I'd like to think my own morality is continually improving and adapting as I become more aware of the consequences of my actions. Always best I can be with what I know today, and hopefully even better with every tomorrow.

I think the standards for good morals over the past 100 years raises with every passing year. Racism, sexism, looking the other way regarding domestic and child abuse, were common for example. The general mores of society have become elevated as more people speak up with their stories to assert more fairness and compassion.

Morality (like beauty) is in the mind of the beholder.

Not sure exactly what you mean, but since I dropped religion out of my life I think I've become a better person. I do what I think is right and try to stay on a good path WITHOUT the promise of a reward. What is a struggle for me is not dropping a bomb on or ridiculing someone still trapped by the chains of religion. I try to respect their beliefs but inside I'm roiling; like, how can you be so stupid?!? So that's like walking a tightrope. I also must admit that a lot of my morality stems from the way I was raised by an older mother who herself was raised during the Edwardian era. Old school. Which means I fit in today's society like a square peg in a round hole. All in all I think atheists and agnostics are morally superior to religious people, especially Christians.

Some philosophers say that morality is a culturally conditioned response. Is there an absolute right or wrong? - has yet been not established. Most of the right are and wrong are culturally or socially accepted ideas. If I was born 1000 years ago, I would be called a morally superior strong man, if I kill the enemy human beings to secure my land, I'd be called a hero. People after 1000 years from now may call us the most immoral and cruel creatures for killing innocent animals like cows and pigs for the sake of our taste buds pleasure. There's inequality everywhere in the street and we totally find them acceptable; but what was totally or morally acceptable few hundreds year ago, we can't imagine doing. So, to establish a good or objective morality to even compare can be quite challenging. But I assume education and information and knowledge have correlationwith wiseness and thus tend to lean towards moral behaviors.

I also want to add that I don't think a truly moral person ever claims himself or herself to be moral, like a humble person never claims himself or herself to be humble. If he or she does, he or she is just not humble. A moral person always tries to be an even better person accepting his or her shortcomings. It's a constant striving I feel like. But assessing yourself as suggested in the question may be good at some point in the timeline of life.

Morality is a pretty subjective matter but I think that on average an atheist is more moral than a religious person because as an atheist you have to make your own decisions on morality whereas a religious person defaults to a sky daddy for their decisions. One is acting morally and the other is just being subservient at best and hypocritical at worst.

I believe I have a stronger moral understanding than the general religious population. The foundation of my morals begin simply. 'I don't believe anyone has the right to murder me, so I logically have no right to murder anyone.'

I like the idea of being the good you want to see in the world. How what you do when no one is looking really dictates what kind of person you are. I like to think Im a bit high on the moral ladder.

Personally I think agnostics and atheists have an advantage by being able to view events from a non-religious point. We don't have someone making up the rules for us, we do it on our own. I have been told that atheists have higher ethics than most people, that was from a religious person.
Atheists and agnostics having higher ethics as an aggregate? I don't know, we are just people.

I’d like to think I’m a good person. I may come off as rude sometimes when I speak, but I can’t say whether morality is about intent rather than outcome. Unfortunately, I think your question is a little vague. What is morality to begin with? Does someone’s circumstances at a young age affect what they see as morally right and wrong? What about different cultures? Morality is very ambiguous and hard to gauge for humanity as a whole. Generally speaking, laws follow the same moral compass on murder, stealing, assault, etc. however, unspoken “social” laws are the more ambiguous area.

I agree that buying into a religion gives you an automatic set of rules you are supposed to obey. But beyond that I've always had a particularly difficult time with Catholicism. Now please understand I was never Catholic so perhaps it's an unbeliever's misperception, but the idea of last rights absolving all sin seems to me the ultimate cop out. You can do whatever awful things you choose to do to anyone, just as long as you're careful to get absolved before you die. And don't they offer the last rights to prisoners about to be executed? Does that mean their slate is washed clean?

Morality? It depends on the time and space you live in. Morality is becoming more and more lost, because unfortunately we live in a time when everything has its own price, and so is morality.

Religious people have their moral values "set in stone" for them, usually based on moral values many millennia old . Therefore, if they "stray" they agonise. (This spelling checker does not like the plural of millennium or the spelling of agonise. It must be US English based!!)
Atheists tend to set themselves realistic, present day values. For example, is adultery a sin? Olden values answer with an unequivocal "YES" but modern values would moderate the answer. What if it is an open marriage? What if you are both swingers? So the answer could be YES or NO depending on the mitigating circumstances. Instead, "Cheating" becomes the sin.
Religion accepts the dominance and abuse of women. Present day values regard it as extremely sinful - and I agree wholeheartedly. (And even my wife will when I tell her to do so. Lol)

Morality is inflicted upon individuals by society. Society is controlled by the most powerful voices, usually those speaking "god's words." Fuck morality, be a person who respects life because it's the only thing of value (my bit of self-imposed morality) and let people be themselves as long as they don't destroy life.

