Morality and its source

**TexasBob** · 12-09-2009, 03:44 PM

Originally Posted by 0livia

the individual situation?

For example, most would agree that killing is morally wrong, but take a look at the thread: Talk about a scary night... - Badger & Blade.

Killing in that instance was justified but it wasn't a matter of someone's moral compass changing. It was the situation that made the difference.

**TexasBob** · 12-09-2009, 03:49 PM

Originally Posted by Stubear

I agree. I think there is a core of morality, such as do not kill, dont steal or hurt others. But they are more individual, do as you would be done by type things.

The morals of society do change though. Look at the treatment of criminals for example, and how divided people are about that.

This is more a matter of disagreement over *what* is moral, not disagreement about *if* there is a morally correct position.

I also think its quite telling how people change when the normal rules of society are removed.

But would they deep down believe they were doing the morally correct things? That's closer to the real question.

**Stubear** · 12-09-2009, 03:55 PM

Originally Posted by TexasBob

This is more a matter of disagreement over *what* is moral, not disagreement about *if* there is a morally correct position.

But would they deep down believe they were doing the morally correct things? That's closer to the real question.

I cant really answer as to what is moral. Basically I believe in treating others how you want to be treated. I guess thats it in a nutshell!

I think those people know what they are doing is morally wrong, but they do it anyway because they believe there is a lower chance of being caught and facing any punishment and theres no one there to stop them. The desire to commit the act outweighs the morality of the situation, and outweighs any fear of punishment.

**Seraphim** · 12-09-2009, 03:58 PM

Not having morality "fixed" by an outside source, such as religion leaves the setting of morality to an individual or society.

So, for cannibals in New Guinea, I suppose it was entirely morally acceptable to kill and eat your enemies. No problemo.

**TexasBob** · 12-09-2009, 04:00 PM

Originally Posted by Stubear

The desire to commit the act outweighs the morality of the situation...

That's my point -- there is a morality to be outweighed and, although not critical to the point, those taking the action know it.

Therefore it is not a case of morality changing due to the situation (or which way the wind is blowing).

**TexasBob** · 12-09-2009, 04:04 PM

Originally Posted by Seraphim

Not having morality "fixed" by an outside source, such as religion leaves the setting of morality to an individual or society.

So, for cannibals in New Guinea, I suppose it was entirely morally acceptable to kill and eat your enemies. No problemo.

That is a case of arguing something must be true or the consequences would be undesirable. Well, maybe the consequences *are* undesirable!

But it doesn't mean we must agree with the cannibals' version of morality. We are free to believe they are simply wrong. People can be wrong about a lot of things but it doesn't change the things they are wrong about.

**Slartibartfast** · 12-09-2009, 04:06 PM

Which part was immoral, the killing or the eating? Because all societies seem to enjoy killing their enemies.

YouTube - Conan, what is best in life?

**Seraphim** · 12-09-2009, 04:07 PM

Originally Posted by TexasBob

That is a case of arguing something must be true or the consequences would be undesirable. Well, maybe the consequences *are* undesirable!

But it doesn't mean we must agree with the cannibals' version of morality. We are free to believe they are simply wrong. People can be wrong about a lot of things but it doesn't change the things they are wrong about.

What makes you think that they are wrong???

**gregs656** · 12-09-2009, 04:08 PM

Originally Posted by TexasBob

I think there needs to be some foundation that is unchanging. This doesn't mean that your actions cannot be based on the situation or your level of understanding or maturity.

But, if morality is completely arbitrary it is a useless concept. (Some may agree with this.) if the compass changes with the wind, what makes it a "moral" compass? So the question is, is there really a core morality or are we simply organisms that react to pain, pleasure, hunger, etc. (as the wind blows).

Some would say that religion has (literally) "saved" us from this. Others would say we have evolved to a higher plane.

If morality is NOT completely arbitrary, what is the non-arbitrary part?

EDIT: With my very first sentence above: "I think there needs to be some foundation that is unchanging" I am not committing the fallacy I mentioned in an earlier post by arguing that we need an unchanging core morality (so there must be one), but that the definition of morality must include an unchanging core or it is not a good definition, as outlined (I hope) in the rest of my post.

I think what I mean is that it is entirely possible for you to be able to morally justify actions or thoughts at certain times, but not at others.

Basically I think there is a lot of grey when it comes to morals. Nothing is black and white. That is because every situation is unique, and there are not many things that cannot be justified, by some one some where.

Basic right and wrong is fine, I guess that is your moral compass if you like. If for what ever reason you see nothing wrong with murder in any circumstance, I would say you were an immoral person, for example. There is nothing to stop your perception of right and wrong changing though. It must happen to each of us all the time and we don't even realize it.

**TexasBob** · 12-09-2009, 04:08 PM

Originally Posted by Seraphim

What makes you think that they are wrong???

I'm not saying they are. That would be a different discussion.

Thread: Morality and its source

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Display

Posting Permissions