Can somebody define morals?

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


Theres always a loophole when trying to define anything non mathematical with one sentence. For example the case of a self destructive masochistic anarchist.
 
But should they if they are an inbuilt part of someone's character?
Click to expand...

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 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
Click to expand...



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 !
 
The guy who hinders me from jumping under a train is acting "badly" so? (No smart comments please ).
 
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?
 
PM1234 said:
I think we can safely say there is 'bad behaviour' ie rape, violence, child sex industry
Click to expand...
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.
 
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?
 
"Good" and "moral" are subjective terms in my opinion. As such there is no guaranteed commonality or agreed frame of reference when discussing them.
 
PM1234 said:
When we do good in order to satisfy our own needs - does it mean we don't have morals?
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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?
 
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?
Click to expand...

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

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..............
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register