It seems that some of us have a great deal of trouble deciding what the definition of moral is. Just want to know how you guys would define this so that perhaps some of us those having difficulty will be able to understand.

Moral:  Adjective, of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior,  conforming to a standard of right behavior

For me, morality is treating others as you would wish to be treated, avoiding causing pain (physical or emotional) unless there is justifiable need.  (Granted, "justifiable need" is based on my perceptions of the situation at the time.)  In bringing happiness to those I love.  In helping others who need it, but only as much as they need (and will accept) and no more (and ain't [i]that[/i] one tough!)

I have yet to find a strictly rigid structure of morals that really works.  

This is good, any more takers?

Survival of the fittest.

To me, "Morals" are a set of "rules" that an Individual puts upon himself/herself to live by. This is part of what makes a person's character. They could be anything they feel is right for them. That's fine until someone goes to enforce their personal "morals" on others.......they forget that "morals" are an Individual's personal "laws".

What Soulser said. Morals is your private rules of conduct, laws are society's rules of conduct for those bereft of their own...


Scott

My morale code:  
I don't steal, lye or cheat or look for trouble. My hand shake and my word are as good as gold. I love my family, good friends and my country. I think the American people are the most generous people on earth,  I don't like CrimAnimals that hurt people or destroy property, I don't do porn of any kind and last but not least In God I trust.  Am-O-Tramp

Well said.

But not worthy of the support of the Carrier Corporation. Another topic I know, but it irks me.

If you can look at yourself in the mirror each morning while shaving, and not feel ashamed about what you did the day before, that's good enough for me.

P.S. I have a beard!

Morals, Yep got them, and its NOT for sale[:D]

I got your morals right here...

[img]http://www.canoe.ca/ImagesJamHalloween/hal5.jpg[/img]

I think I am beginning to understand. How about:

Personal-Morals: I've got mine, he's got his. No one can accuse anyone else of being immoral in this sense; to each are his own personal-morals.

Universal-Morals: People use these ones to accuse other people of being immoral. Universal-morals are codes invented by governments and churches to extract money, labor, and obedience from their subjects.

?

While I understand this and do not disagree, My intention was that by pointing out the positive guidelines that most of us hold ourselves to, some others of us might be able to see the validity of these points. The fact is that we live in an organized society, like it or not. As such there has to be some guiding force to our behavior.

Once people begin to show the inability to guide themselves in a manner that is condusive to a relatively safe and respectful society, people begin to try to enforce their "morals" on others. Laws are enacted governing our actions for us on the precept that it is best for society. While I do not agree with the extent to which this has progressed I understand why, and indeed that there is a need for some direction.

If everyone agreed that killing is wrong, and agreed not to kill others, would we need a law to tell us not to do it? No. If we personally take responsibility for our actions and choose to guide ourselves in a manner that is condusive to co-existance, then we will have no need for some politician to tell us what is acceptable.

You survival of the fittest creedo, for example, is fine for a predator/prey type scenario. However even predators like lions recognize the benefits of co-existance within their own species, and as such allow older weaker lions to remain with the pride until they are no longer able to do so. By working together with some (definitely unwritten) rules as to how they interact. Guides to their behavior, or morals of you will.

We as humans are obviously far more advanced than a pride of lions, capable of far more intricate thought. So it follows logically that our personal guides should be more intricate also. We should be able to determine a far greater sense of right and wrong.

Are you asking:

A) What is morality?

or

B) What is moral?

Cute answer, but you know better.

I understand that you do not like it when others use morals only as a means to judge.

This does not negate the purpose or need, or undeniable existence of morals.

It's what separates us from savages.
Savages do not understand morals.  That is why they do not contribute to the forward movement of civilization.

Without morals there would be no civilization or trading of goods.
Just hungry people killing each other for food.

Honestly Blaze, sometimes you sound like a freshman in college who just discovered Nietzsche.

A "society" is a group of people who share a common set of beliefs, among which beliefs are their "morals".  What America has become is not a "melting pot" where the individual adapts to the society, but a "salad bowl" in which we have multiple smaller groups clinging to their own set of beliefs without integrating into a greater society.

We're a bunch of individuals and cliques living in close physical proximity, and the schisms are getting wider.

KBaker -

Well said......I live in Miami, probably one of the biggest salad bowls there ever was!  No one here wants to "be American" but damned sure they want everything that comes with being an American.

I should have said morality, thank you. [:D]
And your response?

