What is morality?

[pete5]

Are ideas and things moral/immoral or can you only call a particular person moral/immoral?


Is being moral just believing that some things are bad and some things are good, or do you actually have to do the things you call good to be moral?


What do you mean when you say (for example) a Wiccan is not moral?

 

[IlGino]

I think that being moral or immoral is based upon your fram or reference or concept of right or wrong. For me a wiccan is immoral in terms of a christian set of beliefs in that s/he is not acting as a christian should, but according to his/her own values she may well be m,oral because she is acting within her own moral framework.
Does that make sense.....

 

[openeyes]

Are ideas and things moral/immoral or can you only call a particular person moral/immoral?

Ideas and actions are moral or immoral. You can say a person is moral/immoral, but really you are referring to their actions which would, one would assume, mean they also had like-minded ideas.

Is being moral just believing that some things are bad and some things are good, or do you actually have to do the things you call good to be moral?

To be referred to as moral, your actions, including you thoughts, need to be moral.

What do you mean when you say (for example) a Wiccan is not moral?

Personally, I think you are trying to say that person does not live up to my standards of morality. I must add here that making such a broad statement as that isn't completly right, not neccesarily immoral though.

Morality is a difficult subject to nail down, as when you get into specifics you'll find a wide spectrum of personal moralities that may conflict.
I'm sure there are some generally accepted morallities like:
Try not to harm anything without reason. (this one my be loaded)
Help others when you can.
And others I'm sure.

 

[Philosoft]

I think it is a deducible fact that morality must be based on an innate sense. It need not be a right/wrong sense - personal pleasure or survivalism is capable of producing a moral code, I think.

The argument holds that a complex moral code cannot be fundamental because we obviously do not have such a personal code at birth, but we construct it throughout development. Thus, in order to accept a particular moral rule as consistent with one's existing code, one must be able to make a moral judgment that said rule is in fact desirable (and therefore right).

Our most fundamental moral rules, whatever they may be, can be personally justified at a very young age by the amount of pleasure, or, more often, the lack of suffering imparted by authority figures when we engage in the behavior, or not as the case may be.

 

[Dyrwen]

What I feel is right or wrong is my morality. Completely subjective and sometimes held by the whole.

You can call people whatever you want, moral or not, I really try to keep my morality, or lack of to myself. Other people need emotional reasoning to decide on things, morality helps that concept a lot as it allows a ground of ethical means to be placed and reasoned against.

 

[glo]

morality's definition is God i guess.
i mean. God is the one who in the beginning had set the rules for the world. what i don't get in this world is how people can believe there is no God yet seem to go by some pre-set sort law of morality. if i may quote Clive Staples Lewis in 'Mere Christianity' on this-

>My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked until he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was part of the show, find myself in such a violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if i did that, my argument against God collapsed too- for then my argument depended on saying the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not please my fancies. Thus is the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist- in other words that the whole of reality was senseless- I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality- namely my idea of justice- was full of sense. Consequently, atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should have never had found out that it has no meaning; just as, if there is no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be a word without meaning.


you might observe, that for there to be a moral law, there must be a God. Now, morality must be God, since God is perfect, and the aim of morality is to do right and act perfect. But we can't follow the moral law completely since we aren't perfect, but God is perfect, and thus he is morality in a sense. We strive to be moral. We strive to be holy. God is holy. He is the definition of morality! am i correct? correct me if i'm wrong!
n e hoo, to be moral is to follow God. To say Wicca is immoral, is to say that it does not follow God, follow God's standards, which is following God. I wouldn't ever call someone completely moral, since that's impossible. but then. oh never mind. i'm rambling again.
but don't take my word for it! go to the Answers in Genesis website. (look it up for i don't have 15 posts to post any external link. how sad. and go to Q&A and click Morality & Ethics.

 

[Philosoft]

morality's definition is God i guess.
i mean. God is the one who in the beginning had set the rules for the world. what i don't get in this world is how people can believe there is no God yet seem to go by some pre-set sort law of morality.

We don't. We each have a slightly different moral code because we each have made independent judgments about which moral ideals are "right" and which are not.

 

[PistGurl]

morality's definition is God i guess.
i mean. God is the one who in the beginning had set the rules for the world. what i don't get in this world is how people can believe there is no God yet seem to go by some pre-set sort law of morality

This is one reason for slightly differing sets of standard morals...I don't believe God DID first give us a set of rules, and this thought is shared by billions of others, I mean, before Christianity came about, or even Judaism, how did we follow a set of rules given by God?

We did not know about God.

I believe, from the times that we lived in caves, survival instincts for our tribes (eg NOT feeding your mate to the hungry tiger outside!! ) has shaped the set of morals we own now, you wouldn't think of sacrificing a loved one to save your own life, unless you were in some way immoral. The way we live changes the sets of morals we have, and in different societies, we have different sets of morals.