This doesn't really work, but is a good exercise.
I believe I am ok, but my lifestyle would probably have had me arrested 100 years ago. Atheist, divorced, single father, encouraging people to challenge the status quo, I enjoy sex with ladies I am not married to, we had vagrancy acts here I have no money on me when I go out, I associate with people of different ethnic back grounds. So I would be totally a-moral back then. Back even in my lifetime, infanticide was not a crime, indigenous people were stock belonging to the land you bought. You were unlikely to be charged for killing a chinaman, and killing indigenous people was something the Government hired other indigenous people to do.

I'd give myself like a B+ to the last 100 years D average. Stepping away from religion really let me step into other's shoes more easily, really seeing people as individuals and not just part of a larger group that speaks for them. But I'm at a B- because I'm not perfect and can be a little greedy and ambitious.

1000!

Morality is ever changing, So I would think I am average !

My experience is practicing religious people can always blame God or atribute problems to God .. where as non religious types rely on more critical analysis which is more honest on the whole in the sense of self.. Ironic in the light of "Know they self" lol .. So religion opens up amorality / immorality using God as an excuse.

I'd say I was a saint but then most saints were alcoholic drug addicts .. so not sure how you wanna rank it lol

I just reread the conditions for this website. In your profile there is a caveat regarding the photos: no nudity. Ok I understand that this site is based in Trumplandia. But it is weird how timid the administration of the site is considering the vulgar baffoon the runs the US of A.
Obviously nudity is morally reprehensible yet magazines like Playboy, Hustler, National Geographic all have their origin the USA. Is morality just an instrument to keep certain goods, e.g. Nudity, a commercial commodity?

I guess you all know about the VW Diesel scandal ... It was highly immoral what this company did. But now that the owners of the cars have lost their innocence are the acting immorally by continuing to use these mobile air polluting devices?

One person here mention how s/he contracted herpes from a lover because s/he did not tell about his herpes status.

We should all accept our decisions and stand by them. If our own moral standards are out of synch with the community we act in, we shall accept the consequences.

More people should be more vocal if they disagree with the prevailing standards.

This is an older post but I got some points to make on it just because.

1. Morality is something difficult to discuss as a subject, this is primarily due to the subjective nature of it, partially verified by you asking it to be rated.

2. Morality is subject to cultural/societal ethical standards. For example, here, murder is illegal and therefore most are against such a crime. Whereas in places within the middle east, you can be justified to kill if the person you murdered was not in concordance with your particular religious/cultural views.

3. Given the above, the most logical way for one to rate his/her moral code is by comparing it to those within his/her sphere of influence and/or area, and must compare it with those moral views that are contrasting to his/her own. Why? Because if your's was the same as everyone else's around you, your comparison would be subject to conformation bias and therefore even more objectively invalid than previously established in points 1 and 2.

4. Thus me answering that question with a 1 or a 10 makes little to no difference given the subjective nature of both rating my morality and the morality itself, whether it is morality influenced by a morality previously established 100 years ago or a moral creed I just recently made up.

How the hell would I know what the morality standard was a hundred years ago? Compared to mine today? That is such an odd question. Tell me about yours, then maybe we can compare.

I think that I am above average in mu morality, as I know that I am responsible for all of my decisons and actions, and because the basis of my moral code is the concept of minimum violation of human dignity and respect.

That's a great question. Personally, when I was a 'believer' I was focused on the external acceptance of me and my actions. That quickly changed with introductions to philosophy, Mathematics and higher sciences, but mostly through the hypocritical and contradictory practices of Religion. When I went through my transition from believer to agnostic to atheist, I fell into the stereotypical GOD VOID that most do and became narcissistic, dismissive of moral constructs, an over drinker, a drug user and sexually explicit. Kinda like a rubber band that is stretched to it's limits, from one extreme to another but with force of a projectile trying to demolish one idea with another. Maybe it was my social economic upbringing or my subculture, or machismoism, or my age, but I thought I had it all under control. Continuing through my growth, and relearning to love myself I became conscientious of my actions and the consequences the caused. Gravitating back towards agnosticism through unexplainable experiences, Expanding my understanding of varying Faith's, and ideologies, as well as electromagnetic theories and chemistry, Quantum Mechanics what not I've landed on Humanist as a comfortable label for myself. Rating my moral construct is like putting a point on the crest of a wave only to see it grow smaller and then larger again. But to entertain you, on a scale of 1-10, a 2. Mostly because I am self serving still. But that's only because we live in an economic system that forced to allow so much cognitive dissonance and I like shelter and food.

Radical I guess...maybe.....not.....
But then morality is relative or subjective or completely at the whim of the one concocting it/them. Not totally useless but convenient and maliable.