Morality

[Free Arabian Nation]

I think morality is completely subjective in the long run as morality appears to have no consistency in two isolated areas.

For example, the mostly Christian west would believe Pedophilia is abhorrent, however, the tribes of the Etoro people in New Guinea often practice pedophilia on a daily basis, with male children from the age of 7 to the age of 17 being forced to have oral sex with their elders. This makes me believe that there are no moral absolutes in the human race. (Not this one example, My lack of the believe in Morale Absolutism is not just because of the Etoro)

[West Leas Oros 2]

I define what is morally right by what humans have agreed is morally right and what is morally wrong. Call me a bit of a contractarian, but I generally believe that society is the source of morals.

As I pointed out earlier, the problem with moral relativism is that it doesn't leave any room for social injustices.

And I’d be inclined to agree... it’s made me think about my beliefs, at the very least.

[TURTLESHROOM II]

Morality is absolute and there is only one standard. Morality is defined, and encoded, by God Himself and nothing else can equate to it or substitute it.

However, because it is impossible to prove (or disprove) that God exists, no one here is obligated to accept it.

[The Emerald Legion]

Doesn't matter. Self Sacrifice in the name of ones goals is frequently lauded as the highest of moral acts. A parent dying to save their child for example, or a soldier giving their life to defend their country.

I was thinking more like being a drug addict and your only goal being your next fix.

Is that their actual goalset though? If it is, then yes. They are acting in line with their own morality goalset. However, their existence in such a state poses a threat to the accomplishment of certain other goalsets, which brings them into conflict.

There is also the possibility that their goalset is something different, and the drugs have detracted from the accomplishment of that goalset.

[United Muscovite Nations]

I was thinking more like being a drug addict and your only goal being your next fix.

Is that their actual goalset though? If it is, then yes. They are acting in line with their own morality goalset. However, their existence in such a state poses a threat to the accomplishment of certain other goalsets, which brings them into conflict.

There is also the possibility that their goalset is something different, and the drugs have detracted from the accomplishment of that goalset.

So you're an ethical egoist who believes in desire-satisfaction theory.

[Auristania]

I think morality is completely subjective in the long run as morality appears to have no consistency in two isolated areas.

For example, the mostly Christian west would believe Pedophilia is abhorrent, however, the tribes of the Etoro people in New Guinea often practice pedophilia on a daily basis, with male children from the age of 7 to the age of 17 being forced to have oral sex with their elders. This makes me believe that there are no moral absolutes in the human race. (Not this one example, My lack of the believe in Morale Absolutism is not just because of the Etoro)

Here is an example of people doing bad things. This proves morality is wrong???

You fail logic forever. If nobody ever did bad things, there would be no need for morality. Morality was invented to deal with people doing bad things.

New Guinea was famous for cannibalism and now they have progressed??? to celibacy.

[Nolo gap]

define "bad things" and you come back to what i said before.

do people really disagree, that morality means not doing bad things?

even when they don't agree on what bad things are.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

I think morality is completely subjective in the long run as morality appears to have no consistency in two isolated areas.

For example, the mostly Christian west would believe Pedophilia is abhorrent, however, the tribes of the Etoro people in New Guinea often practice pedophilia on a daily basis, with male children from the age of 7 to the age of 17 being forced to have oral sex with their elders. This makes me believe that there are no moral absolutes in the human race. (Not this one example, My lack of the believe in Morale Absolutism is not just because of the Etoro)

Here is an example of people doing bad things. This proves morality is wrong???

You fail logic forever. If nobody ever did bad things, there would be no need for morality. Morality was invented to deal with people doing bad things.

New Guinea was famous for cannibalism and now they have progressed??? to celibacy.

You totally fail to understand what he has said. He was saying that morality differs from one culture to the other.

[Auristania]

Sometimes those differences fit different situations. This example of Guineans practicing celibacy proves that sometimes some cultures are better than others in such instances.

[New Legland]

I define what is morally right by what humans have agreed is morally right and what is morally wrong. Call me a bit of a contractarian, but I generally believe that society is the source of morals.

As I pointed out earlier, the problem with moral relativism is that it doesn't leave any room for social injustices.

We define social injustices. The absence of objective morality isn't a problem when we aren't objective beings.

[Twilight Imperium]

None of that matters because it doesn't matter how developed or understandable your ideas are, they're still just as good as anyone else's.

