Morality, why do you think something right/wrong?

Why do you think something is right or wrong?
Is all morality learned? Or taught? Maybe a bit of both. Can you only find true morality in religion? Do you just follow your society?

How can you know what you believe to right, how can you trust any one moral stand point when many people differ so much?

An example of differing morals could be with giving the death sentence to a murderer, one side can say it is right (an eye for an eye, if you will) and the other saying it is wrong (two wrongs don't make a right). How can you say either one is right and why would you believe that?


I personally find it hard to think of things as being right or wrong, because actions are not inherently right or wrong, it is just what we call them.

One of my friends from Skype doesn't believe in morality, because it's man made, so we can do whatever we want (stealing, killing, raping, etc.) and not let anything control us on what is right or wrong, because it's human nature. I'm not sure if that also means we can't have limits to our behavior.

It's very difficult for me to articulate my thoughts on this. Basically something is right for everyone because it's good for you. Something is wrong for everyone because it's bad for you. When it doesn't pertain to you it becomes very difficult to decipher right from wrong. For instance...

Murderers = Bad, because you don't want to be murdered.
Killing murderers = ???, because you don't want to kill.

Because you don't want to kill or be murdered it becomes difficult to justify either action. This is why some things (murder) are accepted as wrong, while others (death penalty) receive mixed reactions.

I hope that makes sense.

Each person perceives the universe differently, and the way they perceive the universe is how the universe is. Morality is simply the person's beliefs, and acts as a sort of leash for everyone. This means that what I perceive as good and evil, is what is good or evil, and the same goes for anyone else. This unfortunately gives everyone the basic right to do whatever they want, essentially making them void of any morals. Luckily, humans all have a shared morality belief for the most part, and although one person can not simply state what is right or wrong, we can mutually agree that something is right or wrong, and that those who stray from this belief are malicious.

I personally strongly stick to the rules given to me, whether or not they are right or not. I will not question any laws, even if I think I should. I also have the belief that no human is allowed to kill another. I also believe that anybody who breaks this rule will be punished whether I do anything about it or not. (I do not trust my perception of morality, so I will cling safely to the clear ones written out as law)

Well... I'll do an IMO post ;

I think that a murderer shouldn't be killed for having killed, but I also think that prison should be about re-education and rehabilitation, while it isn't. Prison IS an eye for an eye sort of thing, because... They treat prisoners like animals. :I Also, I think that, redistribution, if not of something indie, is pretty morale. One should have the freedom to share any way he want. That's pretty much my thoughts, though... Morale is something that is different for anyone.

Princess Sandshrew said:

Why do you think something is right or wrong?
Is all morality learned? Or taught? Maybe a bit of both. Can you only find true morality in religion? Do you just follow your society?

How can you know what you believe to right, how can you trust any one moral stand point when many people differ so much?

An example of differing morals could be with giving the death sentence to a murderer, one side can say it is right (an eye for an eye, if you will) and the other saying it is wrong (two wrongs don't make a right). How can you say either one is right and why would you believe that?


I personally find it hard to think of things as being right or wrong, because actions are not inherently right or wrong, it is just what we call them.

Click to expand...

I dispute the idea that morality is a man-made concept. It's more something we came to understand better as we evolved.

The fact that different people have different takes on the subject does not make it impossible to come to a definitive answer, nor does it justify all takes on the subject. People debate things all the time, that doesn't mean one answer can't be right and the other can't be wrong. Galileo argued that the Earth revolved around the sun, but nearly everyone of the time disagreed. And yet, he was right and they were wrong. Just because the answer is hard to come upon does not mean it does not exist, and the pursuit of this answer is the foundation of the study of ethics.

Moral relativism is the easy way out. It's saying "the answer is that there is no answer." Of course, if that was truly the case, you could justify anything. Such an idea devalues those ideas which nearly every branch of ethics seeks to protect in some way (foremost of which is human happiness). In other words, in a morally relativistic world, happiness has no value.

Except happiness does have value to us. This is self-evident; we desire it, thus it has value to us, as attaining it (in some form or another) is one of the essential ideas upon which we predicate our lives.

