What is Morality?

[Lee]

I have been reading many arguments and posts recently that revolve around what is right and what is wrong, to me these arguments are like two people arguing over what fruit tastes best, apples or bananas, everyone has thier own subjective interpretation of taste and therefore any argument will lead nowhere, it will only flare up hostilities. You could say that I am reluctantly a moral relativist, although I do behave in a moral manner in day to day life.

I am simply starting this thread to see what people think of morality, immorality or even *gulp* amorality.

Well, morality, what is it to you?

[CapnEnnui]

My philosophy is that it's just emotion. Most moral things are things that make people feel good or benefit people, most immoral things are things that make people feel bad or are detrimental. So it's highly subjective and almost always personal. That's my idea, at least...

[Shai Gar]

i am amoral, i cannot accurately state morality

[Architectonic]

Its the art of drawing subjective lines between "right" and "wrong".

Most humans haven't yet discovered the meaning and purpose of life, so maybe its a bit too much to expect them to have developed a consistent system of morality.

[Trolsk]

Morality is a guide-line to proper living; partly subjective, partly objective.

[Architectonic]

Morality is a guide-line to proper living;

Yes, definitely. But how do you form these moral guidelines? Where do you draw the grey squiggly line? Who is to say it is right or wrong at all?

Well you can actually form a completely objective system of morality. Until concepts like empathy and what is humanity/self/life get in the way.... That's even if you get past the meaning and purpose of life question.

I guess at this point, its kind of obvious why some people are led to the concept of god.

[Lee]

My philosophy is that it's just emotion. Most moral things are things that make people feel good or benefit people, most immoral things are things that make people feel bad or are detrimental. So it's highly subjective and almost always personal. That's my idea, at least...People regulary commit acts of cruelty or vindictiveness in the persuit of morality, especially when vengeance is thier goal. Can "things" be immoral? usually people accept that immorality requires intent to act immorally.



I am amoral, I cannot accurately state moralityMaybe you are in the best position, provided there is such thing as amorality, is it not just another form or standard of morality?



Its the art of drawing subjective lines between "right" and "wrong".

Most humans haven't yet discovered the meaning and purpose of life, so maybe its a bit too much to expect them to have developed a consistent system of morality.How can you presume there is such a thing as right or wrong to begin with, does the universe contain an inherent capacity to act as a moral barometer?. Secondly, is a consistent morality more "right" than an inconsistent one? how would you reach this conclusion?

oh, and who are these humans who have discovered the meaning of life?



Morality is a guide-line to proper living; partly subjective, partly objective.To say that morality is a guide-line to proper living simply explains one subjective belief with another subjective belief. If I take your answer as "proper living" I now ask the question, What is proper living? on a second note, which part of morality is objective, can you give an example?

[Thermo]

I think of morality in these terms.

Lets suppose person A has X and person B wants it. What does he do about it?

A moral person will respect person A's right to have X, because of respect for authority, religion or some other socially contrived reason.

The intelligent amoral person isn't hindered from stealing by morality so he could theoritically steal X or kill person A and take X. However, the amoral intelligent person in society is prevented from stealing by a fear of punishment by some government organization and the low risk to reward prospect. This is really all that stops me from robbing banks. ;)

The unintelligent amoral person is a criminal who would actually steal or rob.

[Architectonic]

How can you presume there is such a thing as right or wrong to begin with, does the universe contain an inherent capacity to act as a moral barometer?. Secondly, is a consistent morality more "right" than an inconsistent one? how would you reach this conclusion?

oh, and who are these humans who have discovered the meaning of life?


There certainly is such a thing as right and wrong, the question is to whom. Now I believe (in my humble, although potentially egotistical opinion, simply because I am human) that a system of morality should be of benefit to humanity as a whole. (which also extends to everything we ever come in contact with, but thats a whole nother topic) That is, its a system of guidelines; (for proper living ;) ) "right" is what benefits humanity the most and "wrong" is what hurts humanity the most. There will of course be many issues that fall somewhere in the middle, around the grey squiggly line. One of the issues which prevents the construction a perfect system is of course ignorance. It is impossible to weigh the pros and cons of each situation to absolute perfection - and that is something that can be improved, but not avoided completely.

Now a consistent system is most certainly more "right" than an inconsistent one. To judge XXXX to be immoral and not YYYY when it is virtually the same thing is not my idea of a constructive and workable system. That is not to say that the system will/can not be somewhat complex, and the morality of a given situation will of course be situational.

The meaning and purpose of life, along with morality is subjective. (so it follows that there will be people who believe they have found this meaning)
I happen to also like using most and all synonymously. ;)

[mgb]

I believe that few amoral people truly exist. They act without knowing what is right and what is wrong. Most people know and understand the difference. Which is why morals are subjective at all. Morals are the product of a community, in most cases, the morals we live by are pretty much universal from community to community through the ages. There might be a difference of opinion here and there, but for the most part moral systems are the contract that binds groups of people together.

The moral person follows the rules. The immoral person breaks them. The amoral person has no clue the rules exist and is often loosely bound to the community (think a developmently challenged individual).

[Trolsk]

What is proper living?
Proper living strives to ensure the survival of the species.


on a second note, which part of morality is objective, can you give an example?
The objective part is biological, on behalf of us being a flock species. It's glue, a binding strategy and so on.

[Trolsk]

Yes, definitely. But how do you form these moral guidelines? Where do you draw the grey squiggly line? Who is to say it is right or wrong at all?
Consequence, experience. The right-or-wrong issue is better placed on the (dimensionally reduced) scale: working (and improving) -> not working.


Well you can actually form a completely objective system of morality. Until concepts like empathy and what is humanity/self/life get in the way....
How does empathy get in the way of a moral system?