Anyway, good thread!

Blessed Be xx

 

[Berean01]

undefinedundefined

I think that being moral or immoral is based upon your fram or reference or concept of right or wrong. For me a wiccan is immoral in terms of a christian set of beliefs in that s/he is not acting as a christian should, but according to his/her own values she may well be m,oral because she is acting within her own moral framework.Does that make sense.....

Sure it makes sense if you buy into the idea of moral relativism. As you said, wican is immoral in terms of Christian beliefs. However, the wican acts according to there beliefs. Relativism is a major threat, not only in society, but the church as well. My nice's husband supposively practices wican. When I mentioned my concern about this to her mother-this was idolatry against the one true God; her reply was, "Your over reacting, wicans are into nature and things like that." The misunderstanding on my sisters part, is, she dosen't grasp the concept that God, the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ, sets the standards. What the Bible teaches concerning morality is truth. This is the only frame work by which Christians mold there lives by the grace of God. Futher, the world will be judged by the word of God and His Laws.

 

[Vylo]

Morality is a basic set of values societies develop over a period of time to help judge what is best for that particular society. While everyone had their own personal morality, much of it is constructed from how the person is socialized. This is why some morals seem to be universal within societies, such as how murder and child molestation are almost universally seen with disdain. While some morals are easier for us to agree upon, our individual circumstances can cause our value structures to diverge. Things such as abortion, homosexuality, etc. tend to be seen in many different lights.

 

[Philosoft]

Morality is a basic set of values societies develop over a period of time to help judge what is best for that particular society. While everyone had their own personal morality, much of it is constructed from how the person is socialized. This is why some morals seem to be universal within societies, such as how murder and child molestation are almost universally seen with disdain. While some morals are easier for us to agree upon, our individual circumstances can cause our value structures to diverge. Things such as abortion, homosexuality, etc. tend to be seen in many different lights.

I think this is better described as "societal ethics" or something. The reason society operates according to guidelines consistent with common moral precepts is that individuals often have precepts in common. Society can not be responsible for established moral codes because society is necessarily preceded by individual entities.

 

[glo]

We don't. We each have a slightly different moral code because we each have made independent judgments about which moral ideals are "right" and which are not.

please read this again.

Clive Staples Lewis in 'Mere Christianity'-

>My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked until he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was part of the show, find myself in such a violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if i did that, my argument against God collapsed too- for then my argument depended on saying the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not please my fancies. Thus is the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist- in other words that the whole of reality was senseless- I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality- namely my idea of justice- was full of sense. Consequently, atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should have never had found out that it has no meaning; just as, if there is no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be a word without meaning.



i recommend for all atheists to read the book 'Mere Christianity' by C.S. Lewis. It isn't all about Christianity in the first part. but it eases in and answers all of your questions and poses tough questions to all atheists. please read. (subliminal advertisement) buy the book! recommended by practically all who have ever read it!

 

[burrow_owl]

I've never found C.S. Lewis particularly compelling. He's too Platonic (his argument that to judge things unjust one must have some divinely inspired or platonic Idea of Justice - in other words, to judge something unjust there must really exist some ideal Justice [God, presumably, though I don't see why that follows necessarily from a merely formal epistemological requirement - this part of his argument is wildly overdetermined]. This is fine, I guess, but I don't see how he's able to constrain this 'theory of forms' to the identification of justice, rather than say, the identification of a pigeon. If I see a pigeon, how am I able to judge it a pigeon unless there's some Ideal Pigeon floating out there in the Platonic Heavens. His moral argument lacks the internal tools to contain itself within the moral sphere- the upshot is that it necessarily entails a Platonic theory of cognition, which is too big and awkward for me to swallow).

I guess the moral of this is that there are plenty of us that have decent reasons to not like CS Lewis - it's not that we didn't read the excerpt.

 

[Philosoft]

Very nice, burrow_owl. In addition, Lewis' argument supposes that, not only must ideal justice exist, but we must also be cognizant of it - we must fully understand ideal justice in order that we can know our approximations in fact approach it. However, because we often ask questions like, "Why does God do X, which seems unjust?", which are often answered, "Because we don't fully grasp God's justice", it seems reasonable to think we don't actually have the knowledge Lewis' argument requires.

 

[burrow_owl]

that's a stellar point, philosoft - i'm pretty miserable with that kind of immanent critique that you clearly do very well (i don't mean to turn this into the warm-n-fuzzy thread, but that looks like a pretty airtight counter, and as close to a KO as philosophical/theological arguments get).