They're just as valid as anyone else's - it's a crucial distinction. If two viewpoints contradict each other, it often leads to actual conflict.

Also, continuing to develop your beliefs and ideas can make them better for yourself and maybe gain common ground instead of fomenting such conflicts. Or maybe all you get is a recommendation for a new steak place. It's all good.

If something's against the law in one country, but not in another country, does that mean that citizens of those country have nothing to learn from each other? Does it mean that one country is "right" and the other one is "wrong"? No - they just have different ways of going about things.

[The Emerald Legion]

Is that their actual goalset though? If it is, then yes. They are acting in line with their own morality goalset. However, their existence in such a state poses a threat to the accomplishment of certain other goalsets, which brings them into conflict.

There is also the possibility that their goalset is something different, and the drugs have detracted from the accomplishment of that goalset.

So you're an ethical egoist who believes in desire-satisfaction theory.

Not particularly. Personal Desire is a separate force from Ethical Goalset. Personal Desires are a strange muddle of biological and external factors. Ethical Goalset is a more logical, rational thing, even if it can be hard to explain at times.

Someone can have an Ethical Goalset which prioritizes faithfulness to ones spouse. And yet still feel a personal desire to fuck a stranger. And yet, despite the desire to do so, it would still be contrary to their ethical objectives to do such a thing.

Someone who has an Ethical Goalset which prioritizes providing for their family, who then goes on to blow all their cash on drugs because they're miserable is doing something that is immoral by their own standards, and yet personal desire can come into conflict with Ethics and defeat it.

[New Legland]

of course

[AhmadiMuslim1889]

Continuation of this thread.

I wanted to revive this thread because it was such an interesting discussion last month before it died off, and because this is such a relevant topic that I just feel that it shouldn't be left off.

So basically my opinion on morality remains the same, and if anyone has forgetten:

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.

With that being said, let us discuss.

[SEPEF]

Well what I think defines it is any guideline to follow which can recommend any sort of harm towards anything.

[SEPEF]

Not bad discussion, good work. However, I checked it out and my post on there may make it visible in recent posts potentially.

[AhmadiMuslim1889]

Not bad discussion, good work. However, I checked it out and my post on there may make it visible in recent posts potentially.

Post it here because it is frowned upon by the NSG rules to post in a thread that's been dead for over a month.

[Kragholm Free States]

Is it not more moral and more laudable to simply do good deeds of your own volition, rather than doing good deeds because you believe you will face an eternity of suffering if you don't?

[Griemvarant]

Is it not more moral and more laudable to simply do good deeds of your own volition, rather than doing good deeds because you believe you will face an eternity of suffering if you don't?

Indeed it is. However, as I said in a religion topic, it seems that many people are born without a moral compass, or at least without one that reaches outside their own wants and needs. Much as I'd like to see an agnostic paradise where nobody has to die because they worship the wrong god, people need some sort of religion and when you get rid of the more peaceful religions all you're left with is radicalism, fanatical worship of the state, and hedonism as religion.

Morality should come from a person's own moral compass, but when people are lacking one there needs to be some sort of structure that helps to guide them.

[Alorgaze]

If you need religion to have a sense of morality, you're probably not human.

[Farnhamia]

Not bad discussion, good work. However, I checked it out and my post on there may make it visible in recent posts potentially.

Post it here because it is frowned upon by the NSG rules to post in a thread that's been dead for over a month.

The last post in the old thread was just a month ago, so it was okay to revive. When it's on the cusp like that, asking in Moderation is worth trying. I've merged the two threads.

[Griemvarant]

If you need religion to have a sense of morality, you're probably not human.

Then there are a lot of people on this planet who aren't human, who think it's just fine to rape the nearest thing because they're horny, kill someone just because they can, and torture animals because they're bored. Whether sociopathic or too feral to understand higher reasoning, they can still be swayed by moral pressure from the majority or fear for their eternal souls.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

I'm not very sure of this, but to me, morality is whatever maximizes good whilst maintaining individual autonomy, and immorality is whatever violates individual freedom or minimizes good. This probably didn't answer much, but oh well.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

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.

How does the collective form the basis of moral thinking, and what is immoral about someone defining themselves against society if they are not hurting anyone? What of a rightous individual against an unjust society? Is that possible?

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

If you need religion to have a sense of morality, you're probably not human.

I wouldn't say that. Using religion as a moral compass doesn't make you a monster.