i was wondering, what makes one persons morals better than anothers? How can we truely tell whos moral values are the correct ones.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It may seem a simple question at first, by try looking at it subjectively, not objectively as ther objective answer to this is simple - what the greater number think.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

but what do you think? is there one ultimate set of morals, whos morals are the right ones?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note: i dont want any useless, immature posting

 

 

 

Note: nothing related to religious beliefs, you can talk about religous morals (i think, if not, then could a mod edit this please.)

No there is no set morals. I don't see any morals engraved on stone (mentioning the commandments wont get you anywhere as there is that temporary ban on religion talk.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[/post]

I personally believe everyone is entitled to their own opinions, and I guess since morals can be classified as opinions; yea, there is my answer.

Have you heard of the "Doctrine of Natural Justice" and "Doctrine of Natural Law"? It's one of the basic tenants of the Australian legal system, and I believe somewhere in it lies the belief that there is a set of "divine" natural law that is inherent and can be found in any human being. In short, we need only look into ourselves deep or hard enough to find what we can universally demarcate as basically morally correct or incorrect conduct.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, I haven't studied it in depth so I'm not sure if I've got the philosophical grounds of it down to pat.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If I've got it right, then I think what they essentially put forth is that there is a set of basic, universally applicable morals intrinsic to the human condition; values which we are born and instinctively recognise.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Then you might raise the counter-point of, "then why do so many people kill eachother, or believe that doing [insert something considered generally morally incorrect] is correct?" And if you did, I'd have to say that's a valid point of view, a view with which I wholeheartedly share. In this case, I'd say it's because those inherent values have the ability to be shaped by the imprinting of society, parents, people and the basic culture around you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So in the end, my view sits in the murky position somewhere between the belief that there are intrinsic, basic moral values which we have, but also that they can be influenced or wholly twisted by our surroundings.

So in the end, my view sits in the murky position somewhere between the belief that there are intrinsic, basic moral values which we have, but also that they can be influenced or wholly twisted by our surroundings.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

makes perfect sense. I am tending to agree.

Then you might raise the counter-point of, "then why do so many people kill eachother, or believe that doing [insert something considered generally morally incorrect] is correct?" And if you did, I'd have to say that's a valid point of view, a view with which I wholeheartedly share. In this case, I'd say it's because those inherent values have the ability to be shaped by the imprinting of society, parents, people and the basic culture around you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So in the end, my view sits in the murky position somewhere between the belief that there are intrinsic, basic moral values which we have, but also that they can be influenced or wholly twisted by our surroundings.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'd have to agree to a degree. I believe that humans do have intrinsic moral values, which can be ignored or twisted. However, I do not believe it can ever be entirely ignored. C.S. Lewis once pointed out that the moral law manifests itselfs most clearly not through people's actions, but through their reactions. A man may lie constantly, but when he is lied to, he is offended. A woman may cheat on her husband and have no problem with it, but when he cheats on her, she will feel hurt. People may be able to ignore the moral law in regards to their own actions, but they always fall back upon it when it's in their favor to do so.

I agree with Astralinre the most. forsaken also, but mainly Astralinre.

No there is no set morals. I don't see any morals engraved on stone (mentioning the commandments wont get you anywhere as there is that temporary ban on religion talk.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So what happens when someone does something to you that you feel is wrong?

 

No there is no set morals. I don't see any morals engraved on stone (mentioning the commandments wont get you anywhere as there is that temporary ban on religion talk.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So what happens when someone does something to you that you feel is wrong?

 

 

 

I feel like they did something wrong against me, because of my set of morals, but thats at the time. I always look back on it, and know that they may have a reason that they find alright about it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"One countries love is another's hate."

 

 

No there is no set morals. I don't see any morals engraved on stone (mentioning the commandments wont get you anywhere as there is that temporary ban on religion talk.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So what happens when someone does something to you that you feel is wrong?