 

[glo]

I've never found C.S. Lewis particularly compelling. He's too Platonic (his argument that to judge things unjust one must have some divinely inspired or platonic Idea of Justice - in other words, to judge something unjust there must really exist some ideal Justice [God, presumably, though I don't see why that follows necessarily from a merely formal epistemological requirement - this part of his argument is wildly overdetermined]. This is fine, I guess, but I don't see how he's able to constrain this 'theory of forms' to the identification of justice, rather than say, the identification of a pigeon. If I see a pigeon, how am I able to judge it a pigeon unless there's some Ideal Pigeon floating out there in the Platonic Heavens. His moral argument lacks the internal tools to contain itself within the moral sphere- the upshot is that it necessarily entails a Platonic theory of cognition, which is too big and awkward for me to swallow).

so are we saying good and bad is decided by our own judgement or the power who authoritates (sp?) us?

1.) does this mean that we can not judge anyone else because every one is allowed to their own set of beliefs of what is good or bad, and that there is no absolute right or wrong? so no one can condemn Hitler for the holocaust, or mao zedong, stalin, lenin, hussein, castro, or any tyrant of the history of the world for different people have different judgements, and thus different beliefs as to what is right and wrong. and we can't impose our beliefs on one another so Stalin is allowed to believe that killing people and sending them to Siberia to labour forever is A-okay for all is well in his mind, but even if you disagree, you can't protest, there is no point in protesting, for what makes your judgement higher then the other person's judgement hmmmm? for there is no real right or wrong for everything is really decided upon our own fancies! so no use in saying 'Hitler is bad' for Hitler thinks your definition of 'bad' is really 'good.'

2.) but then you could say, 'well then, we should base our decisions on highest amount of good for highest amount of people!'
but then. who is going to decide what is good? is it the person of power who gets to decide what is good then? it is so now with police officers having the right of authority over us to tell us how fast we go on the highway whether we disagree or not. for instance, i might think there is nothing wrong with driving 55 km/p/h in a 20km/p/h zone. then we would think the police man wrong (but then again how do we know whose judgement is better?), his opinion is wrong. but then because the police man is the one in authority, not I, he can force me to drive 20 km/p/h or pay the consequences (in this case, literally). I don't have to agree with him, or rather I can't disagree with him, but I must behave accordingly.

3.) in relation to point number 2 above, why should we even be caring about others any ways? since we supposedly by the order of evolutionary science, we are but higher animals for there is no God. if we are just accidents and there is no God, then who was there to give us rights? who cares if one million people die- we have no rights, thus the authoratative figure is allowed to kill people at his disposal.

conclusion:
thus. we have never had, nor have now, nor ever will, have any grounds for saying anything is really good or bad. crashing airplanes into a highly dense with people building can neither be good or bad. Shooting classmates can neither be good nor bad.
we can't really decide for ourselves good or bad nor say something is good or bad because opinions vary and you'll only beable to do so if you are in high authority.
you know. one of the reasons for the holocaust by the Nazis was to purge the world of the 'inferior' Jewish race (among other races) so that the 'superior' Aryan race could be free to evolve? SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST!
we have no grounds for condemning ANYONE for ANYTHING. denying someone's rights (though I see no reason how they got there anyways) can neither be good not bad. Authority decides what is good or bad.

God is the supreme authority according to Christian beliefs. For Christians, we know that it is God who has made the definitions of good and the bad.

the definitions of 'god' includes-
1.) A person or thing deified and honored as the chief good; an object of supreme regard;
2.) Figuratively applied to one who wields great or despotic
power.

thus without some sort of 'god,' i don't know how we could ever say something is good or bad. so now. is the government 'god' to the atheists?

 

[Blissman]

This is one reason for slightly differing sets of standard morals...I don't believe God DID first give us a set of rules, and this thought is shared by billions of others, I mean, before Christianity came about, or even Judaism, how did we follow a set of rules given by God?

We did not know about God.

I believe, from the times that we lived in caves, survival instincts for our tribes (eg NOT feeding your mate to the hungry tiger outside!! ) has shaped the set of morals we own now, you wouldn't think of sacrificing a loved one to save your own life, unless you were in some way immoral. The way we live changes the sets of morals we have, and in different societies, we have different sets of morals.

Anyway, good thread!

Blessed Be xx

I have a question for a Wiccan. You say that your set of codes for your conduct your (personal self-directed 'morals' so-to-speak). Where do you derive your own set of values, that is, your own code of ethics? You say that you believe in "The Lady and The Lord". I don't claim to understand your faith, but obviously you have a concept of something other than man. Higher, or deeper, as the case may be, but a belief other than man alone. You also have
a "Rede", and perhaps more than I will ever know. You believe in "do no harm".
'Who' wrote the Rede? Somewhere you had to have a definition what is and what is not harm, a standard of what is good or evil. Where in your faith do these values come from? Would you disagree if I had said that in a manner of speaking, the collective values are akin to a set of morals? Do you ask the philisophical question, "Where did The Lady and The Lord come from?" The Universe?
What is the meaning of Life?
Is there a reason why you are alive?

