• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

morality

What is morality/


  • Total voters
    63
The GOD in heaven that by faith I believe I will be with after my death !!
The key words in your post are (I believe) meaning you believe. We may not all believe in that same deity.
 
Do you believe that each person can have their own morals? If a rapist feels that rape is moral, and the victim feels that it's immoral, can they both be right?
They can both be right in there own sense of things. The morality of the land will be the ultimate decision maker.
 
I'm pleased that my answer corresponded to yours, given you originated this thread.

Morality is concerned with right and wrong. Some people think right and wrong is determined by a government that establishes a rule about what is right and what is wrong. I disagree that right and wrong is that relative.

I think right and wrong are natural to us, truly inherent in our psyches. Evidence of this is rooted in laws that were drawn up thousands of years ago. Don't kill others (right to life), don't coerce others (right to liberty), don't steal (right to property). These are the most fundamental of rights.

We recognize youth are innocent and deserve to be nurtured and cared for. We recognize this naturally, as it is in our natures to understand this. We don't simply recognize these things because our government told us so. Conversely, we established governments to recognize these things because they occur to us naturally.

Morality is rooted in our very natures. Our morality needs no government to explain it to us or define it for us. In fact, we do not even need language for our rights to be evident to us. They are ingrained in us.

So George Washington was evil as he owned other humans and morality isn't relative.
 
Well, that may be true with some things, but there have to be some universal bounds of reason right?
You would think certain morals would be universal but if we look at WWII we see some codes of morality just defy all much of human reasoning so morals very from society to society and there is no set code. Conscience is not even a maker as the conscience is created from learned patterns of thinking and teaching.
 
I said this a year or so ago in some other thread. I can't remember which one. Anyways..

Social conformity, cultural values, personal wants and needs all shape peoples decisions on these matters. There are however objective truths about the world when dealing with destruction and violence which includes steps to avoid it that can't easily be ignored. In my opinion there is two things going on. One is the personal and social side of morals and the other is the objective side to morals. I have little doubt morals are truly objective, but society and personal wants are an issue that can't be ignored.

---

In short, I think morals are natural, but society and individuals are a factor none the less. I think if you were to look at the evolution of morals you would see that my conclusion holds up. There are trends towards a certain end across time that keep popping and an overall trend as well.
 
Last edited:
Ok, he's right. We should develop a social/justice system capable of satisfying sociopaths. :rolleyes

Unless one's proposal for a moral system, and its derivation, satisfy the participation of sociopaths, then the idea doesn't count.
Consider a nation run by a sociopath and see what can happen. Has this ever occurred? Did it not in the past century? it is not so much the eye roll as things do happen and have. Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. Think of the morals based on religious beliefs in some nations. Think of the effect of this decisions and tell me they are moral in your mind and then tell me they think what you believe is moral. Neither side will agree with the other yet both sides believe they are doing their god's will.
 
They can both be right in there own sense of things. The morality of the land will be the ultimate decision maker.

Do you believe morals are some part of the collective? If so, why? If not, why do you think their decisions matter on morality itself? If you ask me, to the most part these decisions you talk of are almost entirely selfish in nature and while the trend is desirable the everyday affairs are not.
 
So by that standard, in mpg's example, you're suggesting if a rapist says their act was moral then society should say "oh well, it's part of their morals, I guess it's okay then".

I'm no moral absolutist, but this is what I was trying to imply about bounds of reason. We can't say a rape victim is right and the rapist is right and then call it a day, this isn't CNN.
Th rule of the society would make the ruling on what that said society believes ids the good of the many and not that one. We each may have our own specific morality and society has another. Societies wins.
 
That's kill. Impossible? Of course, the Law is damnation and cannot save. Still, we should do our best; just like with every other commandment. This idea that it is 'murder' and not 'kill' comes from some kind of delusion that the goal is attainable. It's not attainable, it represents God in the premonition of His Son.

Your premiss for morals would require everyone to be live as you do. If there is a variation in what people believe it makes it impossible to use your guide as the standard unless you want to impose by force your will on others. This in fact would be immoral in any rule book.
 
If morals are determined by the individual, how is it possible for them to be wrong?
They can be wrong in the law which overrides any individual moral codes.
 
So George Washington was evil as he owned other humans and morality isn't relative.
Calling a particular act immoral, isn't the same thing as calling a person evil.

IMHO, morality never changes. If slavery is immoral now, it was immoral back then too.
 
In their eyes they are not wrong. Its as simple as that. It is society as a whole that determines what morals are right and wrong. Not individuals.
Society does not exist on morals it exists on laws.
 
A lifetime of observation has taught me to stop avoiding a blatantly obvious truth: There is something gravely wrong with people here.................
 
