• 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 initial post I gave was of a couple married in a church and so that is why i speak of religious rules here. It was an example based on a religious decision. Certainly there could be an atheistic position as well.
So you acknowledge that sometimes the law loses?
 
Are you trying to argue there is no individual morality?
I am. There's individual interpretation of morality, but no individual morality. When I feel that rape is wrong, I feel that it's wrong for everyone, not just me.

Edit: If someone feels that rape is wrong for them but has no opinion about it being right/wrong for others, that isn't an opinion about morality.
 
Last edited:
Interesting thought there, mpg. I don't have a like button on BoardExpress or I'd click it.
Sent from my Nokia Lumia 920 using Board Express
 
Yeah, I didn't word that very well. Our morality is shaped by outside forces, but it isn't determined by some inherent natural law or the will of god or anything like that.
Many people are voting "other", and I'm getting the feeling that they have similar views. I've seen people talk about is an an individual thing. I didn't make that one of the options because it didn't occur to me that people would feel that way. Morality, by definition, is something that applies to everybody, at least within a family, community or culture. If you say that it's wrong for you to rape, but it may or may not be wrong for others, you haven't expressed an opinion about the morality of rape. If you want to express an opinion about the morality of rape, you have to say that it's wrong for everyone or OK for everyone.

I also noticed that only 1 person said it's a false concept. I expected that to be the most popular choice.
 
Who would honestly ask if morality exist?
 
Immoral to you. Morals are subjective.

Nope. Definitions of words are subjective, if we forget to agree on vocabulary beforehand (as we always do): you include religious taboos and expressions of disgust in the category "morals", I do not.

Morality Neomaltusian and I were talking about is quite objective: it is the recognition of human life and human freedom of choice as basic values. When someone is proposing punishments or restrictions on people who did no one any harm and pose no imminent threat to anybody (homosexuals, e.g.) that someone is proposing immoral acts of aggression against innocents - "doing onto others" something he certainly wouldn't want to be "done onto himself".
 
Last edited:
quote 63.jpg
 
Morality, by definition, is something that applies to everybody, at least within a family, community or culture. If you say that it's wrong for you to rape, but it may or may not be wrong for others, you haven't expressed an opinion about the morality of rape. If you want to express an opinion about the morality of rape, you have to say that it's wrong for everyone or OK for everyone.

That's not really what I mean when I say that morality is subjective. I agree that morals apply to everyone (or should anyway, some people have inconsistent views on that sort of thing). i.e. if I believe it is moral to act a certain way and immoral to act a different way, then I likely believe that is true for everyone. What I mean by morality is subjective is that whether a particular act is moral or immoral depends on who you're asking the question of.

For example some people believe homosexuality to be immoral, others believe it is moral. Each of those people believes that morality or immorality to apply to everyone, but it is not universally moral or immoral.
 
For example some people believe homosexuality to be immoral, others believe it is moral.

I would suggest that both aren't thinking straight. One group allows a confessional taboo to override basic moral principles, and another finds moral content where there's none: homosexuality is not moral or immoral, it is a sexual preference - a biological condition.

Each of those people believes that morality or immorality to apply to everyone, but it is not universally moral or immoral. .

Obviously, people disagree on moral issues, otherwise we would not be having this conversation. It doesn't mean, however, that objective morality does not exist. It simply means that some people discover and accept it, others discover and reject, still others have no clue what to look for or why look at all...
 
Last edited:
I am. There's individual interpretation of morality, but no individual morality. When I feel that rape is wrong, I feel that it's wrong for everyone, not just me.

Edit: If someone feels that rape is wrong for them but has no opinion about it being right/wrong for others, that isn't an opinion about morality.
Then what would you call personal beliefs of civility (right and wrong, if you prefer) if not morality?
Do you prefer "a standard of ethics", instead? I've always reserved that term for specific or professional groups of people.
 
Last edited:
That's not really what I mean when I say that morality is subjective. I agree that morals apply to everyone (or should anyway, some people have inconsistent views on that sort of thing). i.e. if I believe it is moral to act a certain way and immoral to act a different way, then I likely believe that is true for everyone. What I mean by morality is subjective is that whether a particular act is moral or immoral depends on who you're asking the question of.