 

 

 

I feel like they did something wrong against me, because of my set of morals, but thats at the time. I always look back on it, and know that they may have a reason that they find alright about it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"One countries love is another's hate."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So if someone punches you in the face, you just walk away?

 

 

 

No there is no set morals. I don't see any morals engraved on stone (mentioning the commandments wont get you anywhere as there is that temporary ban on religion talk.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So what happens when someone does something to you that you feel is wrong?

 

 

 

I feel like they did something wrong against me, because of my set of morals, but thats at the time. I always look back on it, and know that they may have a reason that they find alright about it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"One countries love is another's hate."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So if someone punches you in the face, you just walk away?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No i get angry at the time. But as i say, later on, i reflect on it, and tend not to care, just knowing they probably had a reason for it, that made sense to them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edit: I should give a better explanation. Of course i feel anger when i "feel" that someone has wronged me, but i don't let hate stem from that. I realize there are differences in the way others think, and i think about their love, so that the love and hate circle does not continue.

So you want to know what morality is? well to be honest it can be many things. for one it is the diffrence between right and wrong. we can't be absolutely certain whose moral values are correct but we can trust our concence and harts to help show us the way.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you want to think of it from a purely logical point of view then morality is a back bone to a strong society. or you can always choose a religous concept of morality.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

for me its more of a code of honour based apon respect, loyalty, and integrety. but that is not all not by a long shot.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

are the most widely accepted ideas of what is moraly right and wrong correct? this is open to debate but I would just assume go with whats universaly accepted as truth to be truth unless I had a good reson not too.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

these are my opinions on morality, I belive morality to be a matter of concence and not nessecaraly a set of rules. although a set of rules that are universaly accepted are importent when makeing deccisions of law.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'd have to agree to a degree. I believe that humans do have intrinsic moral values, which can be ignored or twisted. However, I do not believe it can ever be entirely ignored. C.S. Lewis once pointed out that the moral law manifests itselfs most clearly not through people's actions, but through their reactions. A man may lie constantly, but when he is lied to, he is offended. A woman may cheat on her husband and have no problem with it, but when he cheats on her, she will feel hurt. People may be able to ignore the moral law in regards to their own actions, but they always fall back upon it when it's in their favor to do so.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*grins* If you re-read my sentence, you'll see that I agree to a degree with what I said. Bolded is what I think you thought was my opinion, italics is my catch-phrase.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So in the end, my view sits in the murky position somewhere between the belief that there are intrinsic, basic moral values which we have, but also that they can be influenced or wholly twisted by our surroundings.

So what happens when someone does something to you that you feel is wrong?

 

 

 

maybee thhey dont know that its wrong... some morals may have to be taught?

i was wondering, what makes one persons morals better than anothers? How can we truely tell whos moral values are the correct ones.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It may seem a simple question at first, by try looking at it subjectively, not objectively as ther objective answer to this is simple - what the greater number think.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

but what do you think? is there one ultimate set of morals, whos morals are the right ones?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note: i dont want any useless, immature posting

 

 

 

Note: nothing related to religious beliefs, you can talk about religous morals (i think, if not, then could a mod edit this please.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hell if you couldn't talk about religious morals, then you couldn't talk about morals in general...

Hell if you couldn't talk about religious morals, then you couldn't talk about morals in general...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

untrue. im not religious, and i have morals.

 

 

 

 

No there is no set morals. I don't see any morals engraved on stone (mentioning the commandments wont get you anywhere as there is that temporary ban on religion talk.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So what happens when someone does something to you that you feel is wrong?

 

 

 

I feel like they did something wrong against me, because of my set of morals, but thats at the time. I always look back on it, and know that they may have a reason that they find alright about it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"One countries love is another's hate."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So if someone punches you in the face, you just walk away?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No i get angry at the time. But as i say, later on, i reflect on it, and tend not to care, just knowing they probably had a reason for it, that made sense to them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edit: I should give a better explanation. Of course i feel anger when i "feel" that someone has wronged me, but i don't let hate stem from that. I realize there are differences in the way others think, and i think about their love, so that the love and hate circle does not continue.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So it is not wrong for someone to just come up to you and punch you in the face for no reason other than they wanted to?

