Morality

[Jolthig]

As the thread title says, what define morality? Does religion define morality or do you not need religion to define morality?

I personally believe religion can help someone have morals, considering that they have a Holy book such as the Quran in my Faith's case to study all the time. Fear of God especially comes into play when someone wants to purify themselves morally. Many religious people like Muslims and Christians, for instance, have a goal to attain, that being, the worship of God, to develop better morals.

This helps motivate them to donate to charity, helping their neighbor, having compassion, patience, and etc.

I am not denying however, that one without religion cannot have morals, nor that religious people, are simply better than atheists. Rather, fear of God, and a lot of prayers, as in the case of Islam, can really put a lot of emphasis for an individual to develop righteousness, and in turn, a high moral character as they have that goal in mind, the attainment of the pleasure of God?

What is your view on morality? Religious or not? Discuss.

[Infected Mushroom]

Generally speaking, morality is reason. Immorality is when you abandon reason for madness.

The competing view that there is no good and evil, only power and those too weak to seek it.

[North German Realm]

All things considered, Morality is more a set of pre-determined things that a collective society decides "wrong" in one way or the other and tries to demonize in its culture. The different sets of morals comes from different opinions (and what we define wrong).
It is likely the earliest sets of morality ("killing, attacking, or stealing from the people of our tribe is bad") came from general common sense. A small collective that has a lot of troubles to deal with (other small collectives, wild animals, harsh terrain and lack of the technology it requires to survive, et al) realizes it pretty quickly that it can't tolerate the things it does to others within the boundaries of the tribe. So murder of or theft from other tribes is ok (because we get more space, also food), but it can't deal with that threat in its own boundaries. and the more we go on, the larger the collective becomes, the more complicated it gets.

Then, at some point, they need to find a source for that morality. While in reality it's just a complication of the crude law of "don't poop where you eat", you can't say that to the curious people who say "but why", and there -at that point- you need to define a source. Religion is generally a good source (as it has a high influence in a society and can command respect), but I personally like the more abstract and logical concepts like "Because it's the infringing of another person's rights".

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

To summarize the fundamentals of my moral positions, I'll leave this here.

In the Form of Formal Argumentation
Premise: (You act as though) Your physical and psychological needs have intrinsic value, and you work to meet them
Premise: The differences between the “other” and the “self/kin” are negligible*
Conclusion: (You should act as though) Everybody's needs have intrinsic value, and you should work to meet them as best as possible when practical (i.e. one should act with unconditional compassion)

In essence, I hold that "pure" egoism and "pure" nihilism are rather arbitrary means of answering "what-to-do-next", in that oneself is not fundamentally different from others, and therefore one should treat others with the same dignity/love with which one treats oneself. From this basis, further moral truths can be discovered. In somewhat more detail, if we argue morality in the real world is about addressing the problem of what-to-do-next, then it removes the focus on individuals to more general statements. If moral choices are actually about decision-making, then the application of the idea "intrinsic value is impartial" does generate compelling reasons to care about the experiences of other people and factor them impartially into our decisions, because we interact with them in our daily lives. Their experiences and thus choices do matter, because they have consequences for our decisions. I'm not sure there is utility in rejecting impartiality, for the self, for others, and for society. I maintain that this argument evidently follows from the application of impartiality to the broader definition of morality, which is to say that the Good is thus an independent and objective abstraction based on caring about the experiences of other people and factoring them impartially into our decisions for the benefit of all (i.e. "unconditional compassion"/"impartial benevolence", or jian'ai according to the Mohist philosophers), and that moral human behavior would be in accord with it.

I believe that a quote from Mozi sums it up rather nicely:

If people regarded other people’s states in the same way that they regard their own, who then would incite their own state to attack that of another? For one would do for others as one would do for oneself. If people regarded other people’s cities in the same way that they regard their own, who then would incite their own city to attack that of another? For one would do for others as one would do for oneself. If people regarded other people’s families in the same way that they regard their own, who then would incite their own family to attack that of another? For one would do for others as one would do for oneself. And so if states and cities do not attack one another and families do not wreak havoc upon and steal from one another, would this be a harm to the world or a benefit? Of course one must say it is a benefit to the world.

