What really is Morality?

[truthquest]

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

 

[Volos]

you summed up Neo-Pagan ethics rather well here.

 

[repentandbelieve]

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

I agree with what you said, the law of love needs to be the foundation of how morality is defined. When it is its consistant with what Jesus taught.

However, in order to follow what Jesus said to "love thy neigbor as thyself" we need to have a clearer understanding of what He meant by the word "love".

There is one big problem. And that is that the human heart "loves" sin. Friend, thats both your heart and my heart. We both have "heart trouble".

In defining morals the human heart cannot be trusted.

 

[TrueQ]

While I do agree with that totally. I'd like to caution it won't necessarily lead to peace and tranquility, since some people want some pretty exotic things done to them.

 

[repentandbelieve]

While I do agree with that totally. I'd like to caution it won't necessarily lead to peace and tranquility, since some people want some pretty exotic things done to them.

That what I'm trying to say. The problem with basing morality on love is that the human heart loves sin.
Truthquest used the term "law of love". Who's law? God law is safe to base morality on because God does not love sin. He loves sinners , but not the sin.

 

[P4g4nite]

How about another problem being that love is not even a universal consistancy??
In other cultures
love=lust
love=duty
love=marrige
etc.
This rhetoric that is theoretically perfect hardly applies to all humanity.

 

[repentandbelieve]

How about another problem being that love is not even a universal consistancy??
In other cultures
love=lust
love=duty
love=marrige
etc.
This rhetoric that is theoretically perfect hardly applies to all humanity.

Thats true. The term "love" is used too loosely. I used to think that loved mexican food until I tasted the love of God. Then I got a whole new perspective of what the word love means. Sometimes "love" can be tough, "tough love'' may not appear like love at all in the eyes of a person who doesn't know God.

 

[truthquest]

What I meant by love is treat others kindly, help those who need help, put the needs of others before yourself. The kind of love Jesus was talking about. I'm not talking about subjecting others to strange desires just because you might happen to love those desires yourself.

 

[Eudaimonist]

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?

I don't object to love as such, but I think morality should be founded in an ethical philosophy that sees the good life as a rational life aimed at personal flourishing. I suppose one might experience the practice of such a way of life as loving, which is fine, but that's not how morality would be "defined".

 

[repentandbelieve]

I don't object to love as such, but I think morality should be founded in an ethical philosophy that sees the good life as a rational life aimed at personal flourishing. I suppose one might experience the practice of such a way of life as loving, which is fine, but that's not how morality would be "defined".

When morals are aimed at "personal flourishing" the result is a selfish society. It would lead to a type of society where each individual is "looking out for number one".

In defining morality keep in mind that there is good morality and there is or bad morality. Morality is simply a code of ethics/principles that either an individual person or society deems as an acceptable standard to live by.

Good morality must be based on what is right, fair and just for everyone, not just me flourishing personally.

 

[Captain_Scott]

you are correct repentandbleieve, man cannot set the moral law because mans heart is sinful. So no man can set morality because truth and morality will always fall before raw power. Whnever a society moves away from a fixed truth then you have to find out whos gonna make the rules? and as ive stated before morality will fall before power. Hitler dide it, pol pot did it, stalin did it, sadam insane did it...we have to know the moral law giver, we have ot know Christ (who was and is God. God in a bod) If one does not know the moral law giver then they have no sourse for determining that theres something right about this or wrong about that. Because there diffinition would be diffrent from somone else. Look at hitler! he thought it was perfectly ok to kill all those people. WE would say that is wrong but he says its right, Whos right? Thats the problem with saying that we all have a sence of morality, or saying that god give us it because god is a loose general term. there is one God who gives the moral law and that is Jesus Christ!

God bless you!

 

[jon1101]

When morals are aimed at "personal flourishing" the result is a selfish society. It would lead to a type of society where each individual is "looking out for number one".

In defining morality keep in mind that there is good morality and there is or bad morality. Morality is simply a code of ethics/principles that either an individual person or society deems as an acceptable standard to live by.

Good morality must be based on what is right, fair and just for everyone, not just me flourishing personally.

That's where enlightened self-interest comes in. I wish to live a life of personal flourishing, but I realize that compassion is required if we're going to live in a healthy, happy society.Thus, I try and make it a point to treat the pain of others as a stimulus for action. By looking out for others, we all help create a society in which individuals may all flourish to the degree which we are living compassionately.

Some people may call this selfish since I am trying to bring about a state of personal flourishing for myself, but I guess I would argue that I'm irrevocably a self. I cannot escape that. What I can do is understand that no one will be happy if I act towards the detriment of others for personal gain, myself included, and choose to better myself by bettering others.

-Jon

 

[repentandbelieve]

That's where enlightened self-interest comes in. I wish to live a life of personal flourishing, but I realize that compassion is required if we're going to live in a healthy, happy society.Thus, I try and make it a point to treat the pain of others as a stimulus for action. By looking out for others, we all help create a society in which individuals may all flourish to the degree which we are living compassionately.

Some people may call this selfish since I am trying to bring about a state of personal flourishing for myself, but I guess I would argue that I'm irrevocably a self. I cannot escape that. What I can do is understand that no one will be happy if I act towards the detriment of others for personal gain, myself included, and choose to better myself by bettering others.

