Morality

Morality

Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.


Moral objectivism or moral universalism defines the notions of right and wrong, good and bad as universal and fixed at all times. It is not however independent of context or consequences.

Moral absolutism entails that morality is fixed and completely independent of any context, consequences, custom and opinion. Most religions have morally absolutist views, moral altruism also falls into this category.

Moral relavatism (and all forms of, subjectivism etc.) is the notion that right and wrong are variable depending on the invidividuals beliefs, circumstances, cultural background and so on.

Moral nihilism holds that nothing is immoral or moral, that morality itself does not exist.

Moral scepticism entails that morality does exist but no one has any actual knowledge of it.

---

I am personally a moral relativist, I believe it is the most likely case for morality. My argument for relatavism is history, specifically cultural rituals. Many years ago it was pretty standard practice in most any religion to sacrifice animals or even people to appease and win the favour of a god or gods. Over time values have clearly changed, in most places it is now deemed immoral to even hurt people or animals, much less swing a crazy tune and chant some biblical nonsense about someone being a witch while you burn them at the stake or that they are a willing sacrifice while you carve out their heart with a rusty dagger and eat it.

Another argument is the standard stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. Most people know the story of Robin Hood quite well and find his actions morally justifiable even though in many codes of law approved by those same people his actions would be considered entirely criminal.

What are your views on morality? Why do you think your particular view makes sense and what evidence or theory can you provide to back it up?

Note: I did search the forum for this particular topic and though it did appear the threads were either of specific moral scenarios or did not capture the different moral beliefs appropriately.

Im more of a Nilhist. Who is there to question our behaviour? (Please anyone that belives in this so called "god read this") its not like our fellow raping,killing scum upon the earth can. The words good and bad should not exist. They are just figments of our imagination imprinted on earth by someone who's trying to control us all. Fuck religion.

When you say "fuck religion", do you mean "fuck Christianity"? Because there are plenty of religions like Hinduism and Shinto that I'm sure wouldn't bother you if you knew about them in detail.

OT: Moral relativism as well. Just look at the Civil Rights Movement in the U.S. 60 years ago, there was segregation, but now you get flamed to hell and back on tumblr if you make the slightest of racist/sexist/anything-ist comments.

No. Fuck religion in general. Why do we have to be the ones that are put down. No matter what we do we dont have our freedom. Religion to me is just a paradox of chinese fingertraps.
Edit: Where's @ForgroundEclipse when you need her. Dem crazy bitches need to help me out on this.

Religions are just a set of beliefs that people CHOOSE to follow. It's not like they're locked in or stuck with it (if they're adults at least). My mom raised me going to church but I stopped with the whole church thing because I didn't really like it. Look at Buddhism--it's all about enlightening the self and getting rid of your own suffering. You do have to follow rules, which you may see as losing freedom, but practitioners chose Buddhism because they believe in it and are willing to sacrifice. I guess all I'm saying is don't let Christianity be the posterchild for religion.

There are religions that promote equality, personal freedom, worth and power along with good morales. I hold Buddhism and Jainism, especially their tenet Ahimsa, with high regard. They are religions created for the sake of improving and empowering people rather than controlling them. Buddhism is widely known for it's mutability according to personal preference, Siddartha (the founder and original Buddha) said that people should take it for what they will, use it as a tool to bring them happiness.

Im not one of depicting what's good or bad so i could care less about morals. I don't need any religion to tell my anything. And whats with every "god" being so cyinical? Talking in a kind of code. Like making sure its imprinted on you. God I need a cigarette. Fucking college.

I'm both a Moral Relativist and a Moral Nihilist if that makes sense. Allow me to go into detail:

What are morals? As another poster detailed, there are basic morals: Sanctity of life being one, right to your own property, etc. But at the same time we can, depending on the circumstances violate almost if not all of these supposed morals we have.

Recognizing this, obviously means acknowledging the ambiguity with which Morals exist(Relativism) but I'm of the intellectual observation that if morals should exist, they should be universal. If they're not universal, then they're not morals
whatsoever.

Indeed, they're nothing more than "rules" that we've made to be acceptable to our purpose and existence as humans, which allows us to waive those rules whenever and however we see fit.(Nihilism).