[floid]

Yes, definitely. But how do you form these moral guidelines? Where do you draw the grey squiggly line? Who is to say it is right or wrong at all?

Well you can actually form a completely objective system of morality. Until concepts like empathy and what is humanity/self/life get in the way.... That's even if you get past the meaning and purpose of life question.

I guess at this point, its kind of obvious why some people are led to the concept of god.

There is codified morality normally referred to as law which is a representation of the collective moralistic assumptions of the most politcally powerful group(s) in a society.

Then there is inner morality, the real thing, which is nothing more than the ability to generally extrapolate that if one does not enjoy pain oneself then it is probable that others also do not and then act upon that logical assumption by not hurting others.

[Architectonic]

There is codified morality normally referred to as law which is a representation of the collective moralistic assumptions of the most politcally powerful group(s) in a society.

I'd agree with that.

Unfortunately, the codified morality is not always definitive/objective/consistent though. (based on the many inefficiencies of the legal system) (no offence to any law practitioners here)



Then there is inner morality, the real thing, which is nothing more than the ability to generally extrapolate that if one does not enjoy pain oneself then it is probable that others also do not and then act upon that logical assumption by not hurting others.

That is not really morality though. It can be a part of it however.


How does empathy get in the way of a moral system?

Think about the many suggested "moral systems" and the consequences of these systems. It doesn't necessarily get in the way, but it does make things more complex.

[tragula]

I believe that it's possible to have an intellectual basis for morality--that life has the ability to change the universe in creative ways, and therefore needs to be respected.

But on a much more practical level I believe morality is insinctual:

http://www.stlawrenceinstitute.org/vol14and.html

[songbird36]

Morality is an intellectual function not an instinctual one. Have you ever seen Hohfeld's moral pyramid structure for society? Most people are at the lower levels (obey morals/laws to avoid sanctions).

There tends to be a strong correlation between intelligence level and moral consciousness.

[Lee]

Morality is an intellectual function not an instinctual one. Have you ever seen Hohfeld's moral pyramid structure for society? Most people are at the lower levels (obey morals/laws to avoid sanctions).

There tends to be a strong correlation between intelligence level and moral consciousness.
See, I totally disagree with this, morality is completely instinctual, it has it's roots in our emotional reaction to events, what could possibly be more instinctual than emotion.

Although I must say, I know nothing of this moral pyramid of Hohfeld's, i'll look into it :)

[meshou]

See, I totally disagree with this, morality is completely instinctual, it has it's roots in our emotional reaction to events, what could possibly be more instinctual than emotion.

Although I must say, I know nothing of this moral pyramid of Hohfeld's, i'll look into it :)And the most a-moral person I know is also the smartest. I believe I am fairly smart, and I'm not sure my morality is that strong either.

That's not to say either of us are Evil. Neither of us would feel any sort of guilt breaking the law, if the situation called for it. However, neither of us would go into someone's house without their permission, or invade personal space. We don't steal. We aren't cruel or violent. We don't put ourselves in positions where we would do or be any of those things.

But this is because what is "wrong" is not intellectually attractive. However, I'm not sure most people would approve of all I do. I tend not to do things that require approval.

So, I'm not sure how you can quantify morality. If it's what we do, I suppose we're saints. If it's supposed to come from some inner monolithic code... eh.

[tragula]

Morality is an intellectual function not an instinctual one. Have you ever seen Hohfeld's moral pyramid structure for society? Most people are at the lower levels (obey morals/laws to avoid sanctions).

There tends to be a strong correlation between intelligence level and moral consciousness.

It's clear that the vast majority of people are capable of Empathy. This correlates with moral behaviour, and is not as far as I can tell at all related to intelligence.

Fairness is another moral quality that is ingrained. It has been shown that children develop an innate and strict sense of fairness at early ages!

Now, self control is a bit of a different story. It involves balancing self-interest with "duty". Parenting techniques, or temperament could play large roles. It has been shown that people who are always punished for "cheating" are more inclined to cheat when they get older if there is no one around to catch them.... because they don't develop internalized censors.

[Lee]

I believe that it's possible to have an intellectual basis for morality--that life has the ability to change the universe in creative ways, and therefore needs to be respected.

But on a much more practical level I believe morality is insinctual:

http://www.stlawrenceinstitute.org/vol14and.html
Thats a very interesting article, thank you :)

I must say I am not really swayed by his argument, much of which is already aligned with mine, I guess I have a bleaker more impersonal view of morality, I neither see it as a positive nor negative trait, simply a result of the social biological economy we live in.

[Jacque]

I have been reading many arguments and posts recently that revolve around what is right and what is wrong, to me these arguments are like two people arguing over what fruit tastes best, apples or bananas, everyone has thier own subjective interpretation of taste and therefore any argument will lead nowhere, it will only flare up hostilities. You could say that I am reluctantly a moral relativist, although I do behave in a moral manner in day to day life.

I live in a moral world, you live a relativist's world. That is the only relativism I know. Even the discussion cannot rise above the fray. I find that relativism claws a little harder when it attempts to escape the pit. But never simple resolutions. We know all there is know about morality. It is an intellectual stalemate characterized by its brutish argumentation. Press on, it is at present but a battle of wills and for those attached to logic and emotion, a battle of sophistry. If all else fails, the sword is mightier than the pen...the pen can only but state the contrary.


I am simply starting this thread to see what people think of morality, immorality or even *gulp* amorality.

What people think...always a mortifying phrase. Dare to speak the rules, but dare to quit the game?



Well, morality, what is it to you?

