What is morality?

[Moira]

How do you define morality? Some might say it is essentially "good" and "evil" while others try to find it for themselves. Of course, opinions about whats right and wrong differ greatly.

Edited May 6, 2014 by n00srac

[Sunshine]

I define Morality as a set of criteria upon which a human being in a working society must base all their choices on as they work towards a better society. If it detriments society or leads to the destruction of it, it doesn't seem to be moral. "Working for the common good" Can be a synonym, but it isn't necessarily always good for the whole world.

In some cases, such as theft and murder; these things can lead to the downfall of a civilization, and as such, are deemed as wrong. Of course, then there are sub-divisions, such as killing someone to prevent being killed or to prevent another murder.

I guess it gets further blurred in some cases, but there are reasons why some things are "Moral" and some "Immoral"

[HF Makalov Fanboy Kai]

I define Morality as a set of criteria upon which a human being in a working society must base all their choices on as they work towards a better society. If it detriments society or leads to the destruction of it, it doesn't seem to be moral. "Working for the common good" Can be a synonym, but it isn't necessarily always good for the whole world.

In some cases, such as theft and murder; these things can lead to the downfall of a civilization, and as such, are deemed as wrong. Of course, then there are sub-divisions, such as killing someone to prevent being killed or to prevent another murder.

I guess it gets further blurred in some cases, but there are reasons why some things are "Moral" and some "Immoral"

i have a feeling this was made over the increasing 'no my opinion is more moral then your opinion you loser" posts in the "is it wrong to eat and kill animals" topic.

with that said, maerk pretty much nails it on the head with this post, we need some basic set of morals to live an orderly and safe life, otherwise we're living in the world of Mad Max and Hokuto no Ken

[Chiki]

Something that's invented by humans, that doesn't really objectively exist.

[Rewjeo]

Yeah, it's sort of an arbitrary set of rules regarding what is "right" and "wrong." Regardless of what your own personal morals are, I don't think you can get much more specific than that. I mean, how many different moralities actually fit into Maerk's definition? Consider all of the issues of social justice that come down to moralities conflicting, after all.

[Shuuda]

Something that's invented by humans, that doesn't really objectively exist.

Watch it. I sliced myself on that edge of yours.

Morality is one's personal held beliefs about what the right and wrong way to act are, based on their ideals and values. Yes, there are few, if any, cases of two people having the exact same morals, but it does seem some people just want to convolute the question to fuel their intellectual ego.

Edited May 6, 2014 by Shuuda

[Chiki]

Watch it. I sliced myself on that edge of yours.

Morality is one's personal held beliefs about what the right and wrong way to act are, based on their ideals and values. Yes, there are few, if any, cases of two people having the exact same morals, but it does seem some people just want to convolute the question to fuel their intellectual ego.

Very witty. That post was actually saying something very similar to what you did.

How do you define what's right? Do you think something is right if someone thinks it is right?

Edited May 6, 2014 by Chiki

[Phoenix Wright]

Watch it. I sliced myself on that edge of yours.

Morality is one's personal held beliefs about what the right and wrong way to act are, based on their ideals and values. Yes, there are few, if any, cases of two people having the exact same morals, but it does seem some people just want to convolute the question to fuel their intellectual ego.

i don't see where he went wrong with this one. like many things, morality is human-made. it doesn't actually exist. i'm happy that we humans have come up with arbitrary rules for ourselves, but they are arbitrary and don't particularly need to be (be meaning exist).

as for how i define it... pretty plainly. hitchens--and many before him--spoke of the golden rule. i agree with that, for the most part. there's also this fella though, who has a great point that treating others the way you'd like to be treated isn't always valid:

Edited May 7, 2014 by Phoenix Wright

[Moira]

Do you guys think your morals are something you determined by yourself or are more from what you were told or how you were raised?

[Makaze]

Moralities are archaic constructs humans use as a shorthand in decision making. They are based in feelings and never hold up in every situation.

Where do they come from...? I think... Most morals come about due to self-preservation. They are not completely arbitrary.

I think humans develop convictions against murder, theft, assault and things like that because on some level, they think that if it happens to others, it can happen to them. The closer one is to the victim of these crimes, the more it upsets them. The more they can put themselves in the situation, the bigger their qualms. These types of morals exist regardless of culture because they affect one's sense of security.

Our morals do not stop at what we feel, though. Our morals do not mean anything unless they are consistent throughout society. One is less likely to be killed, stolen from, and so on if everyone else has the same conviction that it is wrong. We try to spread our convictions and shame others for immorality to protect ourselves from a world where evil, threatening immorality exists.

Applying that to differing morals on killing humans and/or other animals, humans have more qualms with killing monkeys than cows because monkeys remind humans of themselves. Similarly, stabbing a humanoid doll is more upsetting to watch than stabbing other shapes. Morality's empathy-based nature means we do not care about whether we are actually being hurt by these things; all that matters is that we feel threatened by the idea.

Pretty much every one can be linked to self-preservation. Qualms against other ethnicities and sexualities come about because people feel threatened by things they do not understand/have trouble navigating.

When one's parents or other outside forces suggest morals to them, one becomes inclined to adopt those morals in order to please those around them, which again comes out as self-preservation: children who develop different morals from their parents will miss out on the advantages they would have if they agreed with them, or may even face direct hostility for the differing views.

This is no less true for people who are raised in religion.

One of my friends said something once that stuck with me. They said that conviction, or morality, precedes religion. That means that people do not start with a belief and grow convicted in it later. They develop parallel convictions, but only with teachings that strengthen feelings they already have. One end result is that people who subscribe to the same source for their morals often end up with different morals. For example: Many religious people cherry pick anti-gay sentiments from their texts, but ignore or even deprecate sentiments in adjacent sections.

In summary, morals are personal convictions that ultimately come from the self. They can come about from innate preference or personal reactions to the environment.

Edited May 10, 2014 by Makaze

[Guy Starwind]

My morals? I'm lawful good sucka! *as I bend on one knee and a heavenly light shines on me*

[Sunshine]

Do you guys think your morals are something you determined by yourself or are more from what you were told or how you were raised?

I think it's a little bit of both. While your background is inherently a piece of who you are, your own personal reactions and thoughts also help.

Two men raised the same way are faced with the opportunity to punish a criminal. Just because their lifestyles are identical, it doesn't necessarily mean that they'll make the same decision. One person may take their background, and make a choice in spite of it; one person may take their past and make their choice because of it. Like the people who say "I was tough on you because it made you strong." or the ones that say "I was tough on you because my father was tough on me." in comparison to the ones who say "I'm going to be a kinder parent because my parent was too tough on me."

Everyone has different thresholds, and I guess that it's a really hard line to define; I could go on and on but there's not much else to say.

I think the majority of people agree that morality is just what the majority seems is right or wrong. I personally can't tell you what Morality is. I think that as long as people are different, Morality will just be a concept that can be defined with as much accuracy as the connotation of certain words or phrases in different languages. Honestly, when I go to other countries, I avoid all gestures, and I LOVE speaking with my hands; simply because some hand gestures are more acceptable than others in certain places, and I rather not use the wrong one. In the same way, I don't want to do anything Immoral. It's just not concrete.

Edited May 10, 2014 by Maerk

[Crimsonrider]

I think in the eyes of society, it should be more like shades of grey.

But it varies from person to person. If you don't feel you shouldn't be doing it, I don't think it's "immoral." At least, it wouldn't be to you.