Agnostic.com

13 4

I have an interesting thought concerning morality and I would like to see what other people's thoughts are. It seems to me that at the core of it morality is simply distinguishing between behaviors that are acceptable or not acceptable and it seems like pretty much everyone would agree with that definition and it wouldn't be very contentious. The concept of morality developed because it is necessary to distinguish between acceptable behaviors and unacceptable behaviors for us to function cohesively in society and survive together.

What seems to get debatable and more contentious is what the framework for moral decision-making or distinguishing between acceptable or unacceptable behaviors should be. Should it be religion? Should it be culture? Should it be tradition? One of my beefs with religion is that it gives people a framework for moral decision-making that is based on false information and it ends up causing unnecessary pain and suffering, like if people are starving to death in another country because it is believed that cows are sacred and cannot be killed and eaten. Or a Christians framework for moral decision-making might be if God says it's right it's right and if God says it's wrong it's wrong and that is how they distinguish between acceptable or unacceptable behaviors and it's obvious how that can unnecessarily hurt groups of people.

Personally I choose to use the well-being of conscious creatures as the framework for my moral decision-making because I care about the pain and suffering of others.

AHWalter1989 5 Nov 5
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

13 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

Define moral and morality first.

Without everyone agreeing on the definition, no arguments will be worth reading.

I did define morality, distinguishing between behaviors that are acceptable and behaviors that are unacceptable is a system of morality.

Morality is the process of distinguishing between behaviors that are acceptable and behaviors that are unacceptable.

@AHWalter1989 Well, I guess the 'acceptable' and 'unacceptable' behaviors part is ambiguous. Most moral objections are on a sliding scale ... 'acceptable' and 'unacceptable' behaviors are black and white.

@AtheistInNC I would have to disagree that acceptable and unacceptable behaviors are black and white. Acceptable and unacceptable behaviors vary from culture and even from house to house in families.

0

The concept that morals are subject to social acceptability is very wrong. Certain behaviors are always immoral. For example what could possibly make rape moral?

I agree that rape is immoral because the framework for my moral decision-making is the well-being of conscious creatures. If someone has a framework for moral decision-making that causes them to believe it's ok to rape a woman (such as the Israelites being allowed to rape a woman in a neighboring tribe that was conquered), I care enough to about the well-being of that woman that I would interfere regardless and stop it from happening, even if I'm imposing my moral framework on theirs. Pretty much I would just say fuck their moral framework you're not raping that woman lol

Technically though someone could have a framework for their moral decision-making that makes raping a woman morally ok to them, however as I just stated above that doesn't mean I will agree with them and just let them rape a woman, and I will still consider their action immoral myself. It also doesn't change societal laws. If society says it's a crime to rape a woman it's really irrelevant whether someone has a moral framework that allows for raping a woman, they will still be arrested and possibly spend the rest of their life in prison.

@AHWalter1989 Your reply says nothing. When you can detail when rape could possibly be moral (irrespective of what anyone else may say) you will have a point. Currently all you are saying is some may disagree, which makes no point at all.

@Alienbeing Whether it's going to be considered moral or not is going to depend on your framework for moral-decision making. Nothing will be moral independent of what anyone thinks because it is thinking agents that decide whether things are moral or not. I can use objective evidence to prove raping a woman is wrong (such as how it hurts her psychologically, physically, etc.) but that evidence is only objective evidence within the context of my moral framework, which is the well-being of conscious creatures. If someone has a framework for moral decision-making that passing on their genes in any way possible is the basis for moral decision making raping a woman would be the most moral thing they could do, and the well-being of the woman would not be objective evidence that it is immoral within the context of that moral framework.

@AHWalter1989 You are wrong unless you can make a case that in some or any case rape is moral. You are again merely saying some might disagree, and even if some did disagree that would not magically make it moral, it would just make them wrong, unless one of them could prove it was moral.

0

morality not skewed by outside influence (such as religion or government) is based on survival of the species. humans do better when cooperating than when "i'm-all-right-jack"-ing (off).

g

1

Evil/Bad/Immoral is that which Increases SUFFERING! This knowledge is part of every mammal.. my dog knows when he plays too ruff and hurts me! He licks the spot he bit too hard..