Pinkie-Dawn said:

One of my friends from Skype doesn't believe in morality, because it's man made, so we can do whatever we want (stealing, killing, raping, etc.) and not let anything control us on what is right or wrong, because it's human nature. I'm not sure if that also means we can't have limits to our behavior.

Click to expand...

Yes, I remember you referencing this person's beliefs before. There are several flaws with this idea. First, the idea that something is man-made does not divorce it from value; quite the contrary, plenty of man-made things have value (houses, computers, toilets, etc.).

Secondly, as I said previously, I am of the mind that morality is not a man-made concept. Any sufficiently evolved species will eventually experience happiness in some form. Happiness is the basis of all moral belief (most obviously utilitarianism, but really any moral philosophy ties into the concept in some way). Some ultimate, unifying ethical code likely exists, whether we have happened upon it or not. And even if that isn't the case, it doesn't mean that an answer that gets it right in some way isn't better than no answer at all.

BraveNewWorld said:

It's very difficult for me to articulate my thoughts on this. Basically something is right for everyone because it's good for you. Something is wrong for everyone because it's bad for you. When it doesn't pertain to you it becomes very difficult to decipher right from wrong. For instance...

Murderers = Bad, because you don't want to be murdered.
Killing murderers = ???, because you don't want to kill.

Because you don't want to kill or be murdered it becomes difficult to justify either action. This is why some things (murder) are accepted as wrong, while others (death penalty) receive mixed reactions.

I hope that makes sense.

Click to expand...

You're referring to the Golden Rule, a very old concept with a lot of merit. However, I don't think all ethical responsibility can be simplified to such a rule, especially one that is so dependent on personal thresholds of acceptable or unacceptable.

My view on morality is too simple.
If it negatively effects someone, it's immoral.
If it positively effects someone, it's moral.
If it neutrally effects someone, it doesn't really matter.
Probably incorrect, but that's how I see it.

okay... immorality, huh? I say...
All of us has a different view, an opinion. Other people think inside the box, others think outside the box, and a few think through the box. It doesn't matter. Everyone must accept and understand each other's point of view. Everyone must search every portion of the box so that we will understand each other. No opinion is right nor wrong. Everyone has his righteousness. We just sometimes see it at the opposite side of the man's view.

kosuke said:

No opinion is right nor wrong.

Click to expand...

I am of the opinion that the sky is magenta, that the Earth is flat, that the blood of unwed virgins are my God-given property, and that an intravenous administration of 10 percent solution of potassium cyanide at 20ml/day is beneficial to your health.

I am sorry if I sound like a jerk, but what you're thinking there is incredibly dangerous.

J said:

I am of the opinion that the sky is magenta, that the Earth is flat, that the blood of unwed virgins are my God-given property, and that an intravenous administration of 10 percent solution of potassium cyanide at 20ml/day is beneficial to your health.

I am sorry if I sound like a jerk, but what you're thinking there is incredibly dangerous.

Click to expand...

Chill, man. I was just stating my side of thinking. Well, i think i kinda exaggerated with that statement, though.. so yeah. sorry for that. but what i'm trying to say is that everyone really have an opinion, but these opinions came up because they understand and know that they could defend what their opinion is. so i'll ask you, could you defend that the sky is magenta? how did you say that earth is flat if it is already proven that it is not? why did you say that the blood of unwed virgins are your God-given property? explain why you think that an intravenous administration of 10 percent solution of potassium cyanide at 20mL/day is beneficial to your health? its not that i'm fighting with you or something, its just that i defended my opinion.
oh by the way, if its baseless, its a bluff not an opinion. :)

twocows said:

I dispute the idea that morality is a man-made concept. It's more something we came to understand better as we evolved.

The fact that different people have different takes on the subject does not make it impossible to come to a definitive answer, nor does it justify all takes on the subject. People debate things all the time, that doesn't mean one answer can't be right and the other can't be wrong. Galileo argued that the Earth revolved around the sun, but nearly everyone of the time disagreed. And yet, he was right and they were wrong. Just because the answer is hard to come upon does not mean it does not exist, and the pursuit of this answer is the foundation of the study of ethics.

