Can somebody define morals?

P

PM1234

Registered User
Messages
959
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?
 
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.
 
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?
 
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?
 
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?
Click to expand...

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? :confused:
 
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?
 
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.
 
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)
 
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 :D
 
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?
 
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?
Click to expand...

I'm guessing that it might mean; Does 'right' and 'wrong' exist?
 
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 ;)
 
The morals we all have are subjective
Click to expand...
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?
 
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)
 
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?
 
leghorn said:
Are they?
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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
 
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?
Click to expand...
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".
 
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".
Click to expand...

I think she may have been skirting the issue.... ;)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top