What is morality?

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

I have a hard time understanding the concept of morality sometimes. I know that morality is something that exists as either a “logical” or “emotional” world view possessed by human beings- but get confused there. ](*,) People seem to always talk about what the moral or “right” thing to do is- but who decides what is moral?

There are certain things that most agree that, under normal circumstances, are normal- but even then there are disagreements of what constitutes a “normal” circumstance (note- when I say “all” in the following I mean “such a high number that those that the contingent that disagrees is negligible”):

All believe that, under normal circumstances, killing is wrong- however, at what time does killing become ok?

Some say that killing is justified for the defense of you or anyone else being assaulted- while some say that killing is only ok in situations of SELF defense.

Some say that killing for your country is ok- while others say that it depends on the cause, while still others believe that it is unacceptable to participate in war no matter what the cause.

Some say that killing a person known to have a tendency to commit violent or otherwise heinous (rape, for example) acts is acceptable because it helps society as a whole- others say claim such activity is “stooping down to their level”.

Theft is a more agreed upon subject- most agreeing that it’s bad to steal but will have sympathy on you if you have to steal to prevent starvation of you and your family. However, there is some disagreement when it comes to theft from companies- particularly internet based thefts.

Some believe that it’s ok to download music illegally because the $20 they would have paid is insignificant compared to the billions the company rakes in every year- others believe you should pay for ALL music you get unless the band/company distributes it for free.

The same applies to movies, games, books, and just about anything that can be downloaded.

Furthermore, there is disagreement about whether this situation is a form of theft:

You’re at a store, the man behind the counter gives you too much change and you know it. However, instead of telling him, you walk out of the store with the extra money.

Some say that this is the stores fault and therefore not your problem, also that those few dollars won’t really effect the stores business- others would say that walking away without giving him back the extra change is just as bad as stealing directly from the register.

Things get even more befuddled when you get into issues such as prostitution, gambling, gay marriage, pornography, and drugs.

I see nothing wrong with somebody using drugs (even though I don’t for health reasons)- some would say that doing drugs is a blatant disregard for your own life and therefore immoral.

I have no problem with homosexuals. To me they’re just people with a different way of doing things. To some, however, they are an “abomination” and “sinners”.

I see no problem with gambling. It’s your money- do what you want with it. However, some feel, for reasons I’ve never quite understood, that gambling is immoral.

I don’t like pornography myself, I think that it (along with prostitution) should be legal, but thats politics not philosophy. I think it’s quite bizzare really. Most, however, would say that there is no moral problem with it.

I find prostitution to be immoral, and stupid considering the risk of STDs, however, some think that it’s perfectly normal and that there’s nothing wrong with it.

If you’re still reading this thread (which I think I can assume you are) past all my jumbled logic- I would like you to help me clear up what “morality” is. Assuming that such a thing is possible.

2

morality is man’s response to his fear of man

man’s selfish nature wishes to keep his neighbor’s selfishness in check

3

‘Morality’ is the ‘sin’ of ‘Pride’.

‘Morality’ is judgment, the attribution of ‘good’ and ‘bad/evil’ to people and things.
It is the fruit, in Xtian terms, of the ‘original sin’. It’s all ego!

4

Morality is a series of imaginary walls that get built in us in childhood and thereon onwards by our parents and community. After we grow up, we do the same to the next generation. These walls are not erected to keep anything out, so much as to keep ourselves in. While within the walls we feel good about ourselves. When we skip across the walls, we start to feel guilt, and generally shitty about our own selves. It’s how they get’ya!

I really like that. Nice job on this post.

5

Altruism.

6

Might wanna check a dictionary.

7

Huh, never heard anyone suggest that altruism was not moral.

8

Morals are like an unwritten code that each person thinks should govern everyones actions. They hold a set of basic moral rules which usually is in the interest of creating peace…

people jusitify their rules for living in very different ways, as many people want to live differently and have different desires…

The problem with morality is there can always be made exceptions…

A moral argument philosophically is no meatier then the soup du jour…

9

Sadly, this is the case. I believe that people should do whatever they want that doesn’t directly and negatively effect another human being. Let the gays marry, let the potheads smoke, let the sex addicts sleep with hookers, let the pervs watch porn. Stop 'em all from hurting one another and leave 'em all be.

  • bold NOT part of original post. It was added by me to show what specific word of that post I picked out and addressed.
10

i agree that we should not try to inforce morals like drugs or homosexuality is bad, because there is no reason to believe that not doing drugs and not being gay make you somehow normal, “good”, superior, or even more successful at life… The fact is that most societies only promote strong moral ethics as the result of massive support from like people who believe too firmly that their way of thinking is the most right; that everyone else just needs to learn.

Everyone wants not to be hindered by other people… in a working society this is very difficult to achieve…

Usually i describe society as a hamster cage that is too crowded (guess who the hamsters are)… you can envision the ramifications of that for yourself…

My only conclusion thus far is that we must look for the least worst option…

11

Welcome to my world. It is amoral.
‘Altruism’ remains altruism whether you see it as ‘good’ or ‘evil/bad’ (morality) or ‘neither’ (amorality).
‘Altruism’ does not depend on your moral judgements for it’s existence, like a carrot. However you might feel about carrots, they remain, nontheless…

12

Morality is what good people tend to have. Immoral people are bad. When you think about that, and get confused, it’s because you don’t know for sure whether you’re good or bad. Or something like that.

