Morality: How do we define it?

[germ14]

An often minor point in many discussions in this forum, so I propose to hopefully solve the problem, through discussion. What is morality? Is it a rigid absolute system as proposed by some religions (example:The Bible). Is it what benefits society? Is it relative to each person?
Note: This discussion presumes morality exists in some form, please do not pollute the discussion.

[Prince of Yunderup]

I think there are different levels of Morality. There's personal morality which is defined by a persons values and often influenced by religious beliefs. Then I think there's also common morality that everyone in a community shares about what is right and what is wrong often influenced by various media's and enforced by legal systems.
I think if you where going to right a general definition (without referring to a dictionary) the word respect needs to be in there as I think it is the basis of good morals. This all of course is my personal opinion.

[Helm]

If you do something to harm someone else who hasn't harmed or wasn't intending to harm yourself or anyone else (or they were causing harm but your response was out of all proportion) then that's immoral. Morality is the act of helping others without personal gain being the motivation, though of course everyone will gain something from altruistic acts even if it's just a feeling of warm satisfaction and pride in themselves. Everything else you see in regards to morality is purely a social construct of society and religion. Morality isn't a particularly deep or complex issue when you boil away all the crap.

[Silver Guard]

If you do something to harm someone else who hasn't harmed or wasn't intending to harm yourself or anyone else

This is something which is impossible to determine, one can never have any idea whether or not someone has the intention to harm you.

Also your second definition, that of helping others without the need for personal gain, is one which can be criticised on many levels. By Nietzsche for example, who would criticise this as an example of a "slave morality", rather then the master morality in which strength is good and weakness is bad, not levels of altruism. But this is an extreme view. Utilitarians would also disagree, saying it is the action which benifits the most, or to the most amount. This could benifit yourself the most of all, as long as it benifits others its fine.

[Helm]

This is something which is impossible to determine, one can never have any idea whether or not someone has the intention to harm you.

If someone shoots a gun at you but misses it's pretty clear what their intention is.

Also your second definition, that of helping others without the need for personal gain, is one which can be criticised on many levels. By Nietzsche for example, who would criticise this as an example of a "slave morality", rather then the master morality in which strength is good and weakness is bad, not levels of altruism. But this is an extreme view. Utilitarians would also disagree, saying it is the action which benifits the most, or to the most amount. This could benifit yourself the most of all, as long as it benifits others its fine.

Helping others while they're helping you would just be mutual cooperation, it's not really moral or immoral. It would be like a business providing a useful service while making money from the people using the service.

[Silver Guard]

If someone shoots a gun at you but misses it's pretty clear what their intention is.

But how fully do you understand his intentions and reasonings? Not at all, there is no possible way to know all the factors which have led up to him taking that shot, therefore no, you don't know his intentions. Also, he missed, on purpose? Subconcious intervention? Plain luck? Who knows.

Helping others while they're helping you would just be mutual cooperation, it's not really moral or immoral. It would be like a business providing a useful service while making money from the people using the service.

Isn't that how the human mind works? Many people in everyday life put a lot of faith and action into the "eye for an eye" concept.

[gambit]

Values of civilization.

[Helm]

Values of civilization.

Evolution as well.

[Gaidin]

Knowing your ethics system is a plus.

[Tacitursa]

dp

[Tacitursa]

Morality is defined by Society and Culture.

[Ellin Athinaios]

Morality is defined by Society and Culture.

Exactly.

[Taiji]

Principles, policies and procedures for dealing with the relationship between my emotional being and my practical being. Can be extended to others and their morality will also usually have to be dealt with. It is subject to meta-morality: Ideally I make as many moral demands of my companions as they of me, or I feel skanked, which is a moral about morality.

I am a system. Other human systems, like governments and religions also have morality.

[Poach]

Morality is a ruleset of the times, only obeyed when convenient.

[Arch-hereticK]

A doctrine or a system of moral conduct as decided upon by the majority of any given social group.

I think social group is a more accurate description over society or culture as my social group would be against any sort of murder, but an average Texan, who is of the same culture and society wouldn't blink at the murder of a criminal.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Morality is entirely dependent on cultural context.

[Arch-hereticK]

Morality is entirely dependent on cultural context.

Well yes, but even beneath that. I said it was social groups that decide, for instance conservatives and liberals from the same culture would not have exactly the same set of morals, in some cases they may be shockingly different.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Well yes, but even beneath that. I said it was social groups that decide, for instance conservatives and liberals from the same culture would not have exactly the same set of morals, in some cases they may be shockingly different.

They would be entirely trivial. Even "moral" debates such as that of abortion in the United States are entirely framed by cultural factors that are below the consciousness of the vast majority of people. Observe Tacitus and his increduality at the Jewish custom of never practicing in infanticide. It is of course that culture's morality, not Tacitus', that completely dominate our comparitively irrelevant abortion differences.

[Arch-hereticK]

They would be entirely trivial. Even "moral" debates such as that of abortion in the United States are entirely framed by cultural factors that are below the consciousness of the vast majority of people. Observe Tacitus and his increduality at the Jewish custom of never practicing in infanticide. It is of course that culture's morality, not Tacitus', that completely dominate our comparitively irrelevant abortion differences.

Obviously everything is framed by cultural factors, that's a given, but the drastic differences between various sub-groups within a given culture are something that demands some investigation. It's a bit of a cop-out to just say it's just culture that dictates all moral issues. I'm not saying that that is not true I'm saying that's an oversimplification.

I guess you could call it trivial, if you wanted. But I disagree.

[Tacitursa]

It's a combination of society and culture. The various subgroup's within a culture is simply down to a culture having several different type's of society. Rich , poor , black , white , asian , religious , atheist etc etc