So many of the threads on this board deal with our perceptions of morality in specific situations. Let's see how much we differ on what constitutes morality.

I would like to know what you think and why you think the way you do regarding any of the choices in this poll. Thanks.

(Edited to say: Sorry, guys, I ran out of space in the poll for "Other."
But I know that if you have ideas other than these choices, you'll step right up and post them! )

Like most people who voted, I have to go with "It is a combination." In particular, I lean towards a combination of "It depends on circumstances" and "It is a product of reason." If you pin me down and ask me for an exact answer to the question "Is there an absolute basis for morality?" I have to say "No." However (and this is a huge however) in many situations "moral relativism" and "moral absolutism" come up with the same answer. My approach to a particular situation is to ask what will cause the least harm. (This is not always easy to figure out.) Like a hyperbola endlessly approaching its asymptotes into infinity, inperfect humanity can never hope to reach morality, but we can come as close as we want for any particular practical purpose.

I think morality is an innate compass that all people have and whether or not you listen to it. Call it God or your conscience. The sane person knows that harming another person, either physically, mentally or emotionally is wrong. I think the core of religions reflect the truths of human nature: Do unto others how you would have them do unto you. The ten commandments... They are common sense guidelines. But whether or not personal morals (those that do not effect another person) are universal, differ from person to person with individual convictions.

I, too, voted for "it's a combination" and pretty much agree with VS's sentiments above.

I think there is such a thing as instinctive morality, which, in a perfect world (without negative societal influence), would lead to a set standard of morality . Let me try to explain (it's kinda of hard for me to put it into words, but I'll try).

I think there are some feelings/concepts that are innate and it is our environment that "alters" these feelings/concepts. I think the sorts of instinctive moral issues go back to the "Silver Rule" as dicussed on another morality thread: don't do things to others that you wouldn't want done to you. For example, you don't want to be hurt, so don't hurt others. I think that sort of "feeling" is the basis for morality. No one (this is JMHO) is born enjoying pain, sorrow, loneliness, etc., etc., etc. - why are we born with these certain "instincts"? IMO, it is because they serve as the basis for our "morals" as human beings.

Like I said, it's hard to explain so I won't try to explain any further since I'm confusing myself at this point

I see morality as living in a way that you do no intentional harm to others, exception being when it may be necessary to prevent harm to yourself or others who might be unable to defend themselves from the aggressor.
Harm can be physical, mental, emotional, financial, sexual, and other categories to be sure.
Doing harm to others usually indicates some form of selfishness, or insensitivity at the least. I know people who think they are good Christians yet they see it as "just good business practice" to take advantage of others ignorance for financial gain. These same people will also go to church on Sunday to show that they are participating in the community, and then cook the books to prevent paying their legally obligated taxes.
I recently had a bad experience that somehow helped me to find the words that describe my philosophy as follows.
There are predators and there are victims. While I don't want to be a willing victim, and will fight the predators of this world, I will not become a predator myself. If there is a hereafter, I don't want to have to spend eternity knowing that I was a "selfish jerk".
Selfish jerk is not the original term, but I can't use that term as this forum has rules about those kinds of words.

So many things can effect your own personal morality. Things you value the most can have a tremendous effect on your morals, call it your priorities or whatever. Would you kill another human being to save the life of your child? Would you kill another human being to save the life of someone else's child? Would you kill another human being to save the life of your dog or cat?

Some people are extreme pacifists that would not intentional harm anyone to save even their own life. Some people would shoot and ask questions later if someone entered their home at 2am in the morning.

Morality is arrived at through individual choice and group consensus. I would bet that 99.9 percent of participants on America's Debate are opposed to sexual relations between adults and children. Yet, we are tolerant to a extent to whatever two consenting adults do behind closed doors in the privacy of their own home and do not wish for the sex police to start peeping in bedroom windows.

So we have decided as a society that displays of public sex are inappropriate, but as long as it's not done in the street and scaring the horses, you can do whatever you please out of the public eye.

The trick is our personal beliefs as to what is moral and what is immoral are often at odds with what society at large believes. When people go so far as to impose their moral beliefs upon me without my requesting them then they have deemed their morality superior to mine and that's when the trouble begins.