*My reasoning for embracing such an abstract meta-ethical axiom (that is to say, that the differences between the “other” and the “self/kin” are negligible, or more broadly the phenomenon of empathy and the concept of impartiality) is that I realized knowledge in the domains of mathematics, logic, and especially morality are made by the same process that gives us scientific knowledge. Namely creativity and criticism. This is true even though the nature of investigation is very different in all these domains (mathematics/logic, for example, being axioms and proofs, logical consistency and completeness). Furthermore, scientific explanations necessarily employ abstract objects and quantities that are not directly experienced but essential parts of the explanation. Also, if abstractions are all just in the mind (just the way we represent regularities in the outside world), then all we've done is shuffle the problem of abstraction in the outside world to abstractions in our own minds. Not to mention that unobservable universals are necessary components of explanatory knowledge, whether scientific or in another domain. By saying there are no abstractions, the "pure" egoist or the "pure" nihilist thus implies that there are only subjective illusions and that only meaningless world of subatomic particles exists. But that also means rejecting that experience, the self, and indeed the very concept of personhood exists, and thus the importance and primacy of your own sense of good. By abstract quantities, I meant things like energy and entropy, as well as physical constants like the charge of the electron. For an example, look no further to the concept of heat. We know that heat doesn't require material transfer. The transfer of heat energy depends on the reduction of a difference in distribution of some physical quantity, like the redistributing of translational movements and molecular vibrations between the molecules of one object and another. These differences between systems are objective parts of the explanation. Thermodynamics describes high level physical processes, like the tendency towards greater disorder, but these have not yet been derived from simpler descriptions of interactions between particles. It is not clear if such a reduction is possible as an explanation. My point about abstractions is that they are essential parts of explanations (including physics) that appear to be semi-autonomous to the lower level description, yet still being objective. They are not only simpler but provide better understanding than even a hypothetical computer simulating all the fundamental laws to predict what would happen would produce (without denying determinism). However, we're not really talking about physics, but moral values. It is very unclear how these have any basis in the "hard" physical world. But nevertheless, I argue that they form essential parts of our best explanations for different levels of description, in other words, they appear to be nonphysical but objective. Values, such as the distinction of right and wrong appear in our moral theories that are conjectured to address real problems, and so we must count them as objective if these theories survive. In essence, if you reject abstractions as having any independent objective reality (like moral values, except what one arbitrarily imposes), then you must also reject the premise that the self or personhood exists, a concept which is patently absurd.


TL;DR: I think that the Good is an independent and objective abstraction based on caring about the experiences of other people and factoring them impartially into our decisions for the benefit of all (i.e. "unconditional compassion"/"impartial benevolence"), and that moral human behavior would be in accord with it.

[Andsed]

Whatever the standards society think is moral.

[Jolthig]

Whatever the standards society think is moral.

That would be quite an invalid argument because you could say that the middle east is correct in their definition of morality, but we all know how they are...

[Andsed]

Whatever the standards society think is moral.

That would be quite an invalid argument because you could say that the middle east is correct in their definition of morality, but we all know how they are...

Let me clarify. Morality is subjective and it is whatever your society thinks is moral is going to likely be what you think is moral.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Cripes, not shying away from the big questions.

I view it as fairly indistinguishable from ethics, and fundamentally about the legitimacy of the demands that a particular society makes on its members through institutions of social control, and the legitimacy of the demands that individuals put on society in return through assertions of difference.

Personally, I believe that history and the prevailing culture are important players - and that religion has some role in forming the heritage even if, like me, you're an atheist. The collective interest rather than the selfish interest should be paramount, since the collective forms the basis of moral thinking, but there should be a modicum of flexibility in accommodating diversity so long as the variant forms of lifestyle are not liable to make people define themselves against society or are completely incompatible with either its principles or the rights of others.

[Jolthig]

That would be quite an invalid argument because you could say that the middle east is correct in their definition of morality, but we all know how they are...

Let me clarify. Morality is subjective and it is whatever your society thinks is moral is going to likely be what you think is moral.

Got it.

[United Muscovite Nations]

As a Christian, I believe there are only two commandments, from which all other moral positions can be arrived at:

1) Love God
2) Love others as much as you love yourself

Once you accept these two principles, I think right action is pretty obvious, because it should be obvious when you're acting in an unloving way towards someone or towards God. As for the basis of those two moral views, they are done in emulation of God, to make oneself more like God in action.

[United Muscovite Nations]

That would be quite an invalid argument because you could say that the middle east is correct in their definition of morality, but we all know how they are...

Let me clarify. Morality is subjective and it is whatever your society thinks is moral is going to likely be what you think is moral.

The problem with subjective morality is that it reduces morality to a human construct, and when you do that, there's really no basis for morality other than as a social construct.

[Jolthig]

Let me clarify. Morality is subjective and it is whatever your society thinks is moral is going to likely be what you think is moral.

The problem with subjective morality is that it reduces morality to a human construct, and when you do that, there's really no basis for morality other than as a social construct.

This is very true

[Old Tyrannia]

As a Christian, I believe there are only two commandments, from which all other moral positions can be arrived at:

1) Love God
2) Love others as much as you love yourself

Once you accept these two principles, I think right action is pretty obvious, because it should be obvious when you're acting in an unloving way towards someone or towards God. As for the basis of those two moral views, they are done in emulation of God, to make oneself more like God in action.

Essentially, this.

I would go further, or at least rephrase it, and say that the foundation of all morality is God. God is love; therefore, love is the foundation of morality.

[Jolthig]

As a Christian, I believe there are only two commandments, from which all other moral positions can be arrived at:

1) Love God
2) Love others as much as you love yourself

Once you accept these two principles, I think right action is pretty obvious, because it should be obvious when you're acting in an unloving way towards someone or towards God. As for the basis of those two moral views, they are done in emulation of God, to make oneself more like God in action.