I can see morality as a primitive art form, grunting one's pathetic desires into a barely intelligible string of words...or I can see it as complex, intricate codices with full of drama, wit and wisdom of an ancient mysterious source foreever lost to us. I can also see it as hypocritical to the point possessing little salience, the circumlocution of emotional hubris meant to distract or aid in evasion. And then I can see it as intrinsic, interwined within the fabric of my being - and then to add but a pinch of belonging - OUR being, withdrawn, reflective and critical to a self conscious existence. And then sometimes with a crusader spirit, setting out to vanquish the immoral and heal the world in the name of morality, a tree from which all the fruits of happiness descend...and left to rot by those seeking other appetites. And so we sell and haggle marketing our fruit, our morality, hoping to please the world and leave a legacy. And so in a sense it undulates from ignorance to awe to deception to peace to self-righteousness to foolishness. And so you experience all manners of morality and yet to conquer it you must accept it or dismiss it.

...but I can do neither with permanence, only by fleeting impulses as relativity leaves behind a lingering poison. It either inhibits ignorance or induces chaos, I cannot tell. Disease or mutation, parasite or symbiont? How are we to know if we all perish the same. And yet the diagnosis cannot be devoid of some morality. And so I hate it because it tortures me. Yet I'm fasinated by the secrets revealed. And what is origin of morality, but as emphatically revealed secrets.

[Star Cannon]

mgbradsh wrote this:

The moral person follows the rules. The immoral person breaks them. The amoral person has no clue the rules exist and is often loosely bound to the community (think a developmently challenged individual).

I tend to agree with this. To me, there really is no such thing as morality. It's just... what we do.

For example, there are candy canes left in a bathroom. I stumbled upon them. I could have taken them and given them to some of my friends. But then I thought, someone could have been looking for them and they weren't mine. I didn't need them so I left them were they were.


I could have easily taken the candy canes. does that make me immoral if I did?

It doesn't really matter. There might be a better or worse way of doing things, depending on which view a person takes.

Like, someone wrote about person X wanting what person Y has. Person X could just kill person Y and take it. PersonX could steal. Person X could barter, or just ask. Person X could examine their motive for wanting an object and ultimately decide they didn't want it.

The stealing, killing, swindling could be considered lower action. The Bartering, bantering, asking, and examining the motive could be considered higher action.

Essentially I think it boils down to how we achieve our ends and whether or not these ends jeopardize the individual and the larger society.

'Star Cannon

[J.L. des Alpins]

You could say that I am reluctantly a moral relativist…
[Lee, post #1]
[Morality] it's highly subjective and almost always personal…
[CapnEnnui, post #2]

[Morality is] partly subjective, partly objective.
[Hush, post #5]

‘Moral relativism’ is a pleonasm. Morality is absolutely subjective and personal. Morality is exclusive from the world. The being of morality resides solely within human consciousness.

This understanding of morality has been widely accepted by all respectable philosophers and theologists for more than half a century. As examples, see Sartre (Being and Nothingness, 1943) and Pope John-Paul II (Veritatis Splendor, 1993).




Morality is a guide-line to proper living…
[Hush, post #5]

This is a tautology. [Lee alluded to that in post #7.]


Who is to say it is right or wrong at all? [Architectonic, post #6]

Humans are irremediably free beings. Nobody but oneself may discriminate right from wrong, based on his own consciousness.
Well you can actually form a completely objective system of morality. [Architectonic, post #6]

Precisely. Morality, as it is understood in a society, is only a system of rules. A society selects a system of rules, teach it to its members, and enforces it as it sees fit. [floid, in post # 13, presents a similar argument with ‘codified morality’.]
No matter how forceful is the social teaching, however, each and every individual in that society remains incontrovertibly free to follow these rules, or not so.



Lets suppose person A has X and person B wants it. What does he do about it? …etc[Thermo, post #8]

This only illustrates the ethics of morality and does not say anything about the being of morality. Only an ontological survey can allow us to explore “What is Morality”, which is the question at hand. (It might be worth to start a thread on morality’s ethics.)


There certainly is such a thing as right and wrong...[Architectonic, post #9]

Right and wrong have no ontological status. There are no such things as ‘right’ or ‘wrong’.
It would be so much simpler if people would refrain from using these two terms improperly. Right and wrong are adjectives as something that has only dependent or qualifying status or existence (Merriam-Webster).

Right’s and wrong’s meanings, as adjectives, in a system of rules, only relate to correlations as the relation of phenomena as invariable accompaniments of each other whether causally connected or not (Merriam-Webster). That is, right suggests a strong direct correlation between a defined rule and how it is applied; wrong indicates a strong inverse correlation.



There will of course be many issues that fall somewhere in the middle, around the grey squiggly line.[Architectonic, post #9]

The “grey squiggly line” only indicates an issue of weak correlation with the defined rules. It has nothing to do with the being of morality.


I believe that few amoral people truly exist. [mgbradsh, post #10]

Since morality is absolutely subjective and resides only within consciousness, then an amoral person would be someone without subjectivity, with no consciousness. Only dead people meet these criteria.


[…]the morals we live by are pretty much universal from community to community through the ages. [mgbradsh, post #10]

Most anthropologists and archeologists would disagree with this assertion. Throwing people into tiger pits for entertainment vs. sustaining artificially alive one brain-dead individual for 15 years underlines dramatic different morals.


[…]moral systems are the contract that binds groups of people together. [mgbradsh, post #10]

Moral systems are there to force people together, to justify sanctions and punishments, to limit individual freedom. If the individuals in a group of people were so inclined as being bound to each other, there would be no need for moral systems.


Proper living strives to ensure the survival of the species. [Hush, post #11]

If that were true, there would be very few cars on the road, minimal pollution, no need for so many as 100 millions law enforcement and military personnel on the planet, and not 10% of the world population somehow imprisoned, in probation, or under similar restrictive ordeal. The only viable meaning of proper living is for one to restrain himself for not doing what he feels like doing in order to follow the rules and thus, avoid punishment.