 

[Philosoft]

so are we saying good and bad is decided by our own judgement or the power who authoritates (sp?) us?

1.) does this mean that we can not judge anyone else because every one is allowed to their own set of beliefs of what is good or bad, and that there is no absolute right or wrong? so no one can condemn Hitler for the holocaust, or mao zedong, stalin, lenin, hussein, castro, or any tyrant of the history of the world for different people have different judgements, and thus different beliefs as to what is right and wrong. and we can't impose our beliefs on one another so Stalin is allowed to believe that killing people and sending them to Siberia to labour forever is A-okay for all is well in his mind, but even if you disagree, you can't protest, there is no point in protesting, for what makes your judgement higher then the other person's judgement hmmmm? for there is no real right or wrong for everything is really decided upon our own fancies! so no use in saying 'Hitler is bad' for Hitler thinks your definition of 'bad' is really 'good.'

2.) but then you could say, 'well then, we should base our decisions on highest amount of good for highest amount of people!'
but then. who is going to decide what is good? is it the person of power who gets to decide what is good then? it is so now with police officers having the right of authority over us to tell us how fast we go on the highway whether we disagree or not. for instance, i might think there is nothing wrong with driving 55 km/p/h in a 20km/p/h zone. then we would think the police man wrong (but then again how do we know whose judgement is better?), his opinion is wrong. but then because the police man is the one in authority, not I, he can force me to drive 20 km/p/h or pay the consequences (in this case, literally). I don't have to agree with him, or rather I can't disagree with him, but I must behave accordingly.

3.) in relation to point number 2 above, why should we even be caring about others any ways? since we supposedly by the order of evolutionary science, we are but higher animals for there is no God. if we are just accidents and there is no God, then who was there to give us rights? who cares if one million people die- we have no rights, thus the authoratative figure is allowed to kill people at his disposal.

conclusion:
thus. we have never had, nor have now, nor ever will, have any grounds for saying anything is really good or bad. crashing airplanes into a highly dense with people building can neither be good or bad. Shooting classmates can neither be good nor bad.
we can't really decide for ourselves good or bad nor say something is good or bad because opinions vary and you'll only beable to do so if you are in high authority.
you know. one of the reasons for the holocaust by the Nazis was to purge the world of the 'inferior' Jewish race (among other races) so that the 'superior' Aryan race could be free to evolve? SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST!
we have no grounds for condemning ANYONE for ANYTHING. denying someone's rights (though I see no reason how they got there anyways) can neither be good not bad. Authority decides what is good or bad.

God is the supreme authority according to Christian beliefs. For Christians, we know that it is God who has made the definitions of good and the bad.

the definitions of 'god' includes-
1.) A person or thing deified and honored as the chief good; an object of supreme regard;
2.) Figuratively applied to one who wields great or despotic
power.

thus without some sort of 'god,' i don't know how we could ever say something is good or bad. so now. is the government 'god' to the atheists?

You still have a problem. The above is an incomplete moral system. You haven't accounted for the decision to accept God's laws in the first place. Posed as a question, you need to answer this: How do you know it is good/right/moral to adhere to God's definitions of "good" and "bad"?

 

[glo]

You still have a problem. The above is an incomplete moral system. You haven't accounted for the decision to accept God's laws in the first place. Posed as a question, you need to answer this: How do you know it is good/right/moral to adhere to God's definitions of "good" and "bad"?

You see, God invented the definitions of 'good' and 'bad.' He is the SUPREME being above all the lousy tyrants, despots and governments in the history of this earth. He was there before all time, and thus he was the one to first call something 'good' or 'bad'. In fact, God calls stuff 'good' around six times before the creation of man in Genesis.
God invented the definitions, so without God, there would be no 'good' or 'bad' definitions. But God is technically the definition of 'good' for as a verse somewhere in the Bible says 'God is good.' So if you don't obey God, you aren't following 'good' and as we all have heard from George W. Bush 'If you aren't with us, you're with the terrorists!" (lol) Basically, you're following God (good), or you're not (bad).
Besides, you'd rather obey the masterful, intelligent toy maker, than the much smaller, dumber toys. It's sort of about authority in the end as well, but the fact that God made definitions of 'good' and 'bad' really makes a difference.
but it's up to you in the end.
you could follow the government, but you'd have to face the consequences when you die.
so hence the verse:

'The fool says in his heart, "There is no God."' - Psalm 14:1

 

[Philosoft]

God can throw definitions at whatever he chooses. That doesn't cause you to accept His definitions. You have to independently affirm that, yes, God's definitions are correct, therefore I should adopt them. But you can't do that from within God's definitional system.