What is moral? To you?

In another thread, a poster said he would be glad to comment on other issues of morality, naming among other

Start a thread on stealing, on lying,on adultery, on pornography, on murder, on sodomy

And that got me starting to think- what is immoral? What is moral?

I think it is moral to love thy neighbor as thyself- as an atheist I find great beauty- and morality in that statement.

Actions that injure others to me are clearly immoral- murder, rape, theft.

Adultery? I find adultery immoral because you are breaking a promise to be faithful- unless there was no real promise. I have my doubts as to whether a marriage can really be an open marriage and survive but if a couple mutually agrees to it and can do so without harming each other- then who am I to judge?

Lying? In general I think we all agree that lying is wrong- except when its not. Any parent who has told his children about Santa Claus has lied. Was that immoral? What if you lie to your child to prevent a greater injury to her?

Sodomy? What is 'immoral' about consensual, private sexual relations between adults- who am I to care what kind of sex Dana and Pat are having? Who is injured by their consensual monogamous sodomy?

What about bullying? Is that immoral?

What about racism? Is that immoral?

What about evicting someone from their home- knowing that they will be living on the streets- is that immoral?

What about convincing someone to buy something that they really can't afford- but makes a nice commission?

So what is moral- what is immoral?

 

We all have our own morality.

 

As a religious person I have a guide but in the end it is all subjective. Morality is completely dependant upon your cultural world view and upbringing. A cannibal that lives in the Amazon that eats an enemy is not amoral by his cultural world view. The real question is should one view attempt to dominate the world and force its position on everyone. ie destroy all other cultures so that its culture becomes the only one? Do cultures have a right to exist and who decides if a culture is so horrible that it must be destroyed? Think real hard before you say they have a right to exist because there have been some really horrid cultures in history.

 

Yea, the golden rule really sums it up nicely.

Where people have trouble with morality is when they try to use it to judge others. Problem is the golden rule properly applied would make it pretty tricky business to judge others and still be moral oneself. Law for instance is not moral, it follows strict rules in accordance with logic based on established principals of equity. These established principals have roots in morality, but by the time a judge applies them they are more akin to mathematics than religion.

 

I agree with Crawdadr. Morals are cultural and cannot really apply to all aspects of life. Strict Muslims do not see anything immoral about stoning an unfaithful wife to death. Mormons don't see anything immoral about multiple spouses, etc., etc., etc. What I find immoral are politicians who take PAC money and then cry poor when lobbying for a pay raise. Or utilities, insurance companies and oil companies who just keep gouging the public and nobody seems to want to stop them. Or government, local, state and federal, who will tax everything they can, and give little or nothing back in return. Usually I don't rant like this, but what the hell, you asked.
Enjoy!

 

Agreed. Apply the golden rule and the reverse golden rule and you've got your answer for 99.99% of any situations you could be in.

Actions that cause harm, or can reasonably be expected to (which means I'm not off the hook for shooting at you if I happen to miss) are immoral. However, some such actions can, with consent from all parties, be possible or likely to cause harm. Examples include playing football, boxing, BDSM, NASCAR, and a dozen other things I can think of and probably dozens more I haven't.

My wife and I are, by mutual consent and desire, not monogamous. We've been together for 10 years and have a fantastic relationship and I don't see that changing.

I would say it depends on the consequence of the lie. In Japan, if a patient is terminal, they are not told. Neither by medical staff nor families. I guess they figure if there's nothing to gain, no sense burdening the soon to be departed with that news.

As long as it's between consenting adult humans in a reasonably private environment, there are no immoral sex practices.

Harm is the standard I tend to use, within the noted exceptions.

 

Replace "murder" with "killing" and think about that a bit.

How we judge others is a reflection on ourselves.

I don't think lying alone is wrong.

Sodomy is more than just gay sex.

Nope.

Nope.

Nope. But, if you consider stealing immoral but may not see that stealing from someone the rents for which they are due as immoral, you may have a lack of constancy.

Perfectly moral.

Whatever a person wants.

 

For me, anything that causes unjust (for lack of a better term) harm upon a person is immoral.

Emphasis on "unjust". I am by no means a pacifist.

 

For me, it comes down to whether you're acting to the detriment of another person, in particular contrary to their will.

Thus sodomy, if it's consensual, is not an immoral act. People who claim it is aren't being reasonable.

Bullying is disgusting, but that also comes down to human nature, specifically to how people establish social hierarchies and all that. Bullying can also have positive effects on the bullied, as it can teach the target to put up with hardship, unfairness, etc. that is beyond his or her own control and not subject to legal action.

Racism is another one that is natural for us, unfortunately. Put into practice, it becomes as bad as, if not worse than, bullying. Is it immoral? I want to say that it is, and the same for bullying, simply because people are being treated very badly by others without a good reason. And unlike things for which people are often bullied, there is no changing one's "race" (which is actually typically just skin tone, which makes it really stupid).

Evicting someone from their home.. That will depend on the circumstances, I suppose. I'd having nothing against throwing someone out of a home that I own if they're there against my will. They can find another home. No one is forced to stay "on the streets."

Lying has its uses. I think it's the outcome of a lie that matters more than the act of lying itself.

Adultery (or cheating on an unmarried partner) is a violation of trust, a form of deception. Is it immoral to do this? I think it depends on circumstances, and then there's also the issue of what actual harm is being committed. It has serious ramifications for maintaining a marriage or similar relationship, as that arrangement tends to be based on trust. This can go on to have material consequences, as the person betrayed or the betrayer will likely end up leaving the other person at some point. But then, if someone is in a relationship with the kind of person who would cheat like that, or if two people end up in a relationship that isn't working out long-term and then one of them meets someone else for whom they're a better match, then the act of cheating/adultery would seem to serve a positive purpose for at least one of the people involved, while the other person is, as mentioned earlier, left deceived and emotionally harmed, but then who knows how things might develop after? That person could also go on to meet someone better afterwards, leading to a more positive outcome.