The objective part is biological, on behalf of us being a flock species. It's glue, a binding strategy and so on.[Hush, post #11]

I believe morality is instinctual.
[tragula, post #15]

Biology is living matter that follows it own ‘natural’ rules and as nothing to do with human’s social or cultural rules. Instinct is biological, therefore is foreign to morality. [Also: songbird34 in post #16]

(That brings an intriguing issue: biotechnology and genetics. Take for instance a field planted with GM corn. Could we say that natural and human rules interconnect? That may be worth a new thread.)




There tends to be a strong correlation between intelligence level and moral consciousness. [songbird34, post #16]

Dear songbird43, if you really believe what you are saying here, please explain:
(On the higher side of intelligence) Saddam Hussein, Joseph Goebbels, Joseph Stalin, Usama Bin Laden, Ayman Al-Zawahiri, the Shah of Iran, the Ayatollah Khomeini, Bill Clinton, Sam Waksal, Andrew Fastow, Ken Lay, Jeff Skilling, Dennis Kozlowski, John Rigas, Charles Manson, Ted Kaczynski (and many, many, many more very intelligent despots, tyrants, dictators, oppressors, mobsters, felons, fanatics, fascists, racists, supremacists, egoists, egocentrics, megalomaniacs, narcissists, bullies, pimps, rascals, villains, rogues etc. etc. etc.).

(On the lower side of intelligence) It just happens that people with lower intelligence don’t make the news that often. But let’s just think about it: Do you know that there is 50% of the people that have a IQ lower than the average? That represents BILLIONS of people. If billions of people really had a ‘strong’ inverse correlation between their ‘lower’ intelligence and their ‘lower’ moral consciousness, the world we are living in today would be paradise.

I recognize that my tone here may sounds a bit upset, and it is probable that I am—a heck of a lot, in fact. Maybe even enraged. Certainly outraged... The belief that intelligence somehow ‘strongly’ correlates with moral consciousness is an elitism, a snobbery, that I hope in the deepest reaches of my hearth that is held by less people than there are INTPs in our population.

J.L.

[meshou]

Word to J.L.

Since morality is absolutely subjective and resides only within consciousness, then an amoral person would be someone without subjectivity, with no consciousness. Only dead people meet these criteria.Oh, it would be great fun to get into jungian theory of self and ego with you.

[Architectonic]

There certainly is such a thing as right and wrong...[Architectonic, post #9]

Right and wrong have no ontological status. There are no such things as ‘right’ or ‘wrong’.

Thank you for quoting me out of context and therefore missing my point.

It is clear that many people have different views on morality and I personally believe that morality could be a whole lot deeper, more useful and perhaps even more universal than most people here currently believe. But I guess that is because I am more of an idealist at heart than some people here.

[songbird36]

See, I totally disagree with this, morality is completely instinctual, it has it's roots in our emotional reaction to events, what could possibly be more instinctual than emotion.

Although I must say, I know nothing of this moral pyramid of Hohfeld's, i'll look into it :)

No - instinctual reactions are ones we are biologically programmed with in our cerebellum and hypothalamus to ensure survival and reproduction.

These things have nothing at all to do with morality which is a human construct and a function of the higher brain. Animals do not have it.

[Lee]

...but I can do neither with permanence, only by fleeting impulses as relativity leaves behind a lingering poison. It either inhibits ignorance or induces chaos, I cannot tell. Disease or mutation, parasite or symbiont? How are we to know if we all perish the same. And yet the diagnosis cannot be devoid of some morality. And so I hate it because it tortures me. Yet I'm fasinated by the secrets revealed. And what is origin of morality, but as emphatically revealed secrets.I am equally tortured by trying to resolve the conflict of my feelings and opinions of morality, I cannot help but be controlled by a system I do not believe in, worst of all is that the drive comes from within and I cannot douse the flames... I frequently wonder if I would wish too, niether side will back down and I am left locked in ambivalence, a kind of moral amorality.


‘Moral relativism’ is a pleonasm. Morality is absolutely subjective and personal. Morality is exclusive from the world. The being of morality resides solely within human consciousness.

Very true, I used the term moral relativism reluctantly because it best described my position without arguing a belief, it was however a wrong choice of words.


Humans are irremediably free beings. Nobody but oneself may discriminate right from wrong, based on his own consciousness.

I am unsure as to whether huumans are free beings, to me it seems that true freedom is necassarily impossible, at best we are slightly free, otherwise I agree with this statement.


Precisely. Morality, as it is understood in a society, is only a system of rules. A society selects a system of rules, teach it to its members, and enforces it as it sees fit. [floid, in post # 13, presents a similar argument with ‘codified morality’.]
No matter how forceful is the social teaching, however, each and every individual in that society remains incontrovertibly free to follow these rules, or not so. This strikes me as being back to front, but I understand your point and agree, but how this constitutes as an "objective morality" I am still unsure?


Since morality is absolutely subjective and resides only within consciousness, then an amoral person would be someone without subjectivity, with no consciousness. Only dead people meet these criteria.

Soon we'll be arguing whether or not you can define when consciouness begins or ends, is there a mid point in the process, can we be halfway between amoral and moral?


Moral systems are there to force people together, to justify sanctions and punishments, to limit individual freedom. If the individuals in a group of people were so inclined as being bound to each other, there would be no need for moral systems.

Humans are a social species, we are bound to one another and within isolated groups moral systems are automatic and serve everyone, the problem is that within any such system cheaters can prosper and so either side develops ever more clever and forceful ways of achieving thier aims, an arms race ensues reulting in the dual system we see today, a bizarre conflict between "forcing" and "binding".