Live and let live...within limits of propriety and good taste.

I have thought about starting a thread discussing morality and its political implications.

I use Kohlberg's model to best describe morality. Here is a link which gives an outline of it. I see many interpretations of his model and they all seem to vary slightly. This one seemed the easiest to scan and digest quickly. Kohlberg Stages of Morality

I did not answer the poll as no single response seemed right. Kohlberg's list seems to differentiate morality better for me. I share Paladin's interest in how AmericasDebate members look at morality. My other question is regards to morality would be how AmericasDebate members see the morality of the masses and how does that affect voting patterns?

This question seems so similar to yours, Paladin:that asking it in your thread seemed appropriate. Am I reading your motives correctly, Paladin or is my question taking a left turn from your intended discussion ?

My morality comes from a principle based upon ones actions not harming others. When others actions harm me, I tend to give them a break and figure it was unintended or unrealized. When those harmful actions are repeated I am no longer a forgiving person. How to resolve such conflicts is a whole 'nuther subject.

Gray Seal,
I would be disappointed if you didn't post your thread on how morality affects the masses politically, expecially with that link. Thank you.

I personally believe that morality is divine in origin, that it is innate in the form of a conscience, but that a person does have to develop a mature morality, so I indicated a "combination."

(Yes, our intentions are the same, but the content of your link merits another thread. I wish I had that article before I started this thread.)

Ah Gray Seal!

The name (Kohlberg) escaped me this morning, but I was trying to recall his six stages so I could add them into the foray here (your link lists a 7th stage that I've never heard mentioned as part of Kohlberg's stages...maybe it's because it's so obscure?!?). Thanks for posting it!

So which stage/level are you?

I tend to fall under the "Level 5" in practice and aspiration.

I'd definitely be interested in a separate thread addressing ideas about morality/politics

say you had a date, this date is with a female you have been thinking about for sometime, when she finnaly gets around to going out with you, you laugh at something she says, in the process a giant boger flys and lands on the table in front of her, would morals come into play here????

I think its between reason/natrual why morality comes about, i voted for reason myself.

I don't know. You brought up that disgusting example. You tell us.

I am at level six. I have learned it is not best to operate and communicate at level six when others are operating at level four. Court has not been friendly to me.

I hate it that those operating at low morality levels have control over my life.

I used to think it was an intelligence thing but have been introduced to other concepts such as personality and morality to understand how people have such different approaches and values compared to myself. Still, learning to communicate against your own morality or personality type is a difficult thing to do. I am only middle aged. Plenty of time for me to continue the attempt to acquire those skills.

I am at Level 6. Fortunately, I have not had to be arrested for any reason.
(Edited to say, at least I think I'm at Level 6. I might change my mind if someone had a loaded gun pointed at my head.)

Imagine a Level 6 soldier in Iraq right now following the orders of a Level 4 commanding officer. It would be better than following Level 3, anyway.

In what level would George W. Bush be classified?

I would put George Bush at level four. Most people I know are at level four. Those who operate at level five or higher are not very common.

I have to agree with this, although IMHO religion is often a set of rules that are used in place of natural morality.
Hurting others is wrong, it isn't complicated. Yet some people choose to claim that activities that harm no-one are "immoral", and still others use their concept of "morality" as a weapon against those they dislike.
Morality is doing the right thing no matter what you are told, religion is too often defined by doing what you are told no matter what is right.

Morality is ones belief based upon your understanding of Good and evil(Bad). I believe it is based upon these things:

theology= Your belief in a higher power or lack there of and what it is your theology supports. ie(Bible, Koran, Torah, etc)

Creation= If you do, or do not believe in a creator, most recognize that in creation there are clues to understanding what is right and wrong.

Conscious= A inner feeling that all humans( who have the ability understand they are a being, sadly some who live who do not have this awareness), seem to have.

Reason= With or without a belief in God. Things should have some logic to what is right and wrong although it at times is beyond human comprehension. God does not expect me to turn a blind eye to logic.

Combonation= There should be relavent support in context to all of these. A coomon thread should connect, for it to be reliable. This is the one that cannot be discounted, you must find corespondence.

Morality is just human interpretation of others' actions - like all interpretations it is completely subjective. Morality is just our perception of whether something is right or wrong, and all people have their own ideas about this.

