What is Morality?

[Flash2024]

I am atheist. But my actions going about my daily life is pretty much identical to them. So my belief system is immoral, even if we are neighbors, go to the same school, live in the same cultural realm?

What is this belief system that your neighbors think is immoral?

Just the fact that I am atheist is considered an immoral lifestyle. The corollary of this is another post above that states that morals are those dictated by organized religion. This is patently true and false at the same time. Yes, my morals are influenced by a Christian/Judeo culture. But the fact that I reject the underpinnings of that culture, a belief in a monotheistic god, does not make me immoral.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

No one is saying Morality is what one thinks at the moment. That is patently absurd. But a society's morals do change with time, change, and historical experience.

Okay, so morality is whatever a group of people (how big?) believe is right or wrong at any given time?

I still think groups of people can hold wrong moral beliefs that they believe to be correct.

[Hanging Rook]

No one is saying Morality is what one thinks at the moment. That is patently absurd. But a society's morals do change with time, change, and historical experience.

Okay, so morality is whatever a group of people (how big?) believe is right or wrong at any given time?

I still think groups of people can hold wrong moral beliefs that they believe to be correct.

I don’t think right or wrong are good categories here, I would claim it is more or less useful in a Darwian sense. In the long run societies with better moral views prosper and survive replacing and marginalizing others.

[Crazy Anglican]

I am atheist. But my actions going about my daily life is pretty much identical to them. So my belief system is immoral, even if we are neighbors, go to the same school, live in the same cultural realm?

What is this belief system that your neighbors think is immoral?

Just the fact that I am atheist is considered an immoral lifestyle. The corollary of this is another post above that states that morals are those dictated by organized religion. This is patently true and false at the same time. Yes, my morals are influenced by a Christian/Judeo culture. But the fact that I reject the underpinnings of that culture, a belief in a monotheistic god, does not make me immoral.

You're right, no it doesn't. As I understand it atheism is simply the disbelief in God or gods. That in and of itself is not a statement about morals. So, for all intents and purposes, you're Christian minus God? I'm not trying to be flippant; I'm just trying to establish what you're basing your statements about morality on.

[Flash2024]

Christian, Jewish, Muslim? Are Christians Jews with a Savior? We all grow up and absorb the overwhelming values of our society. There is no Christian without God. But there are those who are not Christian or believers in any higher power who share a morality system with those who do so believe.

[Crazy Anglican]

Christian, Jewish, Muslim? Are Christians Jews with a Savior? We all grow up and absorb the overwhelming values of our society. There is no Christian without God. But there are those who are not Christian or believers in any higher power who share a morality system with those who do so believe.

I'm not sure that I follow here. Islam is distinct from Christianity, as is Judaism. I don't think it's so easy as to say that we're all in the same moral soup line dishing out the same fare.

It seems that you see morality as being influenced by society rather than being influenced by it?

[Crazy Anglican]

...rather than influencing it. I should have said.

[Crazy Anglican]

I guess my question there is how does any moral change happen? You've mentioned changes in society, but aren't these changes a reflection of the efforts of small groups of moral people? Wouldn't that reflect morality having an impact on society, rather than the other way around?

[MajorMitchell]

Pinecone's proposition that Morality is that which is in accordance with God's will and Law and Immorality as that which is not in accordance with God's will and Law is a wonderful example of the pestilential problems caused by relying on religious beliefs to derive Moral principles principles.
I will describe Pinecone's simplistic assertion a provocative troll like non sequitur, the simple question "which God's will and Law?" exposes a fundamental fault in his assertion
Is it the Christian God or the Islamic God?
Or a different God?
If that question can hypothetically resolved, then comes the question, From which of that God's earthly representatives, ie, prophets, theologians, church authorities do we nominate as being the person or entity that determines what is and what is not the chosen God's will and Law?

Let's choose Pinecone as a hypothetical supreme authority on which God it is who determines by Will and Law all Moral principles to demonstrate the weakness of subjectivity compared to the advantages that the objectivity of Ethics divorced from religious beliefs provides.

Controlling Morality has been a method of controlling people used by religious organisations from their inception, it's a source of power and wealth for religious organisations often misused for unethical purposes and I suggest, misused for immoral purposes by religious organisations.
That's why adherents and authorities of religious organisations devoutly defend their self perceived right to control Morality in societies and nation states, a totalitarian theocracy being the ultimate example.