Do we not all still hold to SOME of the same beliefs?

Do unto others, as you would have others do unto you.  Very simple.


Aviator  [img]www.milpubs.com/aviator.gif[/img]

Generally, human beings hold some things in common no matter what society they live in.  However, that doesn't mean that they're going to get along with any other particular society.  In order to do that, the [i]majority[/i] of beliefs must be shared.  In American society, at least until say, the post-war era, there was a common understanding of what "being an American" was.  Now it means being an individual first, and part of society if you really feel like it.  

But conformity is uncool.  We're supposed to "accept diversity" - which means "don't conform, and if you do, you're obviously out of touch."  However, without conformity, you don't have a society.  

Speaking of Heinlein quotes, here's one of my favorites:



Same for conformity.  If people really "accepted diversity" they'd be more polite about it.  Our social machinery is pretty worn.

I'm alright Jack, keep your hands off of my stack!

Pink Floyd, Money.

seriously, anything Blaze of Glory is against! [:D]

i'm hijacking your thread here, USP40C, but i guess the next question would be:  is there such a thing as absolute morality?  or are we all just getting by under the mere coincidence that we happen to share a lot of the same morals?  if the latter, what is the root of that overlap?  seems to me that with more than 6 billion people in the world, were morals not absolute, we should have about 6 billion different opinions on what is and is not moral.

just some more food for thought...or was that fuel to the fire??????

Highjacking is morally wrong!!

Isn't that what started this whole war on terrorism?

Well, maybe not [b][i]six[/i][/i] billion...

One, all societies share one thing in common - the belief that that society is superior to all others.  When that belief is lost, the society undergoes a radical change.  Best example I can come up with - post-war Japan.  

Is there an absolute "base-line" morality?  Maybe a really crude one:  "My life is more important (to me) than yours is (to me)." And:  "My wants are more important (to me) than yours are (to me)."

All societies then spring from suppressing that individual morality for the good of the group, trading individuality for the advantages of belonging to that group.  Because a group is more powerful than any individual.  If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.  

I didn't mean to [i]kill[/i] the thread.

Sorry.

For my response, I will cop out and quote Webster's dictionary:

[b]2 a : a doctrine or system of moral conduct b plural : particular moral principles or rules of conduct
3 : conformity to ideals of right human conduct[/b]

So "morality" is what we (individually or collectively) use to judge what is right or wrong.

are you debating the numer of people or just the gross generalization on my part that every single person would have unique set of morals unlike any other person on this earth?




i'd have to disagree with you on this point.  those aren't morals.  those are personal opinions about priorities.  

What's the difference?

The gross generalization.  I don't think that everyone can have a unique set of morals.  The differences would be too minute to tell apart for many.  


As Renamed asked, what's the difference?  Those are the baseline beliefs from which human beings develop their interaction with others - the foundations of our morals - the rules of conduct for ourselves.  Those are the only rules infants are born with.  Sociopaths never get past those two baseline rules.  "You are not me, therefore you are irrelevant except in how you serve my needs."

Damn.  I killed the thread [i]again.[/i]

well, actually, i think it's quite possible.  i mean, no two people would ever have exactly the same set of morals, IMO.  but i'd agree, highly unlikely.




the difference is that what you posted is just your preference of self-preservation over altruism.  that has nothing to do with right vs. wrong.  it's what your [i]prefer[/i], but it says nothing about what you think is morally right and what you think is morally wrong.  

Then it's all down to a big game of go,white and black stones.

    Do The Right Thing.     Bob

You asked if there is an "absolute morality," then you talk about self-preservation and altruism.  Neither self-preservation nor altruism are morals, they're behaviors.  My point was that the baseline from which all moral systems spring is that survival instinct.  "My preference" had nothing to do with it.  I'm not a sociopath.  Read response #1 to this thread.

My answer is no, there's no "absolute morality" other than "continuation of the individual, and his society through reproduction."  Look at all the societies throughout history.  That's what they share in common.  

What morality you have is is based on the instincts you are born with, tempered by the society you are raised in.  Altruism is a learned behavior.  Self-preservation is not.  (As Machiavellian as it sounds, altruism is generally survival neutral or a net benefit.  What appears to be altruistic often is not.)

What is "right" vs. what is "wrong" is based in the instincts we're born with and the society we live in.  The longer the society (or its offshoots) exist, the more influence the society will have on the system of morals.

CHEEZY!!!!   [:D]

It's cool though, thanks.