Posted: 9/3/2008 3:08:44 PM EDT
|
Is morality good, bad, or neutral? I ask this because moral and it's opposite, immoral, seem to presuppose that if something is moral, it is good, but that suggests, to me, that the idea of "moral" refers to some sort of objective standard. But if there is no objective standard, nothing beyond myself to which this refers, then killing and torturing small animals is moral, but not the same "moral" everyone else believes. That begs the question of what is good behavior. Is determined by society? But I see that as faulty, as well. Because if what society at large believes is good, is good, then society at large can all believe something really, really bad, but it doesn't matter, because they all believe it. Moral, I think, is a loaded word that means much, MUCH, more than what common usage ascribes to it. I think that it does presuppose some sort of objective standard, and lacking that, is nothing more than a foolish concept. So how crazy am I? If you disagree, please state clearly why you do. |
|
Morality defines good and evil. Put another way, good and evil are concepts of morality. Yes, some people can (and do) have a personal morality that says doing _______ thing which is immoral by your standards, is moral by theirs. There cannot be an objective morality by definition, so there cannot be objective concepts of good and evil. The only way to make good and evil objective is to define them outside of morality, and then set about proving that those definitions are correct. Good luck with that, I say. 
|
Wouldn't it matter what truth you seek and what convictions you hold? How is something true and by what measure does one judge his convictions? |
| Why does Moral have to be good? If you think of moral as a way to live, then do you set your own morals? Morality is a human concept, not a natural thing I think. Animals are not moral or immoral, they just are.. if a dog kills a cat is it evil or just doing what animals and nature has it do? |