Click to expand...

So morality is something we all have by nature? Does that not imply we should all have a very similar moral outlook?

Do you mean that there are one set of true morals and we only need to find them?
How do we determine what is right and what is wrong? As you gave example of one person can be right while the majority is wrong, so I could go and say that I believe that paedophilia is not only not harmful to children but it is beneficial to them. Now most people will tell me I am wrong, why? No matter what evidence I show I am adamant that most people will still disagree with me.
My point is how do you show I am wrong without pitting opinion against opinion? Do you not need some kind of factual basis.


I hope I got my point across, it is somewhat early for me and I know I will not remember my argument even 20 minutes later (I have a poor short-term memory).

Morality is very rarely a Black & White thing, it is so very arbitrary and open to interpretation - there are many shades of grey between. There is, however, a correct shade and a proper answer. Having an opinion doesn't make you right.

Livewire said:

Morality is very rarely a Black & White thing, it is so very arbitrary and open to interpretation - there are many shades of grey between. There is, however, a correct shade and a proper answer. Having an opinion doesn't make you right.

Click to expand...

This.
In school we saw this clip of a study on young children and morality, according to the study it was found that young children do have some kind of morality upon birth...however they also found some bigotry...
So imo we're born with some morals, are taught, and teach morals whether we choose to or not.

Livewire said:

Morality is very rarely a Black & White thing, it is so very arbitrary and open to interpretation - there are many shades of grey between. There is, however, a correct shade and a proper answer. Having an opinion doesn't make you right.

Click to expand...

You seem to imply that you are not of the opinion that such a 'correct shade' exists, instead that you know. So how does one come to know the correct shade? I don't suppose it is merely the 'widsom of society', all human fallibility considered.

Morality is a pretty personal business, with a general overlay involving society. Since society has a lot more power than say you or I, it has a lot more say in what's considered "right" or "wrong". But, as personal morality begins to grow, and individuals start to believe in a different version of morality, society's morality is updated to more represent the morality of all the people. Since the people and society are intertwined, so is morality and the relationship between people and society. I can't really think of many instances where something that is considered immoral is recognized worldwide - what may be considered murder is considered a rightful death in another place, while in western societies suicide and cannibalism are considered wrong, in many eastern countries suicide is often taken as a political statement or a step towards achieving enlightenment, and cannibalism occurs in many cultures' religious acts. I think maybe the only thing I can think of is incest, but I have a strong feeling that there are cultures that don't believe that incest is immoral (although its immorality is beneficial from an evolutionary standpoint).

We will never ever see the day where every human in existence agrees that one thing or another is moral.
Inb4 "But wait Plumps, surely taking the life of another innocent person is immoral"
Well I can think of several scenarios in which it could be seen as perfectly acceptable; when your friend has asked for you specifically to pull the plug on them rather than keep them a vegetable the rest of their life for one.

A simple Google search has led me to a few morality conundrums for us to discuss:


That'll do I guess, my responses to the spoilers can be found in:

The first three are rather unfair, it's less a question of morality and more a question of who's life you value more.

Whoa, this is an interesting discussion.

In my view, Morality isn't something dependent on people's views, it's objective. I quite like philosopher Michael Ruse's quote in this regard: "The man who says that it is morally acceptable to rape little children is just as mistaken as the man who says, 2+2=5." Thinking of morality being analogous to rationality is useful and (I think) accurate, our core moral perceptions are just as strong, if not stronger, than our belief in arithmetic or logical truths.

I have two things to say about ethical relativism.

First, just because people agree on a topic doesn't mean the difference of opinion is valid. There are people who believe the earth is flat or the universe is 6000 years old, or that the existence of other minds is illusory. We don't say relativism/withholding judgment about these things is warranted, rather we simply say those people are wrong. Similarly, Nazis and children-sacrificing communities are wrong when they commit morally reprehensible acts. I don't understand why some posters have cited the diversity of human opinion on morality as a defeater to objective morality, it's no more than a description of reality. People may not agree on the age of the universe, but so what? Does it commit us to say that there opinion is of value?

