the possibility of doing so.

---

The reality is that ultimately you don't get to decide entirely who and what "you" are since everyone is predisposed by the way they were brought up. Some people grow up to be so antisocial that you really can't expect them to respect the law. And yet most people would agree that being accountable for ones actions is an essential quality of the "human being".

By voluntarily staying in a certain country and participating in society, you agree to abide by its laws. Social-economic forces and whatnot can sometimes explain why an individual has become a criminal, but it can't justify it.