Proper living strives to ensure the survival of the species.

no, no, no morality (proper living) existes purely for the survival of the indivdual, in fact if you wish to be more technical, it exists for the survival of individual genes.


Biology is living matter that follows it own ‘natural’ rules and as nothing to do with human’s social or cultural rules. Instinct is biological, therefore is foreign to morality.[/quote

Where did human social or cultural rules come from if not from the biological matter that we exist as?

[quote=Songbird]There tends to be a strong correlation between intelligence level and moral consciousness.

I have to agree with J.L here, this is a very questionable belief.

Some thoughts

My biggest struggle is accepting morality, I can make a pretty good explanantion as to the roots and cause of morality and I am fairly satisfied with that explanation, but it leaves me cold, believing morality to be nothing more than another farse, yet another unhelpful quirk of human existence, devoid of any true meaning or value, wrapped up in an unconscious selfishness that leaves me uneasy. Yet I cannot disregard that morality, it flows through me, dictating my thoughts and actions although I do not agree with them.

I can post my long winded evolutionary biological/psychological explanation, but it is rather long winded and I would only bother if anybody is unfamiliar with it and wishes to know.

-Lee

[Dunearhp]

Morality is an intellectual function not an instinctual one. Have you ever seen Hohfeld's moral pyramid structure for society? Most people are at the lower levels (obey morals/laws to avoid sanctions).

There tends to be a strong correlation between intelligence level and moral consciousness.

Couldn't find any good links on Hohfeld. Is it anything like Kohlbergs stages of moral development? Which has stages of moral maturity that people have to pass through.
Kohlberg link 1 (http://www.nd.edu/~rbarger/kohlberg.html)
Kohlberg link 2 (http://faculty.plts.edu/gpence/html/kohlberg.htm)

I think there is a strong correlation between the amount that people think about moral structures and their moral consciousness. Intelligent people are just as good at being ignorant as stupid people are. They just have less excuse.

As for the threads original question.
I think morals are the social contract that a person holds with the rest of the community, and sometimes themself. By following this contract, you are more likely to be able to interact with other entities without raising the ire of the community. If your morals differ too greatly from the community then you are likely to to have to face their anger at some point.

Morality is the morals that THEY have. THEY being the generic other people. Morality is fuzzy, because THEY is always different. Morality differs between groups. The religious right has a different morality to the socialist left. No group has a monopoly on morality!
When politicians talk about family values, it has to be taken in context. The phrase has different meanings in Iran and the US.

I think morals are part of the glue that helps society stay peaceful.

[Pierce]

Morality is a deeply religious issue. It is judged by the degree of adherance to a code of behavior. This is true whether your religion deifies God or man. Certainly, there are many opinions about which (if any) of the many codes of behavior is supreme, and that the codes, from a human point of view, change or evolve in a relative fashion.

Even the atheists tend to adhere to what they consider "natural or universal law." It is supposed that, similar to biological evolution, social evolution produces rules of behavior that promote group survival.

Theists subscribe to the idea that God or gods make the rules, and humans are subjected to them, and there seems no end to the moral codes handed down by the prophets of various religions.

Efforts to harmonize natural law with religious law abound.

The most profound and radical assertions about morality come from Jesus. His message was simply that it was not enough to obey the law -- external obedience to a moral code does not produce perfection (or morality). To do good is not sufficient -- one must be good -- something accomplished from the inside out, rather than from the outside in. Ironically, many of the religious moralists of the day considered Jesus to be quite the immoral teacher.

[Jacque]

Even the atheists tend to adhere to what they consider "natural or universal law."

Then they are naturalists. Applying naturalism to theology would produce atheism, but that is not to say that all atheists suscribe to naturalism.


Efforts to harmonize natural law with religious law abound.

Yes, but harmony motivated out of reconciliation or truth?


The most profound and radical assertions about morality come from Jesus. His message was simply that it was not enough to obey the law -- external obedience to a moral code does not produce perfection (or morality). To do good is not sufficient -- one must be good -- something accomplished from the inside out, rather than from the outside in. Ironically, many of the religious moralists of the day considered Jesus to be quite the immoral teacher.

I thought this conflict between Protestants and Catholics, works vs. faith.

[Clara]

The most profound and radical assertions about morality come from Jesus. His message was simply that it was not enough to obey the law -- external obedience to a moral code does not produce perfection (or morality). To do good is not sufficient -- one must be good -- something accomplished from the inside out, rather than from the outside in. Ironically, many of the religious moralists of the day considered Jesus to be quite the immoral teacher.
Then they are naturalists. Applying naturalism to theology would produce atheism, but that is not to say that all atheists suscribe to naturalism.
I thought this conflict between Protestants and Catholics, works vs. faith.
No. ( Not only "no," I don't think that expresses very well the difference between Protestants and Catholics. )

To have said, "The laws aren't wrong, but, the most important law is to act with kindness ( love; charity ) to one's fellows, whoever they happen to be," ... and to emphasize that using one's intuitive understanding -- of what that implied -- was more important that the particular details of "correctitude" ( yeah, I'm making up a word - it says it better ) ... that was highly offensive to the political/powerful people... ( So : crucifixion ).

[Jacque]

No. ( Not only "no," I don't think that expresses very well the difference between Protestants and Catholics. )
A difference, then. I didn't imply anything more. A centuries worth of religious factionalism never as simple as it beginnings.


To have said, "The laws aren't wrong, but, the most important law is to act with kindness ( love; charity ) to one's fellows, whoever they happen to be," ... and to emphasize that using one's intuitive understanding -- of what that implied -- was more important that the particular details of "correctitude" ( yeah, I'm making up a word - it says it better ) ... that was highly offensive to the political/powerful people... ( So : crucifixion ).