Grey Seal, I'm glad you brought up Kohlberg; I think his stages provide a good framework for morality in society - as for George Bush, I think he seems to operate mostly at level 4, but also at stage 2 or 3 sometimes as well.

It isn't? How about hurting others in a war? In self-defense? In the defense of others? Are those wrong?

It isn't a black-and-white issue.

Im sorry if this sounds off the topic, but should we really trust a system of morality that is written by someone who thinks that killing hundreds of thousands of men is for the good of the people? (his reference to Aggressor Abe falling under stage six). Other than this mistake, which may not actually be Kohlberg's, this system is quite accurate by my standards. It describes types of morality well, but probably excludes some, and shouldn't try to go about the impossible task of exemplifying each type. It is, however, better than anything else I've seen to describe what morality is.

Not true I've worked in a nursery and watched the little ones. They have no problem hurting each other to get what they want. Morality is a learned behavior and as you get older you also learn to reason out what is moral or not moral.

I'm not so sure about that. The fact that concepts of morality aren't present at birth doesn't mean they aren't innate, only that they progress through stages of development. Babies drink breastmilk, can't walk, or talk. That doesn't indicate that eating solids, walking, and communication are entirely learned behavior and uninstinctive.

But.. I don't think walking and communication are instinctive. In 1920 Reverend Singh of India discovered two children that were, believe it or not, raised by wolves, and were aged 3 and 6. Both were strict carnivores and moved on all fours. They could even move faster than most men could on two legs.

To me, morality is entirely subjective. As ages progress, our concept of morality is becoming more and more defined. "Guilt" and "conscience" seem to be the two greatest reasons for not doing something immoral, and both of these stem from having a high respect for life. But that's only a product of our age. As has been pointed out in another thread, infanticide was big with the Romans. In Aztec culture, ritual sacrifice was more than moral; it was holy.



I think he's trying to ask if etiquete is morals... Which is a good question, because etiquette doesn't occur naturally and is something defined by society. But then, breaching etiquette still leads to an attack of shame, guilt or conscience, which means these things aren't necessarily instinctual.

In Greek philosophy they didn't have a concept of morality, moral judgement was considered an element of virtue (aka excellence). There were two main schools of thought, one said that pleasure was the source of morality. There was another that I find much more helpfull, Aristotle's ethics is based on the premise virtue is the mean (balance) between two extremes.

Great thread!

Does anyone have a valid link to the Kohlberg model? The link in an earlier post does not work. I don't recall ever seeing this and it sounds interesting.

Regarding whether morality is innate, my feeling is that it is definately learned. Most of the summaries here of what morality is are based on the non-aggression principle: do not initiate force against others, or some variation.

I think a key to that concept is the characteristic of "empathy". One thing I have learned through parenting is that empathy is a learned characteristic. (I read once that children under the age of 3 are not even capable of it, but I agree with Mrs. P that this alone doesn't mean it is not innate.)

I do think that kids need to be taught empathy and that this occurs mainly through modeling. Kids that see their parents treat them and others with respect tend to develop that respect for others. Kids that experience others caring for them tend to grow up caring for others.

I think it is very difficult for anyone with real empathy to act immorally, unless they do so unintentionally through lack of understanding. Sometimes, actions motivated by empathy are in fact immoral, because the actors don't realize that these actions really harm those they are meant to help (these people are commonly referred to as "liberals" )

But unintended consequences aside, I often wonder how people that commit obvious and outright evil acts can even bring themselves to do so. How can someone bring suffering to another person knowingly? My own conclusion is that such people have never developed a sense of empathy. I think that this is related to the fact that many purely evil men lost their fathers at early ages. I can't make the explicit connection, but I think its related.

Empathy could also make dominating, or having power over a person, that much more sensational. In other words, they could have empathy, but instead of using it to reflect on the ramifications of their actions, they could use it to become more involved in the masochistic feelings arising from their sadistic actions. It's boring being a shepherd, but fun leading a pack of dogs on a hunt. Empathy makes power more real, to good or bad ends.