13

Take out the “or something like that” and you have a profound philosophical statement. :banana-dance:

14

No neat little fallaciously tautological category for amoral people? Are we simply caught on the horns of a false dillemna?
(Google; ‘Intellishit’…)

15

You do! But you do not decide what is “legal or illegal”. The government does that. And since the government is made up of people, most of whom are not wise, they will sometimes do this: That which is immoral shall be legal or even sanctioned, and that which is not immoral shall be illegal and even demonized.

Yes. Universal acceptence both morally and written into law.

Drugs are not immoral. If someone is in pain and uses an opiate, that drug is “good”.

Why is homosexuality (e.g. two men giving oral sex to each other) okay, but prostitution (e.g. a heterosexual man recieving oral sex from a female he paid) immoral? Explain?

16

Morality is necessarily a social phenomena. A social group evaluates actions, essentially, by whether or not they strengthen or weaken the group. Altruistic behavior tends to strengthen groups and selfish or parasitic behavior tends to weaken groups, therefor selflessness or altruism is good (moral) and selfishness is bad (immoral).

Why is there an innate sense which favors cooperation with related individuals in a group? The theory is that because groups are stronger than individuals, and related individuals share genes, promoting the group at your own expense will ultimately result in more of your genes being carried on than if you were to act in more of a self interested way.

Of course carrots don’t have the senses necessary to feel right and wrong as humans do (barring some kind of deficiency that is), and that deficiency correctly characterizes them as amoral.

Morality or altruism is simply a successful survival strategy and no more abstract than a sense of hunger. It is true that hunger remains hunger whether you are fed or starving, but it’s better to be fed I think. If you had no sense of hunger you might starve to death and your genes would die with you.

17

Because one way is one consenting adult having sex with another consenting adult. As I’ve stated I think prostitution should be legal- I just don’t like it. It’s not as much “immoral” though that I find it to be as much as I find it, personally, to be perverse and won’t do it. I couldn’t care less what others do.

18

Sorry, not ‘necessarily’ at all. Because there is a roughly general consensus among individuals of a society (there is ‘never’ a complete across the board consensus in any society) is not evidence that it is necessarily a ‘social phenomenon’ at its core. Generally people attribute ‘good’ to whatever makes them comfortable, individually. ‘Bad/evil’ is whatever makes the individual uncomfortable. Pretty simple. Just having like minded people in the same vicinity does not make ‘morality’ necessarily a social phenomenon, necessarily…

True enough, to an extent. Still, see above… not ‘necessarily’.

Any altruistic behavior is by the individual. The ‘society’ in his vicinity is just lucky that he is there. A society does not perform altruistic behavior, and ‘altruism’ has nothing to do with ‘morality’. As a matter of fact, altruism is the diametric opposite of ‘morality’.

How about if the entire group is concentually selfish and paracitic, such as the capitalist society? Amerikkka has, in the past, been far from ‘weak’.

Ehhhh, all depends on the Perspective.

EVOLUTION, not ‘morality’, i would think, has favored basic cooperation with ‘related individuals’ in a group. Survival and propagation is enhanced. The egoPerspectival fantasy of ‘judgement/morality’ is irrelevent here. 'Morality is based on ‘comfort’, not survival. Necessarily.

Right. You speak of ‘evolution’!

They are not interchangeable.
Morality is an egoically prideful judgement of that which you did not create. = Ego/Pride.
Altruism is ‘egoless’ behavior. Ego is the ‘self’ of ‘selfish’ and the ‘self’ of ‘selfless’. = no ego/pride.

I can show you how morality, JUDGEMENT, is less than a sucessful survival ethic. Especially in groups. Like the Nazis. Now, there was a ‘moral’ group! All sorts of judgements going on…
Over 220,000,000 dead in the name of Jesus alone, and those whom the Xtians judged as ‘less’ and ‘heathen’ and ‘lapdogs of satan’ and in need of their superior god blah, blah, blah… There were punishments ingenious for those who did not share their ‘morality’!
‘Judgement’ breeds intolerance, blame, violence, punishment, hate… yeah, all the good stuff of a society.
Sorry, you’re misunderstanding what ‘morality’ and ‘altruism’ are.

19

Guess I wasn’t clear. In the absence of other beings there would be no use for morality, just as, for instance, language would be useless. It may be difficult to imagine an existence with no other beings, indeed the concepts of solitude and society wouldn’t even exist, but it seems pretty straightforward that morality would have no purpose for existing. In such an existence there might still be good/bad feelings or senses which would direct behavior to life sustaining directions. For example, a toxic substance might feel uncomfortable and feeding might feel good. Pretty simple, as you say.

I said that morality or altruism is a successful survival strategy, not an ethic. Your example of the Nazis only supports my case. As a nation they usurped resources from other nations, they weakened the global group of nations, and most significantly they did not survive…

20

Morality is a consequent of self-consciousness of finitude. Immorality is a consequent of acting on the moral impulse. Aesthetics is a consequence of wishing to reshape immorality. The brain police are a consequence of self-conscious, finite moralists acting on impulses.