# Can somebody define morals?



## PM1234 (14 Jan 2008)

Have been thinking in reference to a point raised in another post recently where the word 'moral' was used. Just wondering what are people's take on this word? 

Personally I would have always believed that someone having morals is the equivalent to being treated as one would like to be treated and doing the right thing.  Is this just an old fashoned view? If so what does it mean?

This word is sometimes used so loosely and without actually practising it (ie my interpretation of it).  I was wondering if this is because people's interpretation of morals varies so much or is it just a word to be bandied about. Is there some or any sort of common  measurement? If so does anyone know how?


----------



## carpedeum (14 Jan 2008)

Our morals can be based on instinct i.e. knowing what is right or wrong, or they derive from religious or other moral authorities in whom we trust. Having said that, this tale by Emo Phillips may indicate shortcomings in this belief...
"Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?" He said, "Yes." I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A Christian." I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me, too! What franchise?" He said, "Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He said, "Northern Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region." I said, "Me, too!" Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912." I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.


----------



## PM1234 (14 Jan 2008)

The old ones are the best 

I'm not talking about whether or not morals exist. Equally I'm not convinced about morals deriving from religion. Being a member of a certain faith seems to entitle people to say they are a 'good' person without actually having to do anything 'good'.  What does that mean for agnostics and athesists. Its a cop out.

Is it to do with upbringing? If so what does it mean for those who follow a poor  example set by their parents. Alternatively does it mean 'its all the parents fault'? 

When does somebody start taking responsibility for themselves?

Is it a word used by those who think they are superor to others? Is it just a bandied about word that is used without much if any thought?


----------



## ClubMan (14 Jan 2008)

PM1234 said:


> Is there some or any sort of common  measurement? If so does anyone know how?


?


----------



## PM1234 (15 Jan 2008)

So its based on ethics - natural, consensus, arbitrary and true absolute. 

Is anyone or everyone entitled to use the word depending on individual and cultural interpretations of the above?

Leaving aside the obvious corrupt (or can we?) what do people actually think of when the word is used?


----------



## ClubMan (15 Jan 2008)

PM1234 said:


> So its based on ethics - natural, consensus, arbitrary and true absolute.
> 
> Is anyone or everyone entitled to use the word depending on individual and cultural interpretations of the above?
> 
> Leaving aside the obvious corrupt (or can we?) what do people actually think of when the word is used?



What the hell does any of the above mean? Is this some sort of _William Burroughs' _cut-up version of _Humpty Dumpty's _contributions to _Through The Looking Glass _or something?


----------



## PM1234 (15 Jan 2008)

Sure if I knew I wouldn't have posted at all! 

So the question now is  - in everyday life - what does the word moral mean to people?


----------



## Thrifty (15 Jan 2008)

Without looking anything up the word moral to me means considering a situation and trying to do the right thing as in the fair, considerate, kind thing.


----------



## ci1 (15 Jan 2008)

To me it means the things that are important to you.  If you are 100% faithful, honest, trustworthy, loyal, polite etc. then you could hold these are you're morals.

If you come across someone that goes against any of the above and you disagree or are affected by them then they have gone against your morals.

If you hold any of the above or anything similar as your morals then chances are you live by them every day.  If you don't then you are going against your morals.

Similar to values I think.

I have no morals  (ha ha, I'm joking)


----------



## Remix (15 Jan 2008)

Morals are those things being put aside to make way for the newer dogma: “It all comes down to me, and how I feel about me."

For some examples of how this can be properly applied in everyday life, please refer to the Spears sisters


----------



## PM1234 (15 Jan 2008)

So they're more like expectations of wanting to and actually doing the right thing? Wouldn't this mean the lower the expectations, the lower the morals?


----------



## z103 (15 Jan 2008)

> What the hell does any of the above mean? Is this some sort of _William Burroughs' _cut-up version of _Humpty Dumpty's _contributions to _Through The Looking Glass _or something?



I'm guessing that it might mean; Does 'right' and 'wrong' exist?