But really, its our own system of right and wrong that puts the emphasis on compassion, equality and empathy. Just as possible is a system of right and wrong that puts emphasis on individual satisfaction, rather than overall eqaulity. I wouldn't say such a system is a pleasant one, but it's still one version of morality. And morality - let me reiterate and extend on what I had previously said - is not something I believe to be innate, but is necessary amongst social creatures.

Edit: Silly BB Code.

Interesting theory. By the way, the site didn't work for me for some reason. I found something similar here.

I guess if I had to rate myself I'd be around a high four or a low five, if that's possible. Although it seems a little self-serving to rate one's self.

I'd hate to think that we're becoming a country with no real central moral code. One country I can think of successfully erased their own moral standards and it took them all of a generation to learn that with no morals people just become selfish backstabbers little better than shorn apes.

Someone (I can't remember who and I wish I could) once defined evil quite simply as the lack of empathy. In fact a really interesting film was made about Eichmann (the 'engineer' of the Holocaust) which explores that very concept called The Banality of Evil.

How does this relate to morality though? I know people who consider themselves extremely moral but their empathy is limited. In reality their morality is completely self-centered. A moral person is someone who has an internally developed sense of right-and-wrong and who expresses that outwardly. What those moral tenets end up being are based on things like empathy. If morality is an awareness of one's own place in society, then empathy is an awareness of others.

I would have to say God-given though not necessarily the Judeo-Christian God. The Tao would do as well, as would Lockean Natural Law. I also have no quarrel with reason as an answer, since a rational morality is in perfect accord with Natural Law and vice versa. There also can be subjective elements, so a combination is a reasonable answer too.

I read a book about that last summer and this 'Banality of Evil' stems from something they call an 'agentic state'. Most of the guards in the death camps were not really monsters before and after the holocaust. During the holocaust their conscience was somehow suspended and they attributed it to the authority of their superiors. Moral judgement comes from conscience and general ideals of right and wrong are a product of reason but the relationship to authority is undeniable. I think that may be how it relates to morality, keep in mind that authority can inspire virtue as well.

Morality, to me, comes down to application of the Golden Rule. The moral action is usually quite clear when you put yourself on the other side--how would you wish to be treated in that situation? This was expressed earlier, much better, by UltimateJoe, in that this comes down to empathy for the other person.

The Holocaust camp guard scenario presents a dilemma. I could see the guards being very empathetic, but continue to carry out their duties lest they join their prisoners. Is refusing to act when your own life is in sure jeapardy immoral? This brings up the following question: Is morality defined by thoughts, or deeds? Lack of empathy, as UltimateJoe phrased it, really comes down to the thought process. The camp guard scenario seems to bear this out as well.

I have had some interesting discussions with a friend on a perhaps related topic regarding 'WWJD' (What Would Jesus Do?). The topic was whether this guiding principle represented a universal morality--ie: was WWJD always a good indicator of the 'right thing' to do, regardless of one's personal religious beliefs. (In particular, the question we discussed was whether a Muslim could follow WWJD without violating his religious edicts, but that is clearly a different thread).

C. S Lewis wrote a great book called " Mere Christianity " without mentioning the word God or his principles. He went on to point out how we naturally know what is right from wrong just by what we would want done to us. I read the book along time ago so I don't remember all the details. Just how we are different from the animals in that we have a concience, and have emotions like guilt and shame.

As a Chrisitan I also relize that everything needs to be backed up by Gods word and what he has to say about things. Certain things are wrong not just becasue God says it is wrong, But WHY he says it is wrong. It all boils down to Gods own nature who he is, and that he always wants what is best for us, our well being. God hates lying becasue he cannot lie. He hates those who hate because he is Love. Even on the issue of Homosexuality, God made man in his own image both male and female he created us. He made man and woman to procreate ( and to enjoy sex ) and to go against what HE CREATED is to say he doesn't know what he was doing that he is WRONG. therefore slapping almighty God in the face. So when I base what is Morality I look to Gods word not mans. For mans opinion is always changing and cannot be depended upon since man is ultimatly selfish and out for himself.

My belief is what the bible teaches us. I picked "It is what our God has taught us" but I think I should have picked combination instead. In the bible it says that God wrote what is wrong and what is right on our hearts so I could've also picked the answer "It is naturally perceived with no need for rule or text"..too late now though.