Really...were these politically powerful people the Sadducees? And you yourself flexible, demorcatic, and intuitive like the Pharisees?

[Clara]

A difference, then. I didn't imply anything more. A centuries worth of religious factionalism never as simple as it beginnings.

Really... were these politically powerful people the Sadducees? And you yourself flexible, demorcatic, and intuitive like the Pharisees?
My dear Jaque, I can't begin to tell you how glad I am to find you here ( nor how much I hope that saying so won't dissuade you from lingering awhile ).

Your reproach is as apt now, for any of us, as it was then.** But, I was thinking rather of John's account of Nicodemus' discussion with Jesus. ( I had no inkling that any here might be lending thought, in more than overbroad ways, to any of this. You may not know : INTPs understand -- sometimes, and not exclusively -- through provoking one another... My hope is to be able to converse in less antagonistic terms... but, if not, argument is fine. We don't all agree, after all. )


** edit : here's a quote, for any who want to know : "the Pharisees were holy men. ... their one fault was to think that they could rely on their holiness ... that their merits had won them a place in heaven. Perhaps Jesus was so firmly opposed to them ... to see them pervert their holiness in this way, and also because they had such influence on the humble people who admired them." - E.Charpentier, in How to Read the New Testament. SCM Press Ltd., London, 1982 -- translated by John Bowden, from the French Pour lire le Nouveau Testament. Les Editions du Cerf, Paris, 1981 )

*tiredness affects my wording... and, I really am delighted that someone is arguing with me. Finally. :) *

[Sally]

Philosophizing is all well and good, and in fact I agree with you (if I understand you) that morality is outlined by the society and interpreted by the self. Arbitrary, in other words.

However, I would ask... Is it not possible to compensate for those factors and come up with a system that is demonstrably more benifical to the self and the society and opposing societies? Or must one aspect always be sacrificed to the others? Or is it folly to even conjecture as to what would benefit any aspect beyond the self?

My moral dilemma is that I'm no longer emotionally satisfied by such philosophies. I want something that makes a practical improvement to most people's quality of life. Or, no, I just want my society to be more concerned with most people's quality of life, not just their own.

[Pierce]

Philosophizing is all well and good, and in fact I agree with you (if I understand you) that morality is outlined by the society and interpreted by the self. Arbitrary, in other words.

However, I would ask... Is it not possible to compensate for those factors and come up with a system that is demonstrably more benifical to the self and the society and opposing societies? Or must one aspect always be sacrificed to the others? Or is it folly to even conjecture as to what would benefit any aspect beyond the self?

My moral dilemma is that I'm no longer emotionally satisfied by such philosophies. I want something that makes a practical improvement to most people's quality of life. Or, no, I just want my society to be more concerned with most people's quality of life, not just their own.

When a person or group seeks to devise a system of morality, for it to move beyond the realm of utopianism, a method of implementation must be selected. The choices, as I see them, are religion or government. Both paths devolve into oligarchy, or worse, tyranny. I place no trust in the heart or mind of man to save us from ourselves. Rather, I see the need for both religious and civil regulation of our lives, else we slide into anarchy, and our social order, such as it is, collapses.

Beyond that, I "perceive" a supreme being that loves us and calls us to intimacy with him -- not one that keeps a tally of rights and wrongs, anxious to weigh us on a divine scale of "morality" to determine our eternal reward or punishment. I see the laws of morality much as rules for children who are not mature or wise enough to protect themselves or each other from real harm.

As both David and Jesus said (as they broke the rules), "The law was made for man, not man for the law, the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath." This is a remarkably liberating statement about religious morality -- but I grant that its further implications are not well understood by most.

[INTrPosr]

I hope no one has posted a similar response, because I was too lazy to read through the threads. Morality seems to be value based. The degree of intensity is based on how strong someone feels about that particular value. Therefore, from that standpoint, morals can be connected to one's emotions. In a similar sense, INTPs are highly principled, yet are tolerant of other peoples amoral behaviors. I read information on NF v SJ, wherein Keirsey says that NFs are focused on morale, not morals as is the SJ. I think that many people confuse morality with Fe because it is value based. I have never heard a good argument on the difference between values and principles.

[Lee]

I have been thinking and have came to the inconlusion that any system of morality which anyone wishes to introduce must focus on the individual, the individual must feel that following the moral code set before them entails advantages to them. Morality must have selfish desires underpinning it, even if these selfish desires exist purely in the individual's unconscious, a failure to respect these desires and wishes will inevitably lead to the disintegration of that system. Many Idealist views on how things "should be" ignore this side of human nature in the vain hope it will go away, how would you implement a system like this? I have no idea, I just want to think about it further and keep this discussion going.

[nBT]

morality is male, amorality is female.
morality applies to a set or defined group (can be an individual) amorality applies to all.
morality often grows out of religion, amorality is morality's antipod.

morality is a law, wich can be written and judged upon, amorality is an image, speechless. laws are reproducable every time a situation occurs. images shift with the blink of an eye. laws are abstract, morality is abstract. judgement of morality will forever be a subjective job.

morality's desire is to gain control over amoral chaos: sex. most religions have a moral aversion > ban on sex.

amorality creates morality, morality kills amorality. morality's reign corrupts itself, morality dies, amorality rises.

[Pierce]

I have been thinking and have came to the inconlusion that any system of morality which anyone wishes to introduce must focus on the individual, the individual must feel that following the moral code set before them entails advantages to them. Morality must have selfish desires underpinning it, even if these selfish desires exist purely in the individual's unconscious, a failure to respect these desires and wishes will inevitably lead to the disintegration of that system. Many Idealist views on how things "should be" ignore this side of human nature in the vain hope it will go away, how would you implement a system like this? I have no idea, I just want to think about it further and keep this discussion going.