So if honor killings are considered moral within a particular society, then they ARE moral within that society?
They are legal in that country moral anywhere is fluidity and subject to individual interpretation. Morals are thoughts and not real in any way shape or for. They are a mental construct and if they were real you could hand me a cup full of morals and you can't do this. Morals do not guide a nation, society or culture laws govern it. Morals may be a mental compass. But they are only reasonable thoughts which many would agree with. But morals as a reality beyond thought do not exist. If you disagree send me a full cup of morals. You can't do this. So i have already proved they are nothing beyond thoughts.
 
So George Washington was evil as he owned other humans and morality isn't relative.

Slavery was immoral, and Washington understood it. (He emancipated all his slaves, via his will, posthumously). And of course people of some periods or in some places being blind to breaches of morality does not mean that morality itself is relative or situational.


But slavery is not a very good example because we run here into the problem of competence.

Nobody would claim that little children or people with severe mental disability should be given that precious freedom of choice. In this respect, we do have an element of "relativism" and reliance on consensus: the age of consent and definitions of mental health vary, and are based exactly on consensus, for the lack of any objective measures.

Black people were viewed a "savages" lacking the capacity to function as "consenting adults". The value of freedom was not in doubt - its applicability to this particular group was denied. The end of slavery was not a conceptual moral revolution but admission that the same very moral code does, indeed, apply to blacks.
 
Morality stems from harm. It's wrong to harm someone. As human society has evolved, this principle has been applied to society as a whole. It's wrong to do something that harms society, and the individual who did so must be punished. And from this you derive all the morality of the world.

Someone mentioned honour killings, and they're a perfect example of this. Someone has shamed family/society/whatever, so they must be punished.

It's only the punishment for harming individuals or society that distinguishes one morality from another.
 
With in that society, yes. Other societies may of course consider it immoral. A society is much like an individual in that way. Gives a slightly new perspective on the whole "sheeple" comment eh? lol
Society is based on law unless it is based in religion or a theocracy then it may be based on the moral codes set forth in that religion. Most of the worlds societies are based on laws which the leaders believe are for the good of the nations people. Laws may be thought either moral or not by the people but they are in the end the force which males the society move. In the US abortion is legal many believe this is right and many believe it is wrong. The specific morality in both camps does not matter the law is the law and it overrides the moral discussions.
 
Some morality is embodied in laws but others are not. It's illegal to park without putting money in the meter but it's not immoral. Many people see pre-marital sex as immoral but it's not illegal.
Some morality may match with law. This is true but morality does not make the laws. The reason is moral is changeable and subject to a persons own learned belief system.
 
Society is based on law unless it is based in religion or a theocracy then it may be based on the moral codes set forth in that religion. Most of the worlds societies are based on laws which the leaders believe are for the good of the nations people. Laws may be thought either moral or not by the people but they are in the end the force which males the society move. In the US abortion is legal many believe this is right and many believe it is wrong. The specific morality in both camps does not matter the law is the law and it overrides the moral discussions.

And the law is the law in a great many places that says gays cannot marry but I don't see you just accepting that, so your position is that gay rights that you were so defending yesterday are not a moral issue.
 
In my view morality is the laws of God and they are absolute.
 
Morality is individual and nothing more. They are beliefs any person may have or not have depending on what they have learned or experienced. They in essence do not exist beyond an individuals thoughts. Laws are the governing factor in a society. These laws make individual morals obsolete. If society were based on morals it would be in chaos as we all believe differently. Even based on religion everyone does not follow every rule in their bible. Foe every religion there is a different god or goddess. We can't even say their is one. So the legal system steps in and determines what will function as law and this is the guide for the nation. Everyone must conform to this legal standard and not what they personally believe. There fore morality goes out the window and law takes its place.
 
In my view morality is the laws of God and they are absolute.



Correct. "Morality" as it is understood in the Western world consists of the laws of God and to adhere to those laws is part of the worship of God. As I don't believe in "God", I also don't go thru the motions of worshipping him (re; I am not a "moral" person). And I love it.................
 
Do you believe morals are some part of the collective? If so, why? If not, why do you think their decisions matter on morality itself? If you ask me, to the most part these decisions you talk of are almost entirely selfish in nature and while the trend is desirable the everyday affairs are not.
I believe morals are based on individual thought and learning. Since we are calling these morals we find them different per individual. Morals lead us as the person but do not guide the nation or society. The nation and society overrides personal moral by creation of law. What I am discussing is not selfish at all. What I believe is moral or not does not matter with regard to the nation or society. I as you yield our personal moral code up to live in this nation or society and live by it's laws and legal system. Some religions say divorce is wrong and immoral. The law of the land says divorce is legal and so the law of the land wins. Yes the people in the marriage may find this goes against their faith but none the less the law overrides the moral belief orf both or one party and the divorce happens. This just shows that morals as personal belief do not matter in the larger spectrum of the society.
 
Back
Top Bottom