So thank you Pinecone for providing such a beautiful example with your assertion of what you assert being dangerous nonsense.

Put 3 Pinecones who worship 3 different Gods with antithetical sets of Will's and Laws inm power as supreme leaders of theocratic neighbouring nation states, give them armed fanatical adherents and within 20 minutes a three way war will erupt.

[Crazy Anglican]

Wow, that's certainly a response to pinecone's otherwise innocuous statement. What did he say that was so... dangerous?

Morality is that which is accordance with God's will and law. Immorality is that which contravenes his will and law.

Bad pinecone! You should know better than to say anything about the truth of your religion around HERE! You'll get a brutal tongue lashing for that my friend. I'd wager that someone might just come along and slander God, Christians (in general and from the past), and maybe even you personally if you start that nonsense up my friend.

Oh ,,, wait huh?

They've already done those things?

Characterized pinecone, himself, as a wannabe dictator?

For what!?

Oh yeah, he asserted that morality is a good thing and that God is a path to it.

Yeah, Well you'd think that actually answering the OP would be... you know.. a good thing.

Ah well, knee jerk reactions aside. I support pinecone's assertion that God is the source of morality, just as I respected Jamie's right to slander God earlier. I didn't agree with him and I patiently showed the flaws in the reasoning, but I don't think I slandered him.


So. pinecone is a ravening dictator in his own mind. So, sayeth MM?

[mOctave]

I still find the relativists don't have a great argument here.

Chattel slavery was wrong, even if we can't agree to the precise moral reasoning that proves it as such. Is your contention that it actually was "good" just because some white people thought it was?

The wrongness of slavery has something to do with the real inconsistency of some human beings being extremely privileged over others for reasons that can't logically be sustained without widespread ignorance. And, of course, the extreme and unnecessary material suffering of slaves. Now that this ignorance is mostly lifted, I don't expect we'll ever have a popular movement for that style of slavery again. People were rightly convinced of the real wrongness of slavery. Yes, there remain some ignorant people who never stopped supporting slavery, they remain mistaken about its moral justifications.

First, leave slavery out of it. The question is are morals relativistic or absolute. Better minds than ours have argued this. But slavery brings in cultural baggage that distorts the question. And in today's America I think we can pretty much say the vast majority look at it as wrong--as moral beliefs have changed. How about abortion? There are those who would die or kill to protect a fetus. Obviously abortion is wildly immoral to them. But not to me. Not to those in my social circle. Morals are not absolute. The same with being gay.
Or take different classes or castes within the same culture. Some actions may be considered moral for one group but not another. Or atheism. I have known "Christians" who consider me immoral because I am atheist. But my actions going about my daily life is pretty much identical to them. So my belief system is immoral, even if we are neighbors, go to the same school, live in the same cultural realm?

I'm just thoroughly unconvinced that the existence of moral uncertainty is evidence that there's no such thing as morality. Another plausible explanation is that some moral beliefs are mistaken, like the moral justifications of slavery were. Many of these truths may be ultimately unknowable, but I don't think they all are, and so I reject the idea that morality is just whatever anyone feels in the moment.

Okay, so where is your objective morality coming from, if you're so sure there is such a thing?

By common definition, God is perfect, omniscient, relatively omnipotent compared to humanity (although usually not truly omnipotent, as the Christian God cannot sin and many gods from polytheistic religions have limited capabilities), and exists outside of time.

If there is an objective morality, then it is by definition perfect, it is what we all hope to achieve. It is also relatively omnipotent, since it guides the majority of people in most actions. It also exists outside of time, or else it would be changeable. You could argue strongly that such a morality is also omniscient. Therefore, isn't the morality you describe a God? Certainly it isn't the Christian one, but of course the Christian God isn't the only potential God.

You could argue with this, saying that God also has to be a person. But, if God doesn't exist, we probably don't have souls, and then we're only people because we personify ourselves and each other. So then all that's lacking in the comparison of morality to God is that we don't imagine morality as being a person.

(Also, by the way, it is most likely that gravity sort of exists. It is an explanation that works for most things we can observe, even if it's imperfect and doesn't explain the microcosm or macrocosm).

