Who decides what is Moral? (1757 views, 112 replies)

If morality is a matter of personal opinion...then your opinion is no better than your neighbor's. What if he/she/ believes differently than you...who is right? Does the majority make a consensus? Does that mean that Morality changes...over time? Is there an absolute moralty? Is it neccessary, to be effective? Should Morality be a definition outside of the majority opinion? Can morality by majority mean anything? Tell me.

Morality by majority essentially makes one a slave incapable of thinking or acting for themselves.

If morality is a matter of personal opinion then everyone is moral in their own right and everyone else is amoral...

Morality (from Latin: moralis, lit. 'manner, character, proper behavior') is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper and those that are improper.
Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal.
Morality may also be specifically synonymous with "goodness" or "rightness".

Moral philosophy includes moral ontology, which is the origin of morals; and moral epistemology, which studies the knowledge of morals.
Different systems of expressing morality have been proposed, including deontological ethical systems which adhere to a set of established rules, and normative ethical systems which consider the merits of actions themselves.
... An example of normative ethical philosophy is the Golden Rule, which states that: "One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself."

Immorality is the active opposition to morality (i.e. opposition to that which is good or right), while amorality is variously defined as an unawareness of, indifference toward, or disbelief in any particular set of moral standards or principles...

SOome could say downloading and sharing movies is amoral, or moral...
The arguments could go both ways forever an never come to an agreed conclusion...

Morals are a set of recognized rules, like not killing, raping, or pillaging yet there are always going to be those that flaunt the rules as if they are above them

all in all Morality is a double standard where one follows another refuses
Read moreLess

ok, I love bacon. I could eat bacon all day but to a Muslim, I am now unclean I have committed an immoral act and offended Allah...

I hate Trump... now I've pissed off a few of his supporters...

Let us say I am an Athiest *I'm not* now I've pissed off theists...


no matter how I think I piss off someone, and if I don't think or care, well that pisses people off too


There is not any Justice, no Truth, no Morality... Your f**ked no matter what

absolute honesty can get you in trouble too, my major was in religious studies philosophy, morals, and metaphysics...

then I got hit by a drunk driver in a stolen car, my pelvis was crushed, my left leg shattered, 7 ribs broke and a fractured spine

I sit here making dream catchers, watching movies and playing games because I can't work... some call me immoral and lazy

yeah I can be depressive and gloomy at times

Jesus...I'd be worse than gloomy...I'd probably be like the unabomber...striking out at an unfair world from my home. Maybe I'd mail anthrax. I'm sure I wouldn't be the sometimes cheerful person that I am. As for absolute honesty getting you in trouble..that's ok...not a problem. That's what I'm looking for. A univerasal agreement that SOMETHING is an absolute. And I believe it may be honesty. Thanks to you.

instead of worrying about morals try worrying about living by saying a personal code of honor.. rules of a good nature you refuse to break

My only response can be found in and between these two quotes.

It's complicated, but @Ravenbluefeather is correct, people "judge" and remain behind the letter of unjust laws and call themselves moral many times when they are actually quite willingly ignorant of the true nature of a situation or situations or they live in FEAR. Without those who step outside these unjust laws, there would never be any justice... or it would be quite scare. I do believe the world is at that stage, where true justice is scant.

Thanks for the thread. :)

You and ravenbluefeather have skipped over the question that I started with... "If morality is a matter of personal opinion...then your opinion is no better than your neighbor's. What if he/she/ believes differently than you...who is right? Does the majority make a consensus?" ....Personal morality is useless as a guide, or an authority.

no one and everyone is right or wrong

Where Does Morality Come From?

What is it

School teachers, preachers, parents, and even a few philosophers often claim to be authorities on the dictates of morality. But where does morality really come from? From society’s customs? From God’s commandments? From the cold, impersonal commandments of pure reason? Or from human emotions and sentiments? Join John as Ken as they explore the meaning and origins of morality with Alex Miller from the University of Birmingham
Listening Notes