Inherant in the concept of morality is a notion of good and evil. Either there is a God who objectively (from man's point of view) defines good and evil, or there is no such thing other than the transitory assumptions of moral relativists. If goodness is defined by God, it can have no root in human selfish desires.

If goodness is defined by man, it will most certainly have roots in selfish desires, emotional whims, and every other frailty common to mankind. If someone perceives a given moral code as advantageous, he will obey it -- unless circumstances present a contradictory, more urgent seeming advantage, in which case an alternative "moral" will be introduced as a means of justification. Juggling perspectives to maintain "morality" is what humans do -- it is essentially guilt management.

[phenol]

I believe that morality is positive feelings towards certain things, and negative feelings towards others.

Many people overlap in their good and bad feelings towards things.. (SJ, SP, NF, NT probably being the order of most overlappling to least wrt beliefs about the morality of various things). Most people would agree that murder is wrong, because it ends the life of a potentially very happy, productive, good person. Perhaps, in a super, unable to commit suicide depressed state, you'd be doing the person a favor (assuming they'd been long diagnosed with severe depression and simply cannot be happy), but this would be an unusual case, and without knowing this, you'd be committing a heinous crime, most likely killing a healthy, happy, productive individual, damaging both society through direct effects (murder) and loss of productivity due to family/friends/significant others grieving (resulting in a temporary depression). I'd say all SJs, very most SPs and NFs, and the majority of NTs think that killing is specifically wrong. However with something like gay marriage... most SJs think it's wrong, a large percent of SPs think it's wrong, some NFs think it's wrong... but most don't mind and are sympathetic towards gays, very few NTs think it's wrong, or even relevant, but they won't rally as strongly in favor as NFs.

all IMO of course. ymmv (wildly). mine does. my mom is an ISFJ fully in support of gay marriage and abortion (she IS a STRONG F, so that might have something to do with it or not. i'd suspect more SFJ favor gay marriage and even some abortion than STJ (a VERY small percentage of these are in favor, my dad being one of them, but probably because i'm gay and he sees a sense of normalcy (lol, if he only knew) and his STJ sensability allows for my happy, financially secure existance in his idea of normal. STJ lesbians are bastions of the gay rights movement though. they keep it organized and on track it seems to me.).

Looking at Kohlberg's morality model, F seems favored in stage 6 along with N, and T in stage 5, however Fs may fluctuate wildly to lower levels (including NFs) while NTs remain fairly sturdy 5s with occasional 6 moments.

[Rajah]

I'd say all SJs, very most SPs and NFs, and the majority of NTs think that killing is specifically wrong. Circumstances.

I have a pretty strong distaste for black/white statements. Usually.

[Toonia]

[size=2]I have been reading many arguments and posts recently that revolve around what is right and what is wrong, to me these arguments are like two people arguing over what fruit tastes best, apples or bananas, everyone has thier own subjective interpretation of taste and therefore any argument will lead nowhere, it will only flare up hostilities. I don't consider myself having any resolution on the matter, but found your analogy interesting and had an idea to extend it. The preferred taste of a banana or apple is relative, but its effects on the human being are less so. Morality has very literal consequences on human interaction. Some of these are constructive, leading to the health of one or many, while other consequences are destructive. The parallels between the physical and emotional are striking. They are at least on the same continuum.

The analogy could be rewritten to show some prefer the taste of a banana while another prefers the taste of a rotten fish. Their taste preference is based only on experience, but the consequences of those preferences can be more easily measured than in your example.

What I am saying is that your analogy of taste makes sense, but the assumption that the choices exist between foods of equal benefit is arbitrary. What do you think?

As far as I've gotten personally in this matter is that morality is contextual, and therefore somewhat relative. This does not necessarily require that it is completely relative in a nihilistic sort of way. The study of morality for me involves studying consequences in a myriad of contexts and working to extract the common principles that guide certain actions/motivations towards certain consequences. A great deal of confusion regarding morality results from confusing an abstract 'principle' with a concrete application of that principle in a specific context that doesn't apply elsewhere.

[belladona]

My personal use of the word is 'morals' are unjustified codes of right/wrong behavior. Unjustified in this context means based on feeling/tradition/instinct rather than rational thinking and reasoning. They may be appropriate, good or sensible codes of behavior but they are not based on reason. They may or may not be irrational when looked at from a logical perspective but people do not consider morals important or right because they are based in reason but because people -feel- those morals are right.

I tend to use the word 'ethics' for a code of right/wrong that is based on logic and rational reason. This is not a correct use of the word but I don't have a better one.

Obviously, as an INTP, I prefer to base right/wrong on a thinking response rather than an emotional 'feeling' response. I think most INTPs would.

[Spring]

I have been thinking and have came to the inconlusion that any system of morality which anyone wishes to introduce must focus on the individual, the individual must feel that following the moral code set before them entails advantages to them. Morality must have selfish desires underpinning it, even if these selfish desires exist purely in the individual's unconscious, a failure to respect these desires and wishes will inevitably lead to the disintegration of that system. Many Idealist views on how things "should be" ignore this side of human nature in the vain hope it will go away, how would you implement a system like this? I have no idea, I just want to think about it further and keep this discussion going.

I agree that ethics should be an individual assessment of the moral law. Hell, I think that was Socrates's main argument and part of the reason he ended up on trial. After all, he taught the youth to question the moral establishment.

