What is morality?

[Rhyfelwyr]

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.

[Che Roriniho]

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.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

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.

[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.

[Fixiwee]

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

[a completely inoffensive name]

"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

[Kadagar_AV]

[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.

[Kralizec]

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.

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.

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.