----------



## stir crazy (16 Jan 2008)

Perhaps a book of philosophy would help. Or several books. Some philosophers follow religious codes and some dont. The morals we all have are subjective. The vast majority of us would generally agree upon rules such as thou shalt not kill, shalt not steal etc  but not everyone agrees or if even if they agree they dont necessarily follow those rules e.g the occupants of our prisons or indeed perhaps some of the occupants of our Dail


----------



## z103 (16 Jan 2008)

> The morals we all have are subjective


Are they?

Could 'right and wrong' not be universal laws that exist regardless of the existence of those that are influenced by them? or maybe they are more like the laws of Gravity?


----------



## Elphaba (16 Jan 2008)

My clear understanding of morals are based on a sense of right and wrong according to conscience, i.e. standing up for what you believe in,
even though everybody else thinks you're wrong, thats having moral courage.
I think morals are instilled in us from an early age, even though we are not aware of it, as such, some children, who are brought up in conflict, i.e. in war torn areas or problem families, do not get opportunity to develop their good side. However, some people are just born bad, in their genes. Hitler for example, he had his own set of morals that he thought was right, so morals are subjective. Except in the case of a 'Moralist' who seeks to improve the morals of others. I do think its an old fashioned word, never hear it mentioned
usually. (Blasphemy, now thats a gonner, someone tried to sue Jerry Springer,
the opera, on grounds of blasphemy, but thrown out of court, this very ancient law is now being abolished)


----------



## PM1234 (17 Jan 2008)

I agree morals are subjective and that they can be acted on or not. 

What about when somebody recognises in certain situations the right thing to do but chooses not to do the right thing (e.g self gain) as opposed to failing to see what was the correct thing in the first place.

They recognise the right thing (so they have morals?) and fail to do the right thing (so they don't have morals?).  

Are morals just our thoughts? Are they actions? Should and must there be both in order to say you have morals?


----------



## stir crazy (17 Jan 2008)

leghorn said:


> Are they?



Yes they are. Morals are something decided by human beings and increasingly complicated through a historical process of trial and error. The morals you possess are influenced by where you are born and the local culture e.g. women in Saudi Arabia who drive cars are deemed immoral in that country or for not wearing a veil etc. Or the fact that the death penalty exists in the USA. You might reply something along the lines of  'but Stir, this is universally wrong everywhere' in which case it all boils down to which moral authority do you accept. Even feminists can't claim that 100% of females in Saudi do not enjoy the status quo so finding a solitary moral voice giving directions can be difficult when dealing with complex matters. I think cultures or religions different from ours might get pretty irritated at being told what they do is 'universally' wrong because as outsiders we never can comprehend the consequences of change.
If that which is moral is also that which is good then what is moral for the self can come into conflict with that which is moral for the group. It does not mean we have less freedom but its important to realise this when making moral choices.





leghorn said:


> Could 'right and wrong' not be universal laws that exist regardless of the existence of those that are influenced by them? or maybe they are more like the laws of Gravity?



I dont know what you mean by 'universal laws' Could you please clarify ?

The laws of physics which govern the universe are amoral and act with no regard towards the moral consequences otherwise there would be no drought in Ethiopia, no Tsunami in the Pacific and noone would be born with birth defects etc


----------



## Simeon (17 Jan 2008)

PM1234 said:


> So they're more like expectations of wanting to and actually doing the right thing? Wouldn't this mean the lower the expectations, the lower the morals?


Call me old fashioned if you like but my Mom always told me that "the lower the skirt, the lower the expectations then the higher the morals". So, equaly the opposite applies "the higher the skirt, the higher the expectations then the lower the morals".


----------



## Purple (17 Jan 2008)

Simeon said:


> Call me old fashioned if you like but my Mom always told me that "the lower the skirt, the lower the expectations then the higher the morals". So, equaly the opposite applies "the higher the skirt, the higher the expectations then the lower the morals".



I think she may have been skirting the issue....


----------



## Berlin (17 Jan 2008)

There is also an outside chance that she may have been wrong.


----------



## Caveat (17 Jan 2008)

Morals can be partly explained (like a lot of things) with reference to selfishness.

Degrees of selfishness dictate how far we are willing to go.