 

I don't take my moral prescriptions from the masses anyway. If they were intelligent, they wouldn't be ruled and exploited.

 

I believe that "morality" depends upon the culture you live in.

For me, the most basic rule I try to follow in my life is this: "Do unto others as you have then do unto you."

What more do we need?

 

The suffering of a Progressive-Leftist piece of trash.

 

Civic morality is the protection of citizens' rights to determine their own private lives and make their own individual choices for which they remain accountable. Civic morality is fostered by equality under the law, strong property rights, limited government and voluntary market transactions. Any efforts to go beyond that in the public sphere have been proven counterproductive time and time again throughout history and right up to the present day.

 

To really get this you need to stop defining what things are moral and immoral, and start defining what the concept 'moral' means. Otherwise morality becomes relative. Now of course 'relative' is what most secularists want morality to be (and that includes most liberals, I believe).

What is wrong with murder in the absolute?

Nothing.

Murder is only counter to the continuation of the species. So in the material world, if the continuation of the species is not the ultimate good, then there is no ultimate good in the material world.

But if we want to survive, we will AGREE to let continuation of the species be the ultimate good.
Now, how does one murder present any danger to continuation of the species (COS)?
It doesn't.
But civilized society chooses to disapprove of even one murder because if the number of murders grows to a certain size, it DOES become a hindrance to the COS.

This is why homosexuality is immoral- not because one homosexual presents any danger to continuation of the species, but just like murder, if ENOUGH people were homosexual there could be a very severe problem for the species.

This is why smoking is immoral. This is why lying is immoral.

Lastly, and you'll not like this- if God didn't exist, you would have no sense at all of morality, of right and wrong, unless of course you based it all on what is best for COS.

So either you admit God exists or you admit that smoking, homosexuality, adultery, pot, alcohol are immoral. And actually, both things are true, but there is no way to prove that to you.

In fact, you probably won't even admit that the bolded sentence is true, despite the fact that you know down deep it IS true, plus you have just seen the proof for it.

 

Nazis were fine killing jews or confine them in ghettos, the holy church of the dark ages thought lighting up heretics to be moral, for white racists it is moral to make negroes do the dirty works because they have less intelligence, among pagans of the ancient times it was a common thing to sacrifice war prisoners to their gods. Well yeah, some morals are just ignorant, i see no need to respect every moral and culture, why should we?

 

I'll tell you what more we need. We need to know WHY we are doing unto others as we would have them do unto us.

Because if we are doing good for others so that we'll get good back from those others, then the Golden Rule becomes the Selfish Rule.

What we need is to know that good is based on the existence of God. That being the case, we may know that each of us IS good at our core. Then not only will we get paid back by others for being good to others, but we will also know that we're going to be okay even if there WEREN'T any others.

 

The argument that morality depends upon what the culture thinks is moral is not only absurd, it's insane.

 

I admit that I believe you truely believe everything you posted.

And I will also admit that I disagree with you- and would find your post bordering on immoral.

 

Why? There was no moral standard once upon a time, people could do things we consider despisable. Maybe you talk about christian catholic morals, but even them changed across time. We burn heretics no more today, or i am missing something?

 

JEFF; The above was written (not posted) for another thread, but leads into my answer to your current thread. I'll substitute "right/wrong" for your "moral/immoral", since it's easier to explain social and legal meaning within a society.

As many responders have suggested, each society you could mention have laws, some based entirely on religious beliefs and even our States STILL have laws to determine right or wrong within there State. Our Nation of States, under the Constitution left to those States what's right (Moral) to all things not generally agreed to by a majority of those States (Congress) and forbid making right or wrong things, not granted to the States or amended to that Constitution. For instance "First Degree" murder in the US is wrong in all States, however all States and in some cases the Federal have distinctively different punishments for those found guilty or even how the determinations are made.

I liken the phrase "Good Character is how a person acts, WHEN NOBODY IS WATHCING", to a persons morality and politically speaking find few posters to politicians moral, however defined, self serving more applicable.

 

Morality, like time, matter, energy and the Universe itself, does not exist. They are all "just a mathematical abstraction" A name we give to something so we can talk about it. If it hurts or distresses me, it's immoral, if it doesn't, it's not.

 

I love that. It's a fresh take on the old "if it feels good, do it".

I think morality is simple.

If there was group of Grandmothers sitting at a table, and something you said or did offended ALL of them, it's probably a good bet it's immoral.

 

What is moral to me? The Ten Commandments!

 

I was affiliated with the armed forces for many years.
Adultery and sodomy, perhaps the latter has changed since DADT has been repealed, are punitive articles codified in military law, otherwise known as the uniform code of military justice. As far as the military is concerned, these are immoral behaviors.

As a former commissioned officer, and going back to my preparatory days as an ROTC cadet...
lying, cheating and stealing were and are regarded as character flaws with no place in the officer corps.

It is ingrained into any officer worth their salt, that the job does not end when one is off-duty. You hold yourself to the highest standards of ethical behavior, because you establish the example to your subordinates. Most civilians do not understand the concept of maintaining a higher ethical standard with no question as to the moral authority. The moral authority is codified, there is no sliding scale, there is no moral relativism....it is chiseled in granite. Life is not a limbo dance wherein the standards by which a person holds themselves to are lowered or raised depending upon the situation; the standards are fixed, the moral equivalent to the North star. If I fail in upholding these ethical standards, there is no crying foul as the ownership for this failure rests solely on my shoulders. The consequences must be faced.