John begins by asking Ken where morality can possibly originate, and Ken describes one of the most common theories of morality: what God says is right is right, and what God says is wrong is wrong. John relates this to one of Plato's early dialogues, and wonders whether what is right is right because God makes it right, or because God recognizes that there is something about it that makes it right? Ken suggests that social conventions and human psychology could be an alternative origin for morality, but John points out that the same paradox applies: does society cause certain actions to be right or wrong, or does it just recognize the right-ness or wrong-ness of actions? Of course, sometimes societies are wrong, they justify slavery and allow the mistreatment of women, and this creates a whole new set of problems for John and Ken, who ultimately conclude that moral relativism has serious flaws, and these injustices are truly wrong. But this insistence on absolute moral truths brings them back to the original question!
...
In order to help them along, Ken introduces Alex Miller, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Birmingham, and author of An Introduction to Contemporary Metaethics, and excellent introductory text on the subject. John begins by asking Alex what it says about morality that people are constantly arguing about its nature and origins. Alex thinks this might show that there is not really a fact of the matter concerning morality, just like an opinion about the tastiest ice cream is subjective, so too ideas about morality might not be based on any fact of the matter. On the other hand, Alex also suggests all the disagreement might indicate that morality is really a very complex issue that requires the consideration of many different disciplines and factors to resolve--maybe there is a fact of the matter but it just can't be found easily from the armchair! John, Ken, and Alex all agree that the second possibility is more likely, and the great variety of moral disagreements are indicative of the very difficult nature of the subject. John points out that there are some moral questions which are easy to agree on, are these possibly universal, or are they just easy? Alex thinks moral agreement can be even more confusing than disagreement, because the same moral principle can be justified in many ways. Is one justification more apt or correct than another? Does the justification matter, or is only the conclusion important?

Even though Alex proclaims he has no worked out moral theory of his own, Ken asks him if deep down he thinks there are objective moral truths, and if he had to justify them what he might argue. Alex relates his position to the great philosopher Bertrand Russell, who could not argue for objective moral truths, but realized as soon as he thought un-philosophically that there were obviously moral right and wrongs in the real world. Alex thinks that ultimately moral truths are related to the actions and the consequences of these actions that they support. John compares Alex's view to Hume and Kant, and wonders: what is more important, feelings about actions or the effects they really have in the world? Ken tries to describe the difference between morality and ethics, and then tries to cast morality in terms of approval and disapproval, is there really anything more to morality than just social agreement and disagreement on what it is right to do? This leads the discussion towards the connection between moral judgments and moral actions--we all know those who make a lot of moral judgments but do not act on them, or do not live by them themselves.

John, Ken, and Alex continue to take calls and emails concerning the status of moral truths, how to recognize a moral truth if you stumble upon one, and whether or not the origins of moral truths are justified as long as they ultimately lead to positive actions.
Read moreLess

Is morality like the laws of physics, ironclad dicta from nature? Or is morality like language, where there is no “right answer” but different languages that different groups of people speak?

These are eternal questions with many answers. They have been intensely debated, from Aristotle to Kant to a bunch of college students in discussion at 5 AM when we all should have been studying. Today, much of the discourse is centered around the two most well-known paradigms: classical theism and atheism (see the glossary for a definition of all terms in italics). The journey in this article, reflecting my own journey, attempts to cast off prejudices and seek the truth.

Before starting the journey, let us assume that the actions of Nazi Germany in the Holocaust were “wrong.” Although this is often cited as a prototypical example of what is “wrong,” it does not answer the question of what “wrong” really means, nor does it explain where “wrong” comes from. This is what I seek to do in this article.
...
For many years, the theistic moral paradigm, derived from the Judeo-Christian tradition in particular, has been dominant in the canon of the West. Classically, morality is decreed by a supreme deity — that is, it exists as a law in the same sense as the laws of physics. Much as the laws of physics follow from experiment, the laws of morality follow from interpretation of the canonical texts of the Bible and the Gospels.

However, as a result of human free will, morality has an important difference with physical laws. While it is impossible to violate the laws of nature, humans can violate moral laws. Although the law of gravity prevents us from jumping to the moon, we may choose whether to follow moral laws. However, by the theist tradition those traditions will be judged decisions in worlds to come.

Centrally, classical theism is universalist. In a universalist moral scheme, if two people have different opinions about the morality of an action, both cannot be right — there’s only one right answer. Similarly, if two cultures have different standards for morality, both cannot be correct (in fact, maybe both are incorrect!). This is just as if two people calculate the gravitational force between two objects differently: only one person can be correct, because there is only one answer.

The theist view is often critiqued for being irreconcilable with science. In return, backers of classical theism will attempt to reconcile it with science, often successfully. For argument’s sake, this article will accept that classical theism may be reconciled with science; however, there are other key weaknesses of classical theism.

Man has discovered scientifically observable, testable, and replicable explanations for many physical phenomena, ranging from gravity to genetics. In the case of gravity, our knowledge has progressed from an abstract sense of a force causing things to drop, to a simple mathematical formula given by Newton, to a better understanding of quantum and relativistic effects of gravity.

Moral laws cannot be tested in this sense. In the classical theist paradigm, moral laws result solely from the reading of one holy text. There are three major holy texts for Abrahamic theists: the Old Testament, the New Testament, and the Koran. However, universalism decrees that, when they conflict on morality, they can’t all be right! In classical theism, most people rely on the text that they have been taught from birth, but why should one accept blindly that the text that they are born with is correct and the others are wrong? Blind acceptance does not do anything to help humankind. Had Copernicus merely accepted that the universe rotated around the Earth, had the Founding Fathers accepted the political state of affairs in Colonial America, the physical and mental condition of mankind would be far worse. Moreover, the concept that one believes something just because their parents believe something is to me repulsive: one of the fundamental and good principles of our society is that one should be able to set a totally divergent course from his or her parents if he or she chooses, in order to lead a better life. Any religion that teaches blind acceptance of a tradition just because of parental belief is at loggerheads with this principle.