Think of things that would almost universally be regarded as immoral:

e.g. stealing from the poor
random violence
rape

They can all be explained by the need for gratification, greed or when reduced further, basically, selfishness. 

- if the feelings/circumstances of others were properly considered, the above would not happen.

Of course there are false morals too - people may act according to basic self preservation - but the desire to perform the above acts may still be there.

IMO, if you honestly live by the maxim _treat as you would like to be_ _treated _you are well on your way to being someone of good moral character.


----------



## PM1234 (17 Jan 2008)

> IMO, if you honestly live by the maxim _treat as you would like to be_ _treated _you are well on your way to being someone of good moral character.


This was my understanding of morals too. 

Take, for example, an argument between two people A and B. A takes the lead in trying to resolve the argument.. B decides to ignore all of A's attempts. A gets frustrated and retaliates. 

So A's intentions were initially good. However retaliation was not good.

So morals conflicted. But should they if they are an inbuilt part of someone's character?


----------



## stir crazy (18 Jan 2008)

Caveat said:


> IMO, if you honestly live by the maxim _treat as you would like to be_ _treated _you are well on your way to being someone of good moral character.




Theres always a loophole when trying to define anything non mathematical with one sentence. For example the case of a self destructive masochistic anarchist.


----------



## Remix (18 Jan 2008)

> But should they if they are an inbuilt part of someone's character?


 
There is some evidence that babies as young as 6 months can show a preference for good behaviour versus bad.

Made me like the little critters even more after seeing this.

You can see them show preference for the "good samaritan" in the clip below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgxMbx6RP0E


----------



## ClubMan (18 Jan 2008)

Remix said:


> There is some evidence that babies as young as 6 months can show a preference for good behaviour versus bad.


Who is the arbiter on what constitutes "good" and "bad" behaviour?! 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_skepticism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_pluralism


----------



## ClubMan (18 Jan 2008)

stir crazy said:


> Theres always a loophole when trying to define anything non mathematical with one sentence. For example the case of a self destructive masochistic anarchist.


Good one - I like it!


----------



## Remix (18 Jan 2008)

ClubMan said:


> Who is the arbiter on what constitutes "good" and "bad" behaviour?!
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_skepticism
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_pluralism


 


In the baby study my post referred to, one toy was helpful and nice and the other was hindering and pushy.

So presented to the babies was a simple case of a helper versus hinderer.

Many of the news sources carrying this story labeled the helpful toy "good" and the hindering toy "bad" ?

Seems reasonable enough to me !


----------



## ClubMan (18 Jan 2008)

Remix said:


> In the baby study my post referred to, one toy was helpful and nice and the other was hindering and pushy.
> 
> So presented to the babies was a simple case of a helper versus hinderer.
> 
> ...


The guy who hinders me from jumping under a train is acting "badly" so? (No smart comments please ).


----------



## redstar (18 Jan 2008)

ClubMan said:


> Who is the arbiter on what constitutes "good" and "bad" behaviour?!



Why God is, of course. And I thought you knew everything


----------



## ClubMan (18 Jan 2008)

redstar said:


> Why God is, of course. And I thought you knew everything


Of course - nobody. I should have realised.


----------



## redstar (18 Jan 2008)

Exactly !!


----------



## PM1234 (19 Jan 2008)

I think we can safely say there is 'bad behaviour' ie rape, violence, child sex industry and 'good behaviour'  ie being there for someone in times of need etc

I would wish that the vast majority of people arbitrate on such things. 

Anyway back to topic - if someone is of a 'moral' character, is this part and parcel of who they are?


----------



## ClubMan (19 Jan 2008)

PM1234 said:


> I think we can safely say there is 'bad behaviour' ie rape, violence, child sex industry


Now - yes. But in certain societies in the recent or distant past some of these practices would not necessarily have been considered objectionable or unusual. All it means is that there is probably no such thing as a universal constant definition of what is good or moral.

Also - many people would not necessarily see all violence as bad - e.g. violent insurgence or defence by subjugated people against an aggressor, the "war on terror" etc.


----------



## PM1234 (19 Jan 2008)

You raised a good point 'no such thing as a universal constant definition of what is good or moral'.  