For example some people believe homosexuality to be immoral, others believe it is moral. Each of those people believes that morality or immorality to apply to everyone, but it is not universally moral or immoral.
I don't mean to be rude, but everyone knows that each person has their own opinions about what is and isn't moral. It goes without saying, but it doesn't address the OP or the poll.
 
Then what would you call personal beliefs of civility (right and wrong, if you prefer) if not morality?
Like I already said, each individual has their own interpretation of morality. It's kinda like the Constitution, there are many interpretations but only one Constitution.
 
Like I already said, each individual has their own interpretation of morality. It's kinda like the Constitution, there are many interpretations but only one Constitution.
Then you are claiming some form of objective morality that applies to everyone, everywhere?
 
Then you are claiming some form of objective morality that applies to everyone, everywhere?
Me personally? Yes, I believe in natural law, but that's just my opinion. Some people believe in God and his/her laws. Those would also apply to everybody everywhere. If you believe morality is the laws of a particular society, then they apply to everyone within that society. If you believe that it only applies to the individual, that doesn't fit the definition of morality. What if you feel that rape is immoral and a rapist feels that it's moral? Would you say that the rapist is behaving morally simply because he's obeying his own morals?
 
Me personally? Yes, I believe in natural law, but that's just my opinion. Some people believe in God and his/her laws. Those would also apply to everybody everywhere. If you believe morality is the laws of a particular society, then they apply to everyone within that society. If you believe that it only applies to the individual, that doesn't fit the definition of morality. What if you feel that rape is immoral and a rapist feels that it's moral? Would you say that the rapist is behaving morally simply because he's obeying his own morals?
For ME to say someone was behaving morally, they would have to obey MY morals, not theirs - and vice versa.

I have no doubt I have done things in my life that others found immoral even though I didn't. When I was very young pre-marital sex was immoral. Many religious people still believe it's immoral but the majority of the population doesn't think that, anymore, and my friends never thought that. So, was my pre-marital sex immoral? I didn't think so or I wouldn't have done it.
 
In the circumstance of one being a pedophile... no, though I would imagine it very possible depending of this individual's conception of morality,

Morality is a social construct and not something imagined by an individual.
 
Last edited:
For ME to say someone was behaving morally, they would have to obey MY morals, not theirs - and vice versa.

I have no doubt I have done things in my life that others found immoral even though I didn't. When I was very young pre-marital sex was immoral. Many religious people still believe it's immoral but the majority of the population doesn't think that, anymore, and my friends never thought that. So, was my pre-marital sex immoral? I didn't think so or I wouldn't have done it.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/159640-morality-22.html#post1061771904
 
Morality, laws, values, freedoms and rights are built around one concept, fairness. Civilization, society and community are a result of treating each other with respect and dignity. We are held together by the belief that all human life is of equal value regardless of age, sex, ethnicity or position.
 
Morality is a social construct and not something imagined by an individual.

From my experience it is both and the two are very relative. Do you not have moral dictum that exists regardless of societal influence? Or do you see the individual as irrelevant on this subject?
 
From my experience it is both and the two are very relative. Do you not have moral dictum that exists regardless of societal influence? Or do you see the individual as irrelevant on this subject?

The individual is irrelevant, as an individual alone has no need or use for morality. Morality is, by nature and logic, a social construct.
 
I'm sure in your mind someone can commit legal theft. Again, I disagree with you. To me that's like saying it's legal murder.

The term theft is not simply a legal term like murder.
 
So you acknowledge that sometimes the law loses?
It is not a matter of losing. Law was never in a position to have to make a decision. If one or the other would have taken action to dissolve the marriage Law would have. This was an example of two people deciding for whatever reason to stand pat and hold their hands. I did though in a different post make this point. Someone had said if a poor person steals food or stays inside a building that is off limits to survive and is arrested no one really wants to see this person punished. A judge may well decide to show leniency and not punish this person. He may back off the strict letter of the law in favor of his personal feelings. In a case such as this it gives the appearance that Law lost. It is really not the case. It is a personal decision maybe wrongly given by a judge. So there may well be some exceptions but they are few and far between. Thanks
 
Back
Top Bottom