Is there such a thing?


Now don't just sit there and say "Of course, you idiot, that's why we have laws!".

Sit and actually THINK about it.

The definitions I mean:

I think morals are absolute, but on a case-by-case basis, are formed by experiences and upbringing more than by nature. I think there are morals instilled in people by nature but they are "discovered" by experience.

What is good, then? What is good and just for me may be unjust for you. Is that "right"?

Right or wrong is what a society makes it to be.

Right, wrong and morals are meaningless...
Right and wrong depends upon the way you see them.

and according to other societies, they could be "wrong"

Right and Wrong are merely humane concepts used to justify our own actions. Nothing more, nothing less.

Right and wrong are morals. Even if people all see them differently, they still see them.

Which brings me to my next point: How do you see them differently?

It doesn't apply to every situation, but you should know what's good and what's bad.

Example: I have a knife and someone is in front of me. If i stab them, that would be wrong. If i just do nothing with the knife, and continue on with whatever, that is right.

Another one:

A group of kids are picking on a goofy looking kid with glasses who is overweight. It's wrong to join in on picking him, but most would anyway. That's doing NOTHING. Doing the RIGHT thing would be either helping him or getting someone who can.

Right and wrong is pretty much a guideline to human behavior: do as you would be done by; care for children and the weak; don’t kill; avoid adultery and incest; don’t cheat, steal or lie.

What's right for me doesn't affect you, but doesn't make it wrong for you.

Yes, in our society it is.

In our society it is what? Just because something is COMMON doesn't make it RIGHT.

If i'm a cannibal, right? And i have a cannibal family, they LOVE to eat people. Every weekend we go and round up children playing, young folks hitchhiking, lost travellers, and kill them and eat them, that is still WRONG, even though it's what we LIKE and my family loves to eat people, it's still wrong.

Unless you use A1 sauce.

I could write an entire essay on this question; it's so broad and it can be approached by so many perspectives. In short, right and wrong are relative terms, depending on which religion of school of philosophy you follow.

This brings me to my next question, is morality innate or not? Philosophers such as Kant have said that we are moral beings and morality is our 'duty' - he states this because we feel a sense of guilt and shame if we do 'wrong'.

A Utilitarian on the other hand would constitute something as being morally 'right' if it brings the greatest pleasure for society as a whole. A Utilitarian states that the 'good' way to live is to maximize happiness (pleasure if you're looking at the Bentham perspective, but Mills states pleasures come from desires and only true virtue can make someone happy) and minimize pain.

Aristotle would consider something morally right if it achieves 'Eudaimonia'.

A Christians views of wrong and right are different to a Daoist. A Daoist believes one should do 'right' simply because it's the right thing to do, they act without expectation; a Christian does right because of a fear of God and also because they believe in an afterlife.

However, religion and morality, although they coincide, morality can exist without Religion. I personally believe morality is innate to us and we do things which are 'right' not because we have a moral duty like Kant states, but simply because we're political animals, not necessarily because we always feel guilt and shame.

Basically, when I am trying to conlude with is, there is no true answer to this question because it's relative. Morality, right and wrong are terms that have a different meaning depending on your own moral philosophy.

Debatable. I think that religious Christians are like that, though there are other Christians who you could find who were more likely doing it because it was the right thing to do (as you suggested Daoists do)


I think I feel my brain frying.

For you, yes.

For them, no.

You proved my point.


I think I feel my brain frying.

That was a mistake, I've edited it to say, "Morality can exist without Religion" - it's 5am and I've been up all night, forgive me

Secondly, you can debate morality in Christianity until the cows come home and it will not change the outcome of my post, because in the greater picture, aside from my point on Christianity was: Morality is relative. Even if I said Christians think it's morally right to kill and eat babies, my point would still be valid because I am not commenting on Christianity but the fact that morality is subjective.

I view morality as absolute and yet partly subjective. But, I see your point.


Bahaha. My point is, not every Christian is a wacko fundie or some other religious type. Some, like me, see Christianity as a lifestyle, not a crapload of ridiculous rituals and things. That's how I've always interpreted the Bible. It's not a ton of rules and regulations, and should not be treated as such.

In my opinion, morality is just your views on what is right and wrong - it's relative.

They're just concepts.

But if you say everything is good and bad that neutral position of you saying that cancels that out.

The idea of right and wrong, i.e. morality, comes from the conscience that we were designed with. This is a point against evolution because why would 'survival of the fittest', evolution, make people with the ability to know right and wrong? In the wild, predators go for the weakest of the prey. To humans, picking on someone that can't defend themselves is considered inhumane.