In the here and now - 

Does good equal having morals then?   
When we do good in order to satisfy our own needs - does it mean we don't have morals?
Where we did not do the right thing, does that mean we did not have morals at all?


----------



## ClubMan (19 Jan 2008)

"Good" and "moral" are subjective terms in my opinion. As such there is no guaranteed commonality or agreed frame of reference when discussing them.


----------



## Purple (21 Jan 2008)

Some people will disagree with you on that...


----------



## Simeon (21 Jan 2008)

Yes! This seems to be the dilemma.


----------



## Caveat (21 Jan 2008)

PM1234 said:


> When we do good in order to satisfy our own needs - does it mean we don't have morals?


 
The only exception I would make is in cases where by not acting/doing good (and if there was no-one else available to act) a given situation/circumstances etc would deteriorate - or worse. In terms of motive/vested interest in these cases, I believe the end would justify the means. E.g. your motives may have been vain/selfish but by acting you may have saved someone's life, or made them a lot happier, or restored their faith in humanity, or prevented a crime etc etc

Other than that, I think it would mean we have low moral standards. Maybe the net result is positive in some cases, but acting primarily to satisfy your own needs is, I think, a poor way to live as it simply promotes selfishness - which is rarely good news.




> Where we did not do the right thing, does that mean we did not have morals at all?


 
Depends - are you talking about human error? or fear of committing to what you really believe might be the right thing to do? or something else?


----------



## stir crazy (21 Jan 2008)

PM1234 said:


> Does good equal having morals then?
> When we do good in order to satisfy our own needs - does it mean we don't have morals?
> Where we did not do the right thing, does that mean we did not have morals at all?



Is it not also possible that someone could do what is right in a specific instance  or even always, yet still have no morals ?


----------



## Gordanus (21 Jan 2008)

stir crazy said:


> Is it not also possible that someone could do what is right in a specific instance  or even always, yet still have no morals ?



Of course.   I've done Good by sheer fluke.  I've done Good, when I actually intended evil.  Being bad has had a tendency to blow up in my face, so I'm now going to try to do Evil by trying to do Good..............


----------



## PM1234 (21 Jan 2008)

stir crazy said:


> Is it not also possible that someone could do what is right in a specific instance  or even always, yet still have no morals ?



I would imagine that if someone always does the right thing, something leads them to behave in such a way. 

It wouldn' t necessarily count if they only behaved that way out of fear of the consequences of doing otherwise.




> Depends - are you talking about human error? or fear of committing to what you really believe might be the right thing to do? or something else?



Human error. If someone got angry, upset etc and deliberately hurt someone. Situations where they know the right thing to do but gave in to negative feelings and acted differently.  If such actions were not the norm, would they be within us and would we act on them if we had morals?


----------



## Caveat (21 Jan 2008)

PM1234 said:


> Human error. If someone got angry, upset etc and deliberately hurt someone. Situations where they know the right thing to do but gave in to negative feelings and acted differently. If such actions were not the norm, would they be within us and would we act on them if we had morals?


 
Might sound like a cop out answer, but to that I would say - we are all human and all capable of mistakes. I'm sure Gandhi and similar people lost their tempers.


----------



## PMU (3 Feb 2008)

Other posters to this thread have said: “The morals we all have are subjective”; “I think we can safely say there is 'bad behaviour' ie rape, violence, child sex industry and 'good behaviour' ie being there for someone in times of need etc” and “”Good" and "moral" are subjective terms in my opinion. As such there is no guaranteed commonality or agreed frame of reference when discussing them.”

  [FONT=&quot]These views are largely nonsense.  Rape, violence, child sex are not wrong because of our subjective view on these issue but because objectively the perpetrators of rape, violence, child sex crimes deny the primacy of the life of the victim.  Immoral acts impose violence against the victim and are immoral for that reason, not because we think they are 'immoral’,    Subjectivity has nothing to do with it – neither has religion or god.  There is a distinct moral chasm between the criminal and the victim, because no one has the right to impose their will on another by violence or otherwise. True morality is based on rationality and respect for the life and free will of the individual  - not on religion.  [/FONT]


----------