Pinecone's proposition that Morality is that which is in accordance with God's will and Law and Immorality as that which is not in accordance with God's will and Law is a wonderful example of the pestilential problems caused by relying on religious beliefs to derive Moral principles principles.
I will describe Pinecone's simplistic assertion a provocative troll like non sequitur, the simple question "which God's will and Law?" exposes a fundamental fault in his assertion
Is it the Christian God or the Islamic God?
Or a different God?
If that question can hypothetically resolved, then comes the question, From which of that God's earthly representatives, ie, prophets, theologians, church authorities do we nominate as being the person or entity that determines what is and what is not the chosen God's will and Law?

Let's choose Pinecone as a hypothetical supreme authority on which God it is who determines by Will and Law all Moral principles to demonstrate the weakness of subjectivity compared to the advantages that the objectivity of Ethics divorced from religious beliefs provides.

Controlling Morality has been a method of controlling people used by religious organisations from their inception, it's a source of power and wealth for religious organisations often misused for unethical purposes and I suggest, misused for immoral purposes by religious organisations.
That's why adherents and authorities of religious organisations devoutly defend their self perceived right to control Morality in societies and nation states, a totalitarian theocracy being the ultimate example.

So thank you Pinecone for providing such a beautiful example with your assertion of what you assert being dangerous nonsense.

Put 3 Pinecones who worship 3 different Gods with antithetical sets of Will's and Laws inm power as supreme leaders of theocratic neighbouring nation states, give them armed fanatical adherents and within 20 minutes a three way war will erupt.

I would argue here that all three moralities are right because morality isn't objective. It doesn't matter if there is a "real" God, because to Pinecone there is, and so Pinecone's God is just as real as any other for the purpose of them judging their own morality.

I agree that controlling morality has been used as a method of controlling people... but if we agree that morality can be controlled, and isn't therefore objective, then what's wrong with controlling it?

I don't think what Pinecone is saying is nonsense at all, just maybe a little narrow-minded. But, if it's what Pinecone thinks then it is a potentially valid source of morality, even if it isn't the place you choose to get your morality from.

Yes, putting your theoretical 3 Pinecones in charge would lead to a war. Would that war be wrong? According to the actual belligerents, it probably wouldn't be.

[Crazy Anglican]

Put 3 Pinecones who worship 3 different Gods with antithetical sets of Will's and Laws inm power as supreme leaders of theocratic neighbouring nation states, give them armed fanatical adherents and within 20 minutes a three way war will erupt.

Yes, putting your theoretical 3 Pinecones in charge would lead to a war. Would that war be wrong? According to the actual belligerents, it probably wouldn't be.
[/quote]

I dunno, I think Pinecone would make an excellent leader. He's well spoken. Get's right to the point. No longwinded monologues. Might be quite the fine fellow. Have you asked him if he'd start a jihad?

He doesn't seem like a jihadi; could you be over-reacting? Just a bit?

[Crazy Anglican]

Put 3 Pinecones who worship 3 different Gods with antithetical sets of Will's and Laws inm power as supreme leaders of theocratic neighbouring nation states, give them armed fanatical adherents and within 20 minutes a three way war will erupt.

Yes, putting your theoretical 3 Pinecones in charge would lead to a war. Would that war be wrong? According to the actual belligerents, it probably wouldn't be.

I dunno, I think Pinecone would make an excellent leader. He's well spoken. Get's right to the point. No longwinded monologues. Might be quite the fine fellow. Have you asked him if he'd start a jihad?

He doesn't seem like a jihadi; could you be over-reacting? Just a bit?

[Crazy Anglican]

Not sure how I ended up double posting there. Sorry.

[Crazy Anglican]

If there is an objective morality, then it is by definition perfect, it is what we all hope to achieve. It is also relatively omnipotent, since it guides the majority of people in most actions. It also exists outside of time, or else it would be changeable. You could argue strongly that such a morality is also omniscient. Therefore, isn't the morality you describe a God? Certainly it isn't the Christian one, but of course the Christian God isn't the only potential God.

Perhaps you're not drawing distinctions among perfect decisions, perfect actions, and perfect beings? At least that's what jumped to mind as I read this. As a martial artist, the whole idea is to pursue perfect action. It is not possible, but it is still the goal. Trying to achieve the goal is enough. It is what drives growth. There is nothing about the idea of perfect action, at least in my mind, that translates to a perfect being (other than a perfect being would act perfectly). Essentially a perfect being creates perfect actions, not the other way around.

[mOctave]

I'm not drawing those distinctions, no. After all, what is a perfect being? If a perfect being is made of matter, then it is a perfect action, since matter itself is energy. If a perfect being's being-ness is defined by consciousness, then it is the thoughts of the being that make it conscious, and those thoughts are in themselves actions.