It’s innate. We don’t need a book. Psycho paths are MISSING a part of nature just as if they were deaf/blind, etc.

If you live in a fucked up world and you still have kids — you are INCREASING SUFFERING! It’s a little abstract than sudden pain BUT still BAD

1

I believe morality is essentially whether or not something harms another person (and to what degree it harms them). Obviously, killing, raping, molesting, and beating another person directly harms them and the majority of people would agree that these things are immoral.

Other things that might harm a person such as stealing, lying, infidelity, dishonesty, and recklessness can harm other people to a varying degree though not always. If someone breaks into my home and steals everything of value and wrecks the place, I'm harmed both financially and probably psychologically. If a starving man steals a sandwich from a wealthy person... though illegal, I would say that it's not morally wrong. Some people might disagree with me.

But there are many things that are subjective to a person or group. I find racism or discrimination toward gay people to be morally wrong, yet both are widespread in this country (and other countries), so obviously a lot of people disagree with me.

I think humans will be debating morality for as long as there are enough humans on this planet to debate morality. And I don't think anyone will ever agree on a concrete answer.

2

My morality comes from treating others how I want to be treated.

0

Having read this I could adopt your belief of morality, where it came from, and what it really is. Caring about the pain and suffering of others in our world says it all. Acceptable behavior is a societal structure and it changes with advancement, but we should want the best for man and beast.

0

When you say 'behaviors that are acceptable', it begs the question 'acceptable to whom?' Everyone? Most people? 80%? 70%? What constitutes society? In smaller segments of society, you'll find behaviors that are acceptable, even applauded, that would almost certainly be deemed immoral by larger portions of the population at large. While in a very large society there may be segments that believe things are acceptable that are polar opposites of each other.
Defining mortality may be one of the most difficult things humans have ever attempted as it seems no one has ever done it successfully.

I'm speaking generally that the process of distinguishing between behaviors that are acceptable and behaviors that are not acceptable is what morality is. That's what anyone that makes a moral distinction does. I understand what you are saying but I have to disagree that it's difficult to define morality I just defined exactly what it is in one sentence. Smaller groups inside of a bigger group are just that, smaller groups, so yeah those smaller groups could have their own subset system of morality among themselves while living in the bigger group as well and even abiding by other moral distinctions of the bigger group at the same time.

@AHWalter1989 So by that definition, morality is subjective down to smaller and smaller groups until you get to each individual. So what happens when the smaller group's morality runs counter to the bigger group's that it's inside?

@JeffMurray That would depend on how much power the bigger group has to force the smaller group to follow its system of morality.

@AHWalter1989 We were discussing the determination, not enforcement, of morality. Remember, you said, "morality is simply distinguishing between behaviors that are acceptable or not acceptable and it seems like pretty much everyone would agree with that definition and it wouldn't be very contentious." One group making another group conform to their subjective ideas of what is moral by force sounds pretty contentious to me.

@JeffMurray Right but that doesn't change the fact that drawing a distinction between behaviors that are deemed acceptable and behaviors are deemed unacceptable is what morality is. Your point reinforces exactly what my point in the post is - the problem isn't the definition of morality it's what the framework for moral decision-making should be. The larger group has a different framework for moral decision-making than the smaller group and that's what is contentious.

@AHWalter1989 I disagree. By stipulating that it's completely subjective, claiming the definition of morality is what a small group or even an individual finds acceptable is essentially a non-statement.

2

All animals that live in packs or groups have rules of behaviour. Chimps that have spent lives in captivity can never be released into a truly wild situation as they would be killed for failing to follow the rules, if not killed then driven off which amounts to the same thing. Rescuers make groups of Chimps that can be released together so that they all follow the same set of rules of behaviour.
Morality is fluid, what is considered normal acceptable behaviour in one century is not in another, what is considered lewd or outside of moral behaviour in one decade is not in a future decade. Only a century or two ago the House of Lords in England debated the age of consent it was 12/13 (the document used both) and raising it to 16 this was in 1861. Girls as young at 12/13 were prostitutes. Now any person having sex with a child is a criminal. In Victorian England the manner of dress and behaviour of women was highly controlled, if they saw what was going on today heads would collectively explode.