Because they are rules however, we are made to recognize and follow by them. Perhaps we subconsciously do so, due to the obvious punishments(Imprisonment or worse, possibly death) but another reason could be is that if we don't follow them, we'll recognize the lack of authority they truly do have.

Your view on religion seems jaded and unsupported by critical thinking or study. Do you honestly think it's a smart move to make a general judgement on all types of something if you've only looked at a small portion of them?

Sorry. Religion is a touchy subject for me and i haven't had enough sleep (too busy stalking) ill probably research as much religions as i can and come back with a whopper later. See you then.

Moral relativism seems to be the right answer

Morality, something the U.S. needs ALOT of.

For a second there I wasn't seeing the option for moral relativism which is what I chose, might I add, quite rightly so. Moral relativism is right and that's the end of that. JK. Just want to take the time to approach this:



Whenever that question is asked in religious debates, the answer is quite simple. Two letters in fact. Us. Mankind has natural moral codes imbedded on us, not by God, but by nature which is what allowed us to form civilizations, live together and evolve. A quote from Christopher Hitchens should clear that up. He says «Human decency is not derived from religion. It precedes it». I agree when you say to fuck religion, very much so, but to dismiss morality all together as a lie created by religion is simply false. Religion didn't create morality, they just stole it.

Even though the descriptions of these ethical views are somewhat simplified in the OP, I'd say I hold both Moral Nihilism as well as Moral Relativism too be somewhat accurate of my perspective on morality.

What is ethical isn't something that is universally agreed upon over every nation, culture, religion or even between individual humans. So, to me, that means it has to be something subjective; nobody is objectively right or wrong, since what is considered wrong is dependent on each individual persons environment during their upbringing and life. To believe that, simply because it's what You believe, it is the absolute truth is incredibly self-centered and small-minded imo.

But yea, I can also take a step back and objectively look at reality, which tells me that morality is not something that exist by some physical law in an environment outside our own (humans). It is a human invention, constructed for the sake of us wanting to make sense of the world, and neither less than often, forced upon us by the society we live up in.


That seems about right to me.

I believe in Moral Relavatism. I'm not sure if law comes from common sense or common sense comes from law, but either way, it helps us humans from killing each other. You're free to do whatever you like, as long as you don't disadvantage others by doing so, and vice versa.

I picked Absolutism because I think thats how most nations work but generally I like Relavatism because it gives you a sense of individuality instead of grouped into a whole like cattle.

I believe there was already a thread which asked a similar question but I'm fine with reitering myself.

I believe in Moral Relativity, purely because no two humans think exactly the same. If a say the word dog, the dog we're both thinking of is almost certainly different, the same is true for morals.

One may say "thou shalt not kill" (if you'll excuse the bible reference. You know what I'm getting at.) is a fundamental human moral, however some may take this completely different to others, some may believe (as well they did in the crusades) that killing in god's name (or whoever really, christian examples are just easy to understand because most of us know them) is absolutely fine while others may think even killing a fly is wrong.

To say that, on the other hand, morals don't exist would be wrong as well, otherwise the feeling of guilt would not exist. How can you feel guilt when there are no lines to cross? Therefore a set of morals is important to any human being, even great dictators like Mao and Stalin had morals I'm sure, however most people find these morals abhorrent which is further reason to believe that morals are subjective and individual.

In the end it comes down to my belief that everything is subjective, hell even the belief of morals as subjective is subjective as proved by this thread. Morals are subjective to a single individual even if there is only tiny deviation.

Moral nihilism with a mix. Make my own code, react to things to what I feel and think is best. Universal morality doesn't exist, absolutely absurd. Have some aspects that connect to moral relativism. And of course, from my favourite philosopher " you think morality still exists ? Bitch please. " - Friedrich Nietzsche. Ok, maybe I'm paraphrasing a tad.

Not sure if I should pick Moral Nilhism or Moral Relativism.

As far as I'm concerned concepts of "right" and "wrong" are defined by whoever has the power to punish transgressors. That's why even if we assume a God exists and that God punishes those who sin against it, this God's laws are not absolute moral standards, but relative moral standards constructed and enforced by said God.

Which one does that fall into?

That explanation actually falls more in line with objectivism rather than relativism, it is definitely not nihilist.