I disagree on the last paragraph. I hold that there is an absolute "Morality".

To use an example, the world has always been round as long as humans have lived on it (and even longer). Yet, for many, many years, we (as a collective society) thought the world to be flat. That does not change that the world is not flat. Only that we did not know about it.

The samething with "Morality". There is "right" and "wrong", no matter what we may choose to believe or not (I happen to think my morals are "correct", however ).



In a way, it would have been interesting to see what your logic for that would have been. In another way, it is good, because the debate would probably have just stuck on that point .

I disagree, Morality is not relative. I believe there to be an "absolute right", and an "absolute wrong".

I doubt anyone would disagree with me that my belief in murder being wrong is "wrong". If you are capable of feeling anything at all, there is a very good chance you will agree that my "Morals" are correct.

What the "absolute right" is in my opinion is anything that does not harm another person. The "absolute wrong" in my opinion, is anything that does. That is what I believe to be the "absolute morals".

~John

Um Pixel Bunnie already wrote my answer. So I've got nothing except this



Morality is deemed more or less by majority consensus, and the institutions of power than enforce them, Law, State, Church, etc. Morality is relative to the environment and situation one is in. This does not mean that morality determined by the mob is actually "right", but it does mean that it is the accepted morality, and therefore correct for as long as the power supporting it lasts. The "categorical imperatives" and moral absolutes of "Thou Shalt" only seek to confuse the issue.

How do you explain morality being present in all societies, even the ones that are isolated? Evolution wouldn't bring a conscience into existence for all groups of humans at the same time.

LOL - are you claiming that ALL the peoples of this planet have the same sense of morality?

Yes. Not every person, but there is no race without a hint of a conscience. And please, don't be racist.

When any species has to live in an environment with other individuals, they can take one of two routes. 1) Be solely competitive, or 2) live in mutualism. The morality of humans is derived from simple mutualism. I could spend days going on about how basic population dynamics models contribute to morality.

Regardless, saying that cooperation and morality is a point against evolution is absurd. But again, you don't know much about evolution, so that assumption is probably valid from your eyes.

Evolution is so much more complex than survival of the fittest. Not all species are in competition with each other. Not all species show "It's me or you, so let's fight." Again, your sheer ignorance of biology is preventing you from drawing logical, realistic conclusions.

Who teaches you science? Whoever it is- well needless to say they fail at it, and you need a capable teacher.

She's not the one being possibly racist you goof.

How so?

Orly?

There are several people with schizoid disorders who have what we call a "flattening of affect". These people have a limited sense of empathy, and as such do not share the same moral perspective as everyone else. Not to mention the numerous ideologies that do place an intrinsic value on human life. In our current paradigm of morality we more or less are centered in a Judeao-Christian perspective of ethics. But even that is not a unified credo. And then there are the numerous moralities that existed with and before the Judaeo-Christian monopoly on Morality.


Morality is always present. But there are varying degrees and strata to every morality.

An interesting science update: Morality is present in almost ALL social animals.
Why? It is an interesting question, but we do know the answer.
Morality develops in almost all societies, because morality ensures stability. The 'Golden Rule', do unto others as you would have others do unto you works so well because it promotes a symbiotic relationship between members of a society rather than a parasitic one. I a symbiotic relationship, EVERYONE benefits. Our 'sense of morality' is a product of millions of years of evolution, as those members that developed hormones promoting benevolence rather than aggression survived more and reproduced more often than their aggressive counterparts. By working togethere, social animals not only promote each individual's health, but protect the society from destruction itself.
Morality is both genetic and memetic.
/How do you explain morality being present in all societies, even the ones that are isolated? Evolution wouldn't bring a conscience into existence for all groups of humans at the same time./
This post should answer that question.

What's right and wrong depends on your interpretation of right and wrong. Things change. What was considered perfectly acceptable 100 years ago may have changed to be something abhorrent, etc, etc. The change comes from millions of interactions between human beings and how we adapt to them. Humans and probably all animals have a certain degree of altruism, because we all want our species to continue, obviously, so anything that continues mankind could be considered "right." But as we have grown more complex, the concept of killing one to save a hundred can also be "right," although some people will see it as wrong (if they loved that one person, perhaps). It's hopeless to try to make right and wrong concrete ideas, because they are not. Ahh...I don't even know what I'm talking about, I should be studying for a test now!