• 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
Morality is a personal and subjective thing. It's shaped by a number of things, including how we were raised, and the society we live in, but ultimately it's personal. There is no outside force that determines it.
 
It exists on both.
If so then society would be scattered all over to accommodate what each persons moral code would state. It exists on laws which may in some cases match up to individual moral standards.
 
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.
It says that abortion is legal and I don't see people laying down and accepting this either. It does not mean we can't disagree with the law. It says that no matter what we believe the law of the land is the rule. Rules can change. So this being said if laws were morals and they can change so to cam morals and it proves my point that morals are only thoughts and personal ideals and subject to change. For me gay rights is not a moral issue at all it is an issue of equality. Abortion is more a moral issue than gay rights. Gay rights is based on equal under the law Abortion is based on a moral belief that the fetus needs to be protected. But in the abortion issue the woman's right to control her body is shoved aside in the thinking of many. But to answer your question gay rights are a disagreement with fair and equal under the law and not a moral issue at all.
 
In my view morality is the laws of God and they are absolute.
This leads to the question once again which god? Which religion takes precedence? Who's god rules? These are all questions when god comes up come into play.
 
If so then society would be scattered all over to accommodate what each persons moral code would state. It exists on laws which may in some cases match up to individual moral standards.

How many different countries are on this world? Like I said earlier, societies are much like individuals.
 
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.
Honor killings are not punishment. Killing a rape victim is an example of an honor killing. If a woman has been soiled, she must be killed for the honor of the family.
 
I went with law of nature. I think it is our biology that gives us a meaning for right and wrong. We don't like pain, fear, or loneliness, so right are things that reduce those feelings and wrong are things that increase them. Cooperation is right because it helps us be happy, healthy, and safe. Morality is very much based on physical, corporeal sensations.
I feel pain from hunger so I steal your food.
I fear you so I kill you.
I'm lonely* so I enslave you.


Morality is learned and, at least by our current standards, requires empathy. There's nothing biological about any given moral except maybe "going along with the group" (*this could also be construed as the opposite of "loneliness"), since community to some extent or other does seem to be a universal trait among all humans and most primates.
 
This leads to the question once again which god? Which religion takes precedence? Who's god rules? These are all questions when god comes up come into play.



The problem with morality in monotheistic societies is that any kind of imagined "natural" morality long ago became extinct and was replaced by a religious morality taken verbatim from an old book. If and how any society/culture can dig itself out of the abyss that is monotheistic religious based morality remains to be seen......................
 
Last edited:
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.
What if a couple has a terrible marriage and they're both very unhappy, but they stay together purely because they both believe divorce is immoral? In that case, the law doesn't win. There are infinite other examples.
 
Morality is a personal and subjective thing. It's shaped by a number of things, including how we were raised, and the society we live in, but ultimately it's personal. There is no outside force that determines it.
Society and how we're raised are both outside forces.
 
How many different countries are on this world? Like I said earlier, societies are much like individuals.
Yes they are like individuals and their moralities are all different. This would be to say morality is in flux or not a specific standard for all.
 
I believe morals are based on individual thought and learning.

Most people simply lack an understanding from what I have seen outside of some set understanding of code of conduct. They have little understanding of how to expand beyond it, so they stay to the same conduct rules they were taught all those years ago and do nothing but work of the base and turn around and call it their morality. That appears to be the extent of it from my experience of this learning exercise. What is your experience with it?

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.

To the most part it is. From my experience people confuse personal desire or need with a sense of morality. Almost all law is based on this rather confused ideal be it taxes or welfare.
 
Last edited:
The problem with morality in monotheistic societies is that any kind of imagined "natural" morality long ago became extinct and was replaced by a religious morality taken verbatim from an old book. If and how any society/culture can dig itself out of the abyss that is monotheistic religious based morality remains to be seen......................
This is true and even this basis for morality is inconsistent from one book to another. It makes it difficult to see if there ever has been a built in moral compass or one which had evolved. One the natural was perverted by teaching we lost any sense of the natural. It will never be sorted out until we all stop trying to lay our ideals on others as the only answer or way out.
 
Your premiss for morals would require everyone to be live as you do.

That's absurd; I'm not a moron. I expect certain standards. For examples: no rape or murder. I don't expect everyone to serve as a paratrooper, acquire their masters in Europe, spend years in Africa and plan to settle there, be vegan, etc etc etc

Don't put BS in my mouth. 99% of people CAN'T live as I do, they simply haven't the intellectual capacity and other blessings.
 