When you try to pursue a perfect action as a martial artist, you try to pursue a perfect series of events. Each event is itself then a perfect state of being.

I would argue that a being is composed of actions, and an action is composed of states of being. A perfect decision is both a perfect action and a perfect state of being.

[mOctave]

Put 3 Pinecones who worship 3 different Gods with antithetical sets of Will's and Laws inm power as supreme leaders of theocratic neighbouring nation states, give them armed fanatical adherents and within 20 minutes a three way war will erupt.

Yes, putting your theoretical 3 Pinecones in charge would lead to a war. Would that war be wrong? According to the actual belligerents, it probably wouldn't be.

I dunno, I think Pinecone would make an excellent leader. He's well spoken. Get's right to the point. No longwinded monologues. Might be quite the fine fellow. Have you asked him if he'd start a jihad?

He doesn't seem like a jihadi; could you be over-reacting? Just a bit?

You're right, I don't think Pinecone actually would start a jihad. Sorry if that caused offence.

I more meant that MM's theoretical and only-real-to-MM version of Pinecone might.

[Crazy Anglican]

I more meant that MM's theoretical and only-real-to-MM version of Pinecone might.

I'd imagine that MM's theoretical and only real to MM version of pinecone would do a great many diabolical things, lol.

Yet, since the only actual Christian theocracy in the world would fit easily inside New York City's Central Park, I don't feel like we are in any real danger from a Pineconian theocracy, theoretical or otherwise.


As to the issue of perfect beings/actions:

It seems that for me a perfect being causes perfect actions. For you a perfect being is comprised of perfect action? Is that the crux of the matter?

[mOctave]

For me a perfect being is equal to a perfect action. Since both are a product of the other, I would argue that there is no difference between the two.

[Crazy Anglican]

Okay, so where is your objective morality coming from, if you're so sure there is such a thing?

It comes from God and his commandments (and I'd like to go on record as saying that I have no political aspirations in that )

By common definition, God is perfect, omniscient, relatively omnipotent compared to humanity (although usually not truly omnipotent, as the Christian God cannot sin and many gods from polytheistic religions have limited capabilities), and exists outside of time.

Yes, with the caveat that there is a difference between cannot and does not.

If there is an objective morality, then it is by definition perfect, it is what we all hope to achieve. It is also relatively omnipotent, since it guides the majority of people in most actions. It also exists outside of time, or else it would be changeable. You could argue strongly that such a morality is also omniscient. Therefore, isn't the morality you describe a God? Certainly it isn't the Christian one, but of course the Christian God isn't the only potential God.

I'd say more accurately it's an ideal than a god, but in thinking about this; I came to a bit of an epiphany. Remember the commandment "Thou shall have no gods before me." That's kind of odd for a monotheistic religion, isn't it? It's pretty clear that in the Bronze Age it was a warning against idolatry, but it fits here. There are lots of things, morality included, that can be put above God. So, now it seems to be more of a "keep your priorities straight" warning for lots of Christians. We're not likely to make any golden calves (couldn't afford it anyway), but we can argue incessantly on the internet

So yeah, morality can be a false god. To what end? If perfect morality becomes the end that you are concerned about above all (your new god), then isn't it ultimately self serving? Isn't it a way so say, "I'm better than you"? Christians are absolutely subject to this, it's a human failing common to all of us. Christians who believe that non-Christians are "immoral" appear to be appear to be guilty of it. Atheists who think "If God exists, He's going to have to answer some questions about ..." seem to be too. They are both putting themselves into a position of moral superiority over others. It opens the door to vanity and pride.

You could argue with this, saying that God also has to be a person. But, if God doesn't exist, we probably don't have souls, and then we're only people because we personify ourselves and each other. So then all that's lacking in the comparison of morality to God is that we don't imagine morality as being a person.

I think the comparison of perfect morality to God is fine so long as we realize that it's a false god. I think it might also answer the question Bert Esq. asked earlier about why the Bible doesn't always provide a clear cut "do this; don't do that" answer to everything. Maybe the point isn't to achieve perfect morality, but to never stop trying to achieve it. In this I don't see myself as the kid who get's straight A's. I'm totally the kid who started out with an F and is steadily trying to earn that B-. The teachers love those kids; I think God does too.