Morality:Is is it a myth?

[Juggernaut]

Are morality simply a set of convinient rules created by the authority?
Is there any "reason" why someone shouldn't harm someone(murder,assault,rape.etc) apart from self-interest of not getting arrested,sentenced,losing social standing?

[Da Skinna]

Morality precedes authority, religion and order.

Morality is not a myth, but a struggle, between what we define what is right and wrong. To put it briefly, the personal liberties and freedom and health of person are their own, and what they do within that limit as acceptable (maybe not by law ie. illegal drugs) and out of that limit, which would be to harm someone or invade their personal liberties and freedoms and health, what I would call wrong and morally unacceptable.

Self interest has a place in it, but human beings have that inner instinct of self-preservation, which is imparted to other people, sort of like that "don't do unto others what you do not want done unto you" thing but a basic, primal level. That is why we believe rape, murder, assault, bestiality, pedophilia, etc is wrong and helping others in their own self-preservation is good and right like giving food to the homeless and helping out the community and abroad.

Authority is a sort of enforcement of these ideals, because, almost inherently, good and right brings order, and authority can only have that authority when order is in place, so rules are needed, and we say they are based off ideals, which in part, is correct.


Bleh, my opinion on the matter, if anyone has anything to add or change, I'll gladly listen.

[Mathias]

Are morality simply a set of convinient rules created by the authority?
Is there any "reason" why someone shouldn't harm someone(murder,assault,rape.etc) apart from self-interest of not getting arrested,sentenced,losing social standing?

Not exactly set by the authority, but by the culture and society. Such a thing as a right morality does not exist, right and wrong morals is only relative to the culture and society and there are no absolute truths when it comes to morality. In one place the common view might totally differ from what they have in another place, but neither would be right even though one might seem more cruel than another. Some morals are based on fear and logic (at least they are in my opinion). For example: the reason why most people think that killing is "immoral" is because that if it was moraly accepted it would mean that someone could kill them at any time.
I believe that having a "good" moral code (one that fits in the culture) is a good thing, but as for myself I dont see any reason for why anyone should harm someone apart from the reasons you stated.

[Last Roman]

Not exactly set by the authority, but by the culture and society.

correct. Those in power used religion to justify controlling what they saw as the correct morality, because who's gonna be "immoral" when your eternal afterlife is at stake? I'm not saying, however, the some, if not the majority, of society's morals (ie, not killing innocents) are not just.

[mongoose]

Are morality simply a set of convinient rules created by the authority?
Is there any "reason" why someone shouldn't harm someone(murder,assault,rape.etc) apart from self-interest of not getting arrested,sentenced,losing social standing?

It depends on how you define morality. If you define it as a set of rules that are followed in order to reduce human suffering/death, then it is usually pretty easy to see if a rule is arbitrary or not. For example, "don't work on sunday" is a meaningless rule from this perspective, but "don't steal" can easily be reasoned to be important, though there are obvious exceptions where taking something by force is the ethical thing to do

[Da Skinna]

For example, "don't work on sunday" is a meaningless rule from this perspective, but "don't steal" can easily be reasoned to be important, though there are obvious exceptions where taking something by force is the ethical thing to do

Could this include fighting unfairness with unfairness?

Moral laws are different from every society, and I'm reminded of Hammurabi's laws based on retribution. Basically it followed what so many religions and hippies talk about, not doing to others what you wouldn't like being done to yourself.

That rule is what I believe (for now I guess) morality is based on, in a way. The moral of that mantra is that preservation is optimized, and society and humanity moves forward. Government laws, religion, and philosophy do to a major extent enforce these ideals, order moves forward, chaos is taking a step back. What's best for all is the preservation of all, to the most realistic of extents, from the best of all possible worlds.

[mongoose]

Could this include fighting unfairness with unfairness?

I don't think so, unless you can think of an example where being unfair would lead to less suffering.

[MasterAdnin]

I feel morality is basically set and created to tell us as humans, what is acceptable behavior, and what is not. In that, righteous behavior involves not harming others because who are we, as humans, to decide and harm others. We live in a community to better improve our lives, where-as harming others down-grades us and harms us as a whole.

Salaam,
Adnan

[DefenderofFreedom]

Step outside, and kill someone. Wait... you didn't. That's morality.

[Juggernaut]

And what defines moral of the "culture and society"?
It is the authority, whether it is intentional or unitentional.
And moral is a tool of the authority to benefit themselves, which is to preserve and maintain the society they control.
Morality of the society changes from time to time depending on the circumstances.
What strike me as interesting is that so many people blindly believes these values: many people thinks rape, murder and stealing is principaly wrong, which is ofcourse ridiculous.
(I am not saying I like or encourage rape, murder and stealing, I have no love for such thing, both emotionaly and beneficiary)
I guess it is a form of "brain-washing".
They are tought of those values since the childhood so they blindly believes them.
As for "don't do unto others what you do not want done unto you", that is impossible to achieve.
You cannot live your life whithout causing trouble for others.
For example, you are on a exam to get into university.
If you pass the exam, there is someone who failed because you got in.
It is a huge trouble for the person who failed.
But what if you deliberately fail the exam to prevent that to happen?
You will cause trouble for your self and your family.
Not to mention by just living in a modern country, you are causing trouble for the peoples in 3rd world.
There is countless times in life where you have to cause trouble for the others for your benefit.
If you don't, that means you WANT trouble, therefore you should give trouble for the others anyway, which I believe will be against this "don't do unto others what you do not want done unto you" principle.

