What really is Morality?

[jon1101]

My questions are who is number 1 in the heart of the enlightened self interested person? and what keeps him from scraping his "enlightened self interest" philosohy when it doesn't appear to be working and adopting a dog eat dog philosophy?

I can only really speak for myself since I'm sure some people have simply abandoned their ethics. I'm compassionate by nature. I could perhaps convince myself intellectually that it's "better" to better myself through the degradation of others, but I think I would be a very unhappy person since I would be forcing myself to act against my nature.

I'm not convinced that I feel compassion due to any great holiness of my own; that would contradict what I know of myself. I believe that God has been changing me for many years and continues to do so. So in effect, I believe God keeps me in line, for the good of others and myself, by changing me to be more compassionate by nature.

-Jon

 

[The Bellman]

The dictionary defines morality as a system of ideas of right and wrong conduct. The problem is one person's idea of right and wrong may be completely different from others. Morality is too fluid. For example, in one part of the world it is wrong for a woman not to wear a burka in public. Here, it is perfectly ok to wear a bikini. So how do we define what is moral and what isn't? Unfortunately people tend to use either political law or religious law to define morality. Depending on your location, those laws could be vastly different from each other and conflicting. You might say the law of God is what defines morality. That depends on who is interpreting it. There is a danger in letting doctrine define morality. Terrorists feel their actions are justified through religious doctrine. One would be a fool not to believe that most people come to completely different conclusions regarding the law of God.

One thing that can't be argued is the law of love. The golden rule. So it would be better if morality would be defined as such. Anything that runs contrary to love would be considered universally immoral. You can also apply this rule to your relationship with God. If you must wear a burka to have a relationship with God then wear a burka. If wearing a bikini doesn't prevent you from having a relationship with God then enjoy the sun.

If the law of love ruled our perception of morality then there would be great changes in the world. Terrorists would realize that their acts are immoral because their actions are hurtful and not loving. There would actually be a reversal in morality in some cases. A same sex committed relationship would not be considered immoral if the law of love was applied to morality. But those who criticize gays and badger them on message boards about their sins would then become the immoral ones for the hurtful things they say.

Does anyone disagree with my theory that the law of love/golden rule should be how we define morality? If you think love is not the answer then how do you feel morality should be defined?

Thanks,
Brian

Firstly, I would dispute the statement that "One thing that can't be argued is the law of love". It's merely your opinion that that's correct. It can easily be argued.

The second thing I would dispute is the idea that the "law of love" leads to the golden rule. Whatever the "law of love" is supposed to mean, I don't see where it has anything to do with the golden rule. At its heart, the golden rule is selfish - act to others the way you want to be acted towards. Not 'act to others the wya you think they should be acted towards', but act the way YOU want to be acted towards. It's completely selfish in origin.

Having said that, I'm not criticising the golden rule - I think it's a great basis for a morality and a society. But let's not put any 'love' basis on it that doesn't need to be there.