Last edited:
What if a couple has a terrible marriage and they're both very unhappy, but they stay together purely because they both believe divorce is immoral? In that case, the law doesn't win. There are infinite other examples.
Yes a different law wins and that is the law of a faith which would force them to live in misery rather than be free to love again and maybe find joy. They have chosen a different law. The basis you go on is that both are guided by this faith. The only losers in your scenario are the man and woman who would rather live a life tied to someone they do not love rather than break so arbitrary religious rule.
 
This is true and even this basis for morality is inconsistent from one book to another. It makes it difficult to see if there ever has been a built in moral compass or one which had evolved. One the natural was perverted by teaching we lost any sense of the natural. It will never be sorted out until we all stop trying to lay our ideals on others as the only answer or way out.

I don't believe you can use those sources interchangeably. The bible is merely a work of fiction while the other describes the world around you.
 
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.
All I said was that some morality was embodied in law and others aren't. That was a response to the OP. However, I should note that most laws are not immoral but there are exceptions.

I've now read through this thread - to this point, at least - and I've always agreed that morality is determined by society and that individuals have their own morals on top of that, some of which conflict with societal mores. For example, stealing is generally immoral to society (and almost always illegal) but many people don't see a poor, starving person stealing food or a homeless person squatting in an empty building to get out of the cold as immoral.
 
Last edited:
All I said was that some morality was embodied in law and others aren't. That was a response to the OP.

I've now read through this thread - to this point, at least - and I've always agreed that morality is determined by society and that individuals have their own morals on top of that, some of which conflict with societal mores. For example, stealing is generally immoral to society (and almost always illegal) but many people don't see a poor, starving person stealing food or a homeless person squatting in an empty building to get out of the cold as immoral.

They don't? Why?

You appear to be doing exactly what I described above. You're confusing need with morality.

The poor man is not excluded by morality simply because he is poor and in need. The moral thing to do is help the poor man, but in turn the moral thing for the poor man to do is not to steal from everyone else to get the help he needs. Why would someone think that something is different for him?
 
Last edited:
Yes a different law wins and that is the law of a faith which would force them to live in misery rather than be free to love again and maybe find joy. They have chosen a different law. The basis you go on is that both are guided by this faith. The only losers in your scenario are the man and woman who would rather live a life tied to someone they do not love rather than break so arbitrary religious rule.
Who said anything about religious rules? They could both be atheists. The law loses.
 
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.
I agree that morality goes out the window for the overall population but morality certainly is pertinent to your individual social group(s). Break the morals of the group and you may get shunned.


I agree with the rest of your post.
 
This is true and even this basis for morality is inconsistent from one book to another. It makes it difficult to see if there ever has been a built in moral compass or one which had evolved. One the natural was perverted by teaching we lost any sense of the natural. It will never be sorted out until we all stop trying to lay our ideals on others as the only answer or way out.



Ideally, of course..........But none of us have ever lived in a vaccuum and the fact remains that our predecessors, whether yesterday or 2,000 years ago, opted for a manner of behaviour that made a lifestyle out of "laying their ideals on others as the ultimate answer". I guess my point is: People didn't "evolve" into moral beings-----They degenerated into a raving mob of demented sidedrooling control freaks............I'm not sure I "believe" that type of affliction can be cured, not to appear overly pessimistic...................
 
They don't? Why?

You appear to be doing exactly what I described above. You're confusing need with morality.

The poor man is not excluded by morality simply because he is poor and in need. The moral thing to do is help the poor man, but in turn the moral thing for the poor man to do is not to steal from everyone else to get the help he needs. Why would someone think that something is different for him?
I'm not confusing anything. A lot of people believe breaking the law to "not die" is not immoral.
 
I'm not confusing anything. A lot of people believe breaking the law to "not die" is not immoral.

The law? This is not a matter of law. Respecting the property of someone else is a moral position and to some degree not a legal one. The question you offered perhaps on accident was if it was right for the poor man to steal. It is not.

Your position appears to be that it is right for the poor man to steal because he is need, but the fact remains need has no bearing on what he should or should not do towards others.
 
Last edited:
Ideally, of course..........But none of us have ever lived in a vaccuum and the fact remains that our predecessors, whether yesterday or 2,000 years ago, opted for a manner of behaviour that made a lifestyle out of "laying their ideals on others as the ultimate answer". I guess my point is: People didn't "evolve" into moral beings-----They degenerated into a raving mob of demented sidedrooling control freaks............I'm not sure I "believe" that type of affliction can be cured, not to appear overly pessimistic...................

I'd have to disagree. The caveman for example was all about instinct, no morals what so ever. Yes morals can be, and was, the cause of many an atrocity, but it can also...and has also....created the very country that we live in. It was morality that made our founders realize that people had rights. It was morality that ended slavery despite the obvious advantage of free labor. It was morality that ended segregation. And many other things.
 
Back
Top Bottom