Why should we believe morality?
Even in a same society where everyone is supposed to follow the same standard of morality, many people have there own morality, conflicting with eachother.
Why should we believe in something so vague, fragile, illogical and ultimately, idiotic?

[Mathias]

Why should we believe morality?
Even in a same society where everyone is supposed to follow the same standard of morality, many people have there own morality, conflicting with eachother.
Why should we believe in something so vague, fragile, illogical and ultimately, idiotic?

I agreed with most things you said, but if noone had any morals, or similar morals it could lead to total chaos and anarchy. Not everyone is sensible to base their action on common sense and logic and needs something "stupid" like morality to tell them what to do.

[Juggernaut]

I agreed with most things you said, but if noone had any morals, or similar morals it could lead to total chaos and anarchy. Not everyone is sensible to base their action on common sense and logic and needs something "stupid" like morality to tell them what to do.

Which I think confirms the idea of morality being a rule set by the authority to benefit themselves.

[Mathias]

Which I think confirms the idea of morality being a rule set by the authority to benefit themselves.

Wait what did I just say in this post? sorry, my mind must have been somewhere else when I wrote that. It doesnt confirm the idea of morality being set by the authority. Morals are a part of a culture and the authority doesnt set the culture, the authority sets laws and many of the laws are based on the morals of the culture and society.

[Tom Paine]

Which I think confirms the idea of morality being a rule set by the authority to benefit themselves.

No; certainly not by the authority, given that it does conflict with authority. Morality is not authority-set rules, those are laws; the authority ignores morality. If anything morality is those rules set by those without authority.

[Pnutmaster]

And what defines moral of the "culture and society"?
It is the authority, whether it is intentional or unitentional.

I would say the majority set the standard for morality. In the United States, Christian Protestantism is the foundation of many American moral values.

Morality of the society changes from time to time depending on the circumstances.

Yes, technology being one of the most persuasive agents of change. Consider how abortion and stem cell research have coerced millions to question their moral beliefs.

Why should we believe morality?
Even in a same society where everyone is supposed to follow the same standard of morality, many people have there own morality, conflicting with eachother.
Why should we believe in something so vague, fragile, illogical and ultimately, idiotic?

Well, I believe governmental laws complimented by a collective morality are more likely to be honored and followed than laws that have no moral or religious justification (though this will in no way eliminate social deviance).

[Katrina]

Are morality simply a set of convinient rules created by the authority?
Is there any "reason" why someone shouldn't harm someone(murder,assault,rape.etc) apart from self-interest of not getting arrested,sentenced,losing social standing?

Morality is not created by authority, but I would say morality in enforced by authority.

The sole reason behind morality, and behind this 'reason' to not harm one another, it all boils down to two things. Human sensability and religion. I have said this numerous times before, but I will repeat myself for the sake of reason. One shall not harm another, or act against morality in essence towards the other persons mental and physical state of being. If one were to, for example, rape another, they are causing this person both mental and physical fatigue. If one was to embaress or humilate another, they are causing this person mental pain. Thus, morality is based around the positive and negative influence of mental and physical sense on humans. This all goes back to the beggining of mankind.

Religion comes into play, by strictly enforcing this moral code and putting furthered negative outcome upon those who break morality. (Eh...in a Catholic sense, you commit suicide, you go to Hell, etc.) Thus, those who are religious are more keen to be moral. And so forth.

[Armfelt]

Religion comes into play, by strictly enforcing this moral code and putting furthered negative outcome upon those who break morality. (Eh...in a Catholic sense, you commit suicide, you go to Hell, etc.) Thus, those who are religious are more keen to be moral. And so forth.

And thus you could say that those who aren't religious are more secure about their own moral values and not in the need of the same "guidance" as religious persons apparently do.

[Katrina]

And thus you could say that those who aren't religious are more secure about their own moral values and not in the need of the same "guidance" as religious persons apparently do.

Perhaps. I beleive that you either have morality, or you lack it, or in between. There are not neccisarily different types of morality. For example, a bad man cannot have a moral code that is based around harm upon others and gain upon himself. Morality is, or is not. Thus, those who are not religious, will still follow morality (perhaps), but those who are religious are likely to follow morality with more zeal. Though, there could be a completely unreligious man that has a moral code of the highest standard. This man, is a good example of a man who is 'just'.

[Sétanta]

And thus you could say that those who aren't religious are more secure about their own moral values and not in the need of the same "guidance" as religious persons apparently do.

Or rather have a different set of moral values that gives that impression.

For example, a bad man cannot have a moral code that is based around harm upon others and gain upon himself

Yes he can. It is not a moral value that others understand or accept as a "good" set of values, but it is what he thinks is right. A person might not have any moral values that prevents him from killing others, whereas a religious person is limited to the moral that says "thou shalt not kill." It is all relative.

[mongoose]

Religion comes into play, by strictly enforcing this moral code and putting furthered negative outcome upon those who break morality. (Eh...in a Catholic sense, you commit suicide, you go to Hell, etc.) Thus, those who are religious are more keen to be moral. And so forth.

That's more of a description of religious humanism. Most religions also wrote their own ethics.