Thread: Morality and its source

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.