I don't think anyone will argue that despite our capacity to reason, human beings are still animals, and we are still very much ruled by our desires and instincts. Even the classical philosophers recognized that human beings have both an appetitive nature and rational nature, and that those natures seem to be at constant war with each other. Aristotle's idea of "living in moderation" very much takes into consideration that if we live in excess or deficiency of our appetitive nature then we are living in vice or incontinence and as a result we won't be capable of attaining happiness.

Immanuel Kant may have believed that "Only when we act in accordance with duty against out inclinations," do we show a moral worth not defined by benefit or advantage, but even he wouldn't advise someone to live a life that sought out those tests of obligation. Can you imagine living a life where there was no desire or benefit to go on but you did anyways? It just goes to show if we were completely separate of our animal, appetitive nature, then we would be no better than robots or computers running on a complex software program.

I think that the utilitarian principle that, "People should take into account the consequences of their behavior, and treat the happiness of other people as equal to their own," provides the best framework for any individual's moral system. It doesn't call on people to try to be "more than human" or to "do no evil" but only account for their own behavior and live by that classic creed, "Do unto other as you would have them do unto you." It satisfies both the appetitive and rational natures of human beings in a rather non selfish way. We get what we want from others by giving it to them. It's the philosophical equivalent of capitalism. I give you something and you give me something of equal value in return. It's business or commerce, not living just to fulfill our own satisfaction and happiness.

[Toonia]

My personal use of the word is 'morals' are unjustified codes of right/wrong behavior. Unjustified in this context means based on feeling/tradition/instinct rather than rational thinking and reasoning. They may be appropriate, good or sensible codes of behavior but they are not based on reason. They may or may not be irrational when looked at from a logical perspective but people do not consider morals important or right because they are based in reason but because people -feel- those morals are right.

I tend to use the word 'ethics' for a code of right/wrong that is based on logic and rational reason. This is not a correct use of the word but I don't have a better one.

Obviously, as an INTP, I prefer to base right/wrong on a thinking response rather than an emotional 'feeling' response. I think most INTPs would.Here are some thoughts regarding the role of reason in morality. Is the underlying assumption of 'morality' to create a state of well-being? Whether it is sacrificing someone to the sungod to insure a good crop or saying your prayers at night so grandma gets better? If that is the case then the study of morality through rational means would produce the most effective results. Just like human diet was arrived at through instinct, tradition, and feeling, so morality is. Reason and knowledge can enhance our understanding of diet, making it more effective rather than diminishing it. Could the same be true of morality?

[Lee]

It's humbling to read through an old thread.

I have never stopped thinking about morality since this thread, and now feel as though I have resolved all the problems which bothered me. I am no longer a reluctant moral relativist, but a content moral realist, of a peculiar kind. In fact, I am now quite satisfied that I know the solution to most of the traditional problems of moral philosophy, and though I am aware that is a somewhat extreme claim, I will not pretend that I do not think it appropriate.

In hindsight, it was perhaps fitting that in my last post (before this) on this thread, I said that had reached an "inconclusion."

[NightCrawler]

It's humbling to read through an old thread.

I have never stopped thinking about morality since this thread, and now feel as though I have resolved all the problems which bothered me. I am no longer a reluctant moral relativist, but a content moral realist, of a peculiar kind. In fact, I am now quite satisfied that I know the solution to most of the traditional problems of moral philosophy, and though I am aware that is a somewhat extreme claim, I will not pretend that I do not think it appropriate.

In hindsight, it was perhaps fitting that in my last post (before this) on this thread, I said that had reached an "inconclusion."

Hey, have you considered the idea that morality is like language? The rules and laws are there just like our nouns, verbs and word-order.* They are neither absolute, nor objective per se, but it is neither relativistic to a person either. Just like the English language is standardized with deviation for what accurately conveys what the speaker intends in his context, so is morality seemingly standardized with minor deviations due to context and what the person's justifications where.

Yes, you can say something else is wrong with the person's actions according to the standard put on by society for functioning properly, just as you know that when someone is speaking English unproperly u kin tel and you know that it is because the English language is standardized too.

Plus, according to this analogy, as language changes vocabulary and style over time (though we do not know necessarily its origin), so does morality according to its uses and practicalities. For example, has the morality of genetic engineering been absolute? But we haven't had genetic engineering in the past. Therefore, just as language accomodates for change, so does the morality that has been standardized.

[edit]
* Rereading, I believe I was not clear. Verbs and nouns are necessary syntactically because of what they represent, just as morality with respect to persons' benefit and free will are necessary syntactically. You cannot imagine language without verbs and nouns, just as you cannot imagine morality without persons and actions.

[notjeffgoldblum]

morality = behavioral expectations of the social majority

[Ferrus]

Societal contract. Societal contract. Societal contract.

[Mr.Miagi]

Morality is a human oddity.

[Zephyrus055]

I think morality is a formal script that is instilled in people during their childhood by members of the society they are raised, and is reinforced or modified by their social experiences until their death.

I think morality has roots in the practical convenience of authorities, and in our ability to empathize with others.

[Ferrus]

I think morality has roots in the practical convenience of authorities, and in our ability to empathize with others.
It is necessary for modern society to function in some sense, it is the script that allows communal living to work, and the said empathising and concordance with the moral script is, I would suggest, derived from the biological bases of human action as may be observed from the earliest tribal origins.

It is also nonsense, but necessary nonsense for the vast majority of the human race.

[The attic]

My personal def.
Amoral:
Hurting someone else with selfish intent.

Moral:
Helping someone with unselfish intent.

Not all actions fall into the category of moral or amoral. And no thoughts fall into the category because we can only hurt other people through actions.

[zago]

Morality is an extremely slippery one... people always try to do the right thing, but they've got the wrong motives. Their main motive is guilt/duty. I don't think I believe in morality; I just believe truth takes care of it.