This is certainly not to say that the Old Testament, the New Testament, and the Koran are without moral worth. The teachings of the prophets and their moral principles are certainly worth understanding and, perhaps, if observations of the world indicate that they lead to good ends, worth following. However, it would be necessary to understand why they lead to good ends,
Read moreLess

as i said before there is no answer it's all subjective on what you personally agree with

start with ba simp-le law most religions and people can agree on as being moral

all religions have 1 law in common with the law of men
DO NOT KILL ANOTHER HUMAN
outside of self-defense of yourself or a loved one 98% will not go on a murder spree tonight as we think it to be an immoral act and we would not want moral or legal repercussions...

Yet there are a few that will kill with no moral sense, Dalmer, Jack the Ripper,... yet each believed his morals to be legitimate and valid

who created this law not to go around hurting and killing others?
Religion? Man? the law is a moral and vice versa.. you kill and you goto jail

(from Hamlet, spoken by Hamlet)

To be, or not to be, that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles
And by opposing end them. To die—to sleep,
No more; and by a sleep to say we end
The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to: 'tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep;
To sleep, perchance to dream—ay, there's the rub:
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come,
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause—there's the respect
That makes calamity of so long life.
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
Th'oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely,
The pangs of dispriz'd love, the law's delay,
The insolence of office, and the spurns
That patient merit of th'unworthy takes,
When he himself might his quietus make
With a bare bodkin? Who would fardels bear,
... To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscovere'd country, from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will,
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all,
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprises of great pitch and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry
And lose the name of action.


By William Shakespeare
Read moreLess

No one but ourselves.

An individual decides their own morals. They are however influenced a great deal by the morals of those they respect and or the ideals of the society they live in.

And in cases like the Civil War, since the North,and Lincoln, brought the ruin of the South,destitution,starvation, "carpet baggers"to steal Southern homes and land, and such chaos, that someone finally shot Lincoln for it.--right or not right, it had a price on it.the price was also that to this day, black people still hate whites here, and southerners hate the Fed and the North.So, yes, the North won the war--but at a very high price.

My two pennies worth.
Morality is a state of mind. Most commonly shared with people from the same region. Law should not be confused with morality. Both Laws and morality change. Not always together.
There is no such thing as an absolute, there never can be. The whole universe is in flux, it is dynamic, forever changing. An absolute requires no change.

I do and you're all banned !


...obviously that's a joke, for anyone who missed the humour there. haha

P.S. When some one says they are an 'Expert'? That is a worry. Experts don't talk about what they do, they just do. If your lucky, you might learn from one.
I have met a couple in my life. Learned heaps.

So where is the morality in taking a cheap dig at a self professed 'Expert'

"It's... 'Brain vs Brain' in our latest episode of 'Whose Morality Is It Anyways?'"...

"Who decides what is Moral?"

I Do! It is my morality!

I have no objection to being called "Pet". Have been called that by a few women in the Yorkshire area. Usually with a nice cuppa and biscuits. It's more the biscuits. When you want to bribe for work done, to keep the bill down.
Nice ones. Your 'moral correct' oat meal digestive just will not cut the mustard.
Bribing a worker with good biscuits? Is that moral?

First. I am not a 'hooker' Skilled workman. Fix stuff that doesn't work proper.
I have never payed a person for sex. Usually takes a few dates and tales to see if we like each other enough to be that intimate.
And yes. I do the best job I can.
Tea and biscuits are a huge bonus.

Any job done by a professional has a 40% on price. To cover travel, office and records. Not to mention the price of proper replacements to your woes. You are paying for the whole employment.
Unless you know someone that can get from manufacturer and install.

Your paying for experts!!

"I'm an expert"

That made me spit my coffee all over the keyboard. We're all experts in our own mind.

If you say so. I mean, you are the "expert".

So.... No consensus? If we can't agree on who decides what is moral...let's tackle THIS one... Is there an ABSOLUTE morality? Or even an absolute MORAL.. ONE. JUst ONE...One rule, or set of rules that apply to EVERYONE? Such as...."Thou shalt not bear false witness". If that applies...does " "Thou shalt not murder" also apply? If any Morals are absolute, what are they? I haven't seen any morals that we all agree on, so I have to assume that there ARE no morals. That we are moralless creatures.

i refuse any more comments on anything on pain of being banned.--on anything.