I have my own method of discerning immoral and amoral behavior but I have never given much thought as to what constitutes moral behavior. Perhaps a moral person tries their best to not act in an immoral way and by in large succeeds in that endeavor. So what constitutes moral behavior to you?
TRYING to follow the liberal words of Jesus Christ - treating EVERYONE with respect and equality, obeying the secular laws - no stealing, murdering, raping, etc. That's probably just a start.
I find lately that I'm rejecting the inaction approach to morality (maybe I'm reading too much Nietzsche). A world of people thinking that a life of minding one owns business is the epitome of morality simply isn't viable anymore. We must do more good than the bad our inaction might cause. Once one finds oneself in a situation where morality is hard to see, I find that either decision is viable. One should not be held to the standard of doing impeccable actions at all times, because that benefits the cautious. One should accept a few unintentional mistakes for the benefit of good. If one suspects that all the moral good one does is debatable, then one should focus more on more obvious good (of course subjective, but I'm happy with subjective thoughts that happen to be specific to the human race). I'm more than a bit drunk, I hope the above makes sense. Might look at it in the morning.
actually that's one of your best posts. I concur absolutely, on every point. And I'm sober meantime, I think morality is a combination of action and inaction - and knowing the right times to engage them. as far as my own life goes, it's more about action. the old saying that evil reigns when good men do nothing is a somewhat histrionic but apt expression of this - though sometimes action is best achieved by inaction. one of my goals is to keep as much money out of 'the system' as possible, so I DON'T act in ways which would circumvent this. some will argue that this is a matter of ethics, not morality, but I disagree.
Because what constitutes immoral behavior will be different from what constitutes moral behavior or what constitutes amoral behavior. I an a general way know what is moral but I wish to narrow my definition. Discernment of immorality is fairly easy to me as I ask in any moral situation does said action cause physical, material, or psychological harm to another? If the answer is yes to any one of these questions then the action/behavior is immoral, else it is amoral or moral (still defining the moral bit). For this reason I am against abortion because it causes harm to the fetus. But I see homosexuality as amoral as it harms no one... I see heterosexuality in the same light. But my litmus test does not determine if a action is moral hence my seeking the perspective of others. Perhaps upon finding the answers that I seek my litmus test may need to be reevaluated and edited... or I may not change it at all... time will tell.
You make some good points here. Standing up and doing the right thing sounds good in concept but the practical application can have unintended negative consequences. If doing the right thing makes a bad situation worse then was it still the right thing to do? There is no clear answer here as sometimes you just have to commit to an action and hope for a positive outcome. Before I take a moral stand I ask myself key questions like; what do I hope to accomplish, what is the chance of a positive outcome, do the people I will be talking to respect my opinion, how would I want to be approached if the tables were turned, how can I present my argument in the most productive manner... etc? I would say 9 out of 10 times I decide against getting involved with the affairs of others because I think the chance of positive change is remote. For example I would not debate morality with the Westboro Baptist Church, but I would stand with the LGBT crowd in protest of them. - - - Updated - - - Ouch! Damn do you kick puppies too? lol, just kidding as you make a valid point.
I see morality as individual and ethics as group/organization level. When you speak of moral action I take it that you mean more than standing against an injustice?
I do. to be specific, we adhere more or less to the following: no purchasing of newly manufactured goods apart from small scale technology (phones & computers), ever. no purchasing of utilities like power and water no private health care or private education no purchase of foods we can grow ourselves no purchase of services we can carry out ourselves no insurances little or no air travel (it's been nil these past 5 years) that's the NOT acting, but the action is in the hard and relentless graft involved in trying to prevent further damage to the planet by living sustainably. also by activism in areas pertaining to social equity. it may be somewhat arrogant to say so, but as a parent, I can't think of a single thing more important than to take the care of our home, and of each other, seriously. tsk-tsking things like sexuality appears obscenely trivial, in comparison - immoral, it must be said. especially when there is so much inequity in health care and education, and so much corporate rape and pillage. these things must be addressed as a matter of the utmost urgency, I believe, if our kids and their kids have any chance of decent quality of life.
The more I contemplate morality the more I think morality is simply not doing immoral things, and if there is a litmus test for morality that would be it. Do you need to have well defined morality to understand immorality? Or is it the immorality that teaches us the value of morality? Kinda becomes a chicken or the egg quandary but I would say its the immorality that I have witnesses during my lifetime that has most shaped my moral views.
Ah, yes to both of those, I wasn't being very clear. Of course, there is no inherent goodness in action as such, but as you both point out, the problem lies with the fact that a world of indecision already favours inaction, and so, we cannot regard inaction as much more laudworthy than not having a clue about what's going on. It is not always clear what the right thing is, and we have to make a full assessment of how likely something is to actually be a good plan, and I try to argue that if one finds oneself in a position of only having performed doubtworthily moral actions, it might be a good plan to try to do some more obviously moral actions.