Essentially, this.

I would go further, or at least rephrase it, and say that the foundation of all morality is God. God is love; therefore, love is the foundation of morality.

And as a Muslim, I agree with you both.

[Andsed]

Let me clarify. Morality is subjective and it is whatever your society thinks is moral is going to likely be what you think is moral.

The problem with subjective morality is that it reduces morality to a human construct, and when you do that, there's really no basis for morality other than as a social construct.

That is the harsh truth. Our ideas of morality and what is right and wrong is something we created. Morality is what society decides is moral.

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

Morality is FAKE.

[United Muscovite Nations]

The problem with subjective morality is that it reduces morality to a human construct, and when you do that, there's really no basis for morality other than as a social construct.

That is the harsh truth. Our ideas of morality and what is right and wrong is something we created. Morality is what society decides is moral.

Our ideas of it aren't what is true though. Either morality is real, and we have opinions about it, or it doesn't exist. Subjective morality is just an attempt to reconcile nihilism and the fact that we dislike actions.

[Jolthig]

The problem with subjective morality is that it reduces morality to a human construct, and when you do that, there's really no basis for morality other than as a social construct.

That is the harsh truth. Our ideas of morality and what is right and wrong is something we created. Morality is what society decides is moral.

Yes, that is true to an extent, but true morality ultimately comes from religion because morality simply cannot be defined without God and religion. If it is, it is incredibly flawed, and no one will place as much emphasis on morality like religion does.

[Andsed]

That is the harsh truth. Our ideas of morality and what is right and wrong is something we created. Morality is what society decides is moral.

Our ideas of it aren't what is true though. Either morality is real, and we have opinions about it, or it doesn't exist. Subjective morality is just an attempt to reconcile nihilism and the fact that we dislike actions.

Morality is subjective period. It may suck to think about it but to suggest that morality is objective is utter bullshit. Morality has clearly change over the years with things like slavery once widely accepted have become despised. There is no such thing as objective morality what you think is right or wrong is entirely subjective.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Our ideas of it aren't what is true though. Either morality is real, and we have opinions about it, or it doesn't exist. Subjective morality is just an attempt to reconcile nihilism and the fact that we dislike actions.

Morality is subjective period. It may suck to think about it but to suggest that morality is objective is utter bullshit. Morality has clearly change over the years with things like slavery once widely accepted have become despised. There is no such thing as objective morality what you think is right or wrong is entirely subjective.

I'm not suggesting what we think is objective, I'm suggesting that our moral judgements are based on observation of objective phenomenon, not just on our opinion.

And again, I'd say if you think morality is subjective, just say there's no such thing as morality.

[Diopolis]

Morality is an absolute which is dependent on the will of God like every other fact of nature.

[Andsed]

That is the harsh truth. Our ideas of morality and what is right and wrong is something we created. Morality is what society decides is moral.

Yes, that is true to an extent, but true morality ultimately comes from religion because morality simply cannot be defined without God and religion. If it is, it is incredibly flawed, and no one will place as much emphasis on morality like religion does.

Religion is also a social construct and the morals they preach are also entirely subjective.

[Old Tyrannia]

The problem with subjective morality is that it reduces morality to a human construct, and when you do that, there's really no basis for morality other than as a social construct.

That is the harsh truth. Our ideas of morality and what is right and wrong is something we created. Morality is what society decides is moral.

That's not so much a harsh truth as a harsh assumption. It may be a parsimonious assumption, but that doesn't mean that it is true. You cannot prove that there is no such thing as transcendent morality.

[Mzeusia]

es, that is true to an extent, but true morality ultimately comes from religion because morality simply cannot be defined without God and religion. If it is, it is incredibly flawed, and no one will place as much emphasis on morality like religion does.

Morality doesn't need to come from religion, and I would argue that if a presence of a god is the only thing that makes people follow religious rules, then their morals are very weak, as without that fear of being punished, they would have no morality. Furthermore, religious morals can be horrific to many, as many religious texts support stoning homosexuals, oppression of women, murdering of people with different beliefs etc.

Religion is not a place from which morals should arise. What is moral is decided by each society, and different societies will have different moralities, and look upon other societies as immoral.

[Jolthig]

Yes, that is true to an extent, but true morality ultimately comes from religion because morality simply cannot be defined without God and religion. If it is, it is incredibly flawed, and no one will place as much emphasis on morality like religion does.

Religion is also a social construct and the morals they preach are also entirely subjective.

My point is derived from monotheistic faiths that claim to be revealed such as the case of Islam.

Take the landscape of Arabia for example, their morality was far different before Islam came around. Drunkards, and angry people. Then, when Muhammad came, it was changed. Though, I will admit some of anger in the arabs never completely left.

However, Arab morality improved significantly after Muhammad came around.