Previously homosexuality was a criminal offense, then a mental health issue, and now is (by some) seen as just a part of the wide variety of humans that exist. Some cultures were there long before white cultures worked out this idea. I believe Ancient Greek and Roman cultures viewed it quite differently to how their countries rule it now.

Unfortunately many countries allow the cults to define morality and therefore laws to maintain it are influenced by a text written by a bunch of men many centuries ago and thus follow a morality that reflects the views of the men of that time. Some of the more recent cults while they might use a more recent morality were again written by men of the time and their views of morality. Thus no cult text should be used to define morality.

I got interesting in Wicca at one point simply because of the reed, "An it harm none do what you will" Basically if what you are doing is not going to harm someone else then it is your choice. From the xtian's cult we have "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

Someone below posted a poem that is also really good.

1

Morality, like everything else, is ultimately a product of human evolution. Our ancestors survived only through cooperation and tribal living, as Edward O. Wilson points out in The Atlantic for April 1998. Those who resisted a selfish urge to go off and hunt alone, and instead shared their risks and rewards with the rest of the group, not only stood a greater chance of survival, but probably passed on a genetic propensity for cooperative behavior to their ancestors. "Now suppose that human propensities to cooperate or defect are heritable: some people are innately more cooperative, others less so. In this respect moral aptitude would simply be like almost all other mental traits studied to date. Among traits with documented heritability, those closest to moral aptitude are empathy with the distress of others and certain processes of attachment between infants and their caregivers. To the heritability of moral aptitude add the abundant evidence of history that cooperative individuals generally survive longer and leave more offspring. Following that reasoning, in the course of evolutionary history genes predisposing people toward cooperative behavior would have come to predominate in the human population as a whole."

These basic sentiments would become more complex as we evolved, and things like honor, loyalty, courage, altruism, and mercy would become codified as "morality".

We all have an instinctive framework for moral behavior. We know how we want to be treated, and feel instinctively that we should treat those close to us the same way.

Unfortunately, our evolution brought with it such things as tribalism and xenophobia, since loyalty and generosity are most directed to one's kin. This is a natural result of genetic favoritism; it helps ensure the survival of one's own gene pool over competitors. That's the dark side of evolutionary morality. Tribal mythologies of defeating enemies grew into religions and myths of being a "chosen people"; these overlaid the instinctive moral framework and made it easy to treat outsiders as "others" not worthy of moral treatment. It is truly a mixed bag; our instincts are towards moral, compassionate behavior, but only to those we see as belonging to our own tribe.

The answer is to see all humanity as one. Then morality will become universal.

3

The only qualification I use for morality is whether it harms others or not.
As for opinions from culture, religion, politics they're all irrelevant.

To Hurt.

To hurt yourself
Is your concern,
And your concern
... Alone.

But ..
To hurt another, without consent?
That ...
One can’t condone.

This, in effect, has been my guiding moral principle. Unfortunately, as any honest person will admit, we don't always manage to follow our morality. We can however, try to make amends, whether it be through confession or concession.

@Petter The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I've done what I thought was right only to discover I was profoundly wrong more than once, but to not care enough to even pretend you have good intentions is beyond horrible. We don't know if we've done the right thing until all is said and done, but that's no excuse for not trying.

Nice new picture Peter 🙂

@Petter Pretty much how I try to live my life.

Agreed. It’s about well-being.

3

Your first and last paragraph convey perfectly human morality, there’s no need to introduce religion into the morality question at all, it’s completely superfluous. Morality predates religion and only detracts and distorts from true morality by adding in dictats, taboos and prejudices which all run counter to human empathy and love for our fellow living creatures. Any religious stricture which causes pain, hurt and division within families and brands people as deviant cannot be considered moral.

3

I look at life and love as manifesting inseparably. Morality for me os internal, inborn and self-regulating. What affirms and perpetuates life and love is moral. What suppressed and destroys life and love is immoral. It makes the old, more subjective good vs. evil principle clearer as well.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:549880
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.