So it is not wrong for someone to just come up to you and punch you in the face for no reason other than they wanted to?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's exactly what I was getting at. Anyone that gets punched in the face for the (pseudo)-reason mentioned about, and doesn't think it's objectively wrong has some serious ethical thinking to do.

I think for a society as a whole, a basic set of morals should be enforced. The masses in general can't be trusted to define their own morals for themselves - or else they'd abuse it and have anarchy. However, to people who discover that they can set and decide their own morals over what has been pushed on them by religion and government, they should go by those as well as they can, without openly infringing on what's already set in place by society.

 

 

 

Personally the one moral law I go by is not to steal. That sounds really simple, but it can apply to almost every situation. I just love this passage from the Kite Runner. It really impacted me and put in words how I always felt but couldn't sum up:

 

 

 

"Hmm." Baba crushed an ice cube between his teeth. "Do you want to know what your father thinks about sin ?"

 

 

 

"Yes."

 

 

 

"Then I'll tell you, " Baba said, "but first understand this and understand it now, Amir: You'll never learn anything of value from those bearded idiots."

 

 

 

"You mean Mullah Fatiullah Khan?"

 

 

 

Baba gestured with his glass. The ice clinked. "I mean all of them. Piss on the beards of all those self-rightteous monkeys...They do nothing but thumb their prayer beads and recite a book written in a tongue they don't even understand". [...]

 

 

 

"Now no matter what the mullah teaches,there is only one sin, only one. And that is theft. Every other sin is a variation of theft. Do you understand that ?"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"No, Baba jan," I said, desperately wishing I did. I didn't want to disappoint him again. [....]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"When you kill a man, you steal a life," Baba said. "You steal his wife's right to a husband, rob his children of a father. When you tell a lie, you steal someone's right to the truth. When you cheat, you steal the right to fairness. Do you see ?"

 

 

 

Here's an interesting test (adult natured) on your own moralities: http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/taboo.htm

 

 

 

In general, I anything someone does that doesn't negatively effect anyone else directly or indirectly is moral. That test really shook up my opinions though.

Your Moral Parsimony Score is 67%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

no surprises really, i use utilitarian ethics in most cases, but i do look at all moral circumstances differently.

If god does not exist, neither do morals. I do not beleive in god, and I do not beleive in intrinsic morality either.

 

Your Moral Parsimony Score is 67%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

no surprises really, i use utilitarian ethics in most cases, but i do look at all moral circumstances differently.

 

 

 

I switched out the link with the one I meant to put in. Morality-wise, it's tougher to answer those.

If god does not exist, neither do morals. I do not beleive in god, and I do not beleive in intrinsic morality either.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't see your logical leap here - how does the existence of god have any effect on the concept of intrinsic morality? It seems that you're basing the concept of morality with that of religion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are morals influenced by religion as well as those that aren't.

 

If god does not exist, neither do morals. I do not beleive in god, and I do not beleive in intrinsic morality either.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't see your logical leap here - how does the existence of god have any effect on the concept of intrinsic morality? It seems that you're basing the concept of morality with that of religion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are morals influenced by religion as well as those that aren't.

I noticed that too, but since religion and such is banned for a while... I figured I better not spark a "flame war" on it.

 

 

If god does not exist, neither do morals. I do not beleive in god, and I do not beleive in intrinsic morality either.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't see your logical leap here - how does the existence of god have any effect on the concept of intrinsic morality? It seems that you're basing the concept of morality with that of religion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are morals influenced by religion as well as those that aren't.

I noticed that too, but since religion and such is banned for a while... I figured I better not spark a "flame war" on it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah fair enough, I was just thinking that if we just touched base on it lightly there wouldn't be a problem, as we're more determining how religion has an effect in it, rather then exploring what religion is and etc.