-Jon

I'm sorry Jon, I'm unable to understand what you said. It all seems like philosophical babble to me.

 

[jon1101]

I'm sorry Jon, I'm unable to understand what you said. It all seems like philosophical babble to me.

My basic position is that, while I as an individual do want to flourish, it takes compassion to get there. This is the difference between what we call selfishness and "enlightened self interest." A selfish person acts with only his or herself in mind. On the other hand, the principle of enlightened self interest dictates that the way to effectively better oneself is to act with everyone's interests in mind, which means it's best to show compassion for others while we also try and better ourselves. In other words, I seek to flourish by not only taking care of myself, but also by helping and serving others. It's really quite Christian.

Matthew 20:25-28
Jesus called them together and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave-- just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

Matthew 23:11-12 (Jesus speaking)
"The greatest among you will be your servant. For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted."

 

[Něco hrubého oprýskaného 1]

Double post.

 

[The Midge]

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

We are living in a time of change. Postmodernism: where everthing is relative and being deconstructed and ecclectism rules. The Information Revolution: where we are being exposed to an unprecedented level of new ideas. The technology age: when are ability to manipulate the world in which we live at any number of levels is advancing faster than ever before.

It is small wonder we are as societies confused as to what is right and wrong. What we do will have consequences and we will eventually see what is right and wrong. Cultural cohesion has broken down and the norms that define our behaviour are being redefined. When the dust settles then we will be able to see what works and what doesn't and what the definitions of the new rules will be. Then there will be new ways of applying old principles in what ever the context will be.

The sad thing for those of us who are convinced that morality is revealed to us by God is that there will be a time of reaping what we sow before we realise that some of our liberated actions are wrong and harmful. This happened to Isreal who went through God's judgment in the times of the prophets. If what the Bible teaches is true (and perhaps our present course is one form of experimentation to see if it is) the we can expect a time of judgement and desolation before we learn where we have gone wrong. If so then things will get worse before hey get better.

At present I am not wise enough to know with any degree of certainty is gay marriages, free trade or burkas are going to be the new equilibrium or even right.

 

[Něco hrubého oprýskaného 1]

For simplicity, I usually regard morality as an individual's inherent or learned understanding of wrong and right conduct, or how he/she behaves when no one is watching. Everyone has a different personal morality to start with.

Ideology (or a worldview, or a belief system), on the other hand, is "morality" on a social level. It can give each of us a transcendental bond...a common morality. A system of ethics for a group of people that explains how they should interact with one another.

Christianity, for example, is a belief system. A social morality that many people can share (and often judge others by). I also believe that there are some individual moral guidelines in the Bible as well, hinted at by Jesus.

Ideologies can be forced on people, but they're probably more effective if self-imposed.

 

[repentandbelieve]

My basic position is that, while I as an individual do want to flourish, it takes compassion to get there. This is the difference between what we call selfishness and "enlightened self interest." A selfish person acts with only his or herself in mind. On the other hand, the principle of enlightened self interest dictates that the way to effectively better oneself is to act with everyone's interests in mind, which means it's best to show compassion for others while we also try and better ourselves. In other words, I seek to flourish by not only taking care of myself, but also by helping and serving others. It's really quite Christian.

Matthew 20:25-28
Jesus called them together and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave-- just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

Matthew 23:11-12 (Jesus speaking)
"The greatest among you will be your servant. For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted."

Thanks for explaining again, in different words, what is meant by the term "enlightened self interest". It helped me understand better how someone could say it's consistant to Christianity.

A Christians ultimate purpose and goal is to glorify God. In working toward this objective he hopes and believes that his personal life will flourish. But if his sole purpose for glorifying God is for personal gain God will know it. Blessings may be witheld, and the heart may be tested. If love for God is supreme he will recieve strength from above and endure whatever test or trials God allows him to experience and remain faithful to what he believes in (as Job did).

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?

 

[transientlife]

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.

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

I agree for the most part. The golden rule should be the foundation of all morality and ethics - religious and secular.

 

[repentandbelieve]

We are living in a time of change. Postmodernism: where everthing is relative and being deconstructed and ecclectism rules. The Information Revolution: where we are being exposed to an unprecedented level of new ideas. The technology age: when are ability to manipulate the world in which we live at any number of levels is advancing faster than ever before.

It is small wonder we are as societies confused as to what is right and wrong. What we do will have consequences and we will eventually see what is right and wrong. Cultural cohesion has broken down and the norms that define our behaviour are being redefined. When the dust settles then we will be able to see what works and what doesn't and what the definitions of the new rules will be. Then there will be new ways of applying old principles in what ever the context will be.

The sad thing for those of us who are convinced that morality is revealed to us by God is that there will be a time of reaping what we sow before we realise that some of our liberated actions are wrong and harmful. This happened to Isreal who went through God's judgment in the times of the prophets. If what the Bible teaches is true (and perhaps our present course is one form of experimentation to see if it is) the we can expect a time of judgement and desolation before we learn where we have gone wrong. If so then things will get worse before hey get better.

At present I am not wise enough to know with any degree of certainty is gay marriages, free trade or burkas are going to be the new equilibrium or even right.

It grieves me to see the things that are happening in the world around us. At the same time I not surprised by them because I know these things must come to pass because it is written. I'm praying for either a revival or for Jesus to come soon