Second, in many cases, ethical diversity is only superficial. In OP's example about death penalty for example, the two parties don't disagree that justice needs to be served, they just have different perceptions about what might be the right way of going about it. In other words, they agree on moral values, but differ on moral duties. I believe much of the ethical diversity in the world are likewise superficial.

Plumpyfoof:

We will never ever see the day where every human in existence agrees that one thing or another is moral.
Inb4 "But wait Plumps, surely taking the life of another innocent person is immoral"
Well I can think of several scenarios in which it could be seen as perfectly acceptable; when your friend has asked for you specifically to pull the plug on them rather than keep them a vegetable the rest of their life for one.

Click to expand...

This hardly commits us to moral relativism. The conundrums you mention can easily be averted by specifying a context to a moral statement, e.g. instead of saying "taking innocent lives is wrong in general" we could say "taking innocent lives is wrong except in contexts X, Y and Z".

Additionally, there are some moral statements that are absolutely indubitable. Consider (sorry for the example) "cutting up babies into little pieces just for fun".

Princess Sandshrew:

Do you mean that there are one set of true morals and we only need to find them?

Click to expand...

There are two distinct questions here:

1. Does objective morality exist?
2. How do we know which moral values are objective?

Let's not get them mixed up. Someone can answer in the affirmative for 1 but withhold judgment on 2: she could say "I know objective moral values exist, and I can think of some examples of objective moral values (e.g. recreationally raping children is wrong), but I don't know all instances of objective moral values there is." This is crucial, because just because we may not know all the "true moral values", doesn't at all mean no true moral values exists. This consideration also defeats the repeated appeals to "ethical diversity" against objective morality in this thread.

Kosuke:

Chill, man. I was just stating my side of thinking. Well, i think i kinda exaggerated with that statement, though.. so yeah. sorry for that. but what i'm trying to say is that everyone really have an opinion, but these opinions came up because they understand and know that they could defend what their opinion is. so i'll ask you, could you defend that the sky is magenta? how did you say that earth is flat if it is already proven that it is not? why did you say that the blood of unwed virgins are your God-given property? explain why you think that an intravenous administration of 10 percent solution of potassium cyanide at 20mL/day is beneficial to your health? its not that i'm fighting with you or something, its just that i defended my opinion.

Click to expand...

There are quite some truths we accept without "evidence" (a priori truths). Examples are: laws of logic, truths of mathematics, introspective beliefs, human perception of the external reality in general, memory beliefs, and so on.

David Hume in his Inquiries Concerning Human Understanding argued that science is a non-rational enterprise, because the premise of science- induction- cannot be substantiated with evidence. His problem was, he didn't acknowledge the existence of a prior beliefs, things we simply know to be true without having evidence to believe them. These are integral parts of human noetic structure.

I believe that you don't need to learn any morals. It's just something you have inside you that was there since conception, and will be there until what Catholics say the ascension.

twocows said:

Moral relativism is the easy way out. It's saying "the answer is that there is no answer." Of course, if that was truly the case, you could justify anything. Such an idea devalues those ideas which nearly every branch of ethics seeks to protect in some way (foremost of which is human happiness). In other words, in a morally relativistic world, happiness has no value.

Except happiness does have value to us. This is self-evident; we desire it, thus it has value to us, as attaining it (in some form or another) is one of the essential ideas upon which we predicate our lives.


Yes, I remember you referencing this person's beliefs before. There are several flaws with this idea. First, the idea that something is man-made does not divorce it from value; quite the contrary, plenty of man-made things have value (houses, computers, toilets, etc.).

Secondly, as I said previously, I am of the mind that morality is not a man-made concept. Any sufficiently evolved species will eventually experience happiness in some form. Happiness is the basis of all moral belief (most obviously utilitarianism, but really any moral philosophy ties into the concept in some way). Some ultimate, unifying ethical code likely exists, whether we have happened upon it or not. And even if that isn't the case, it doesn't mean that an answer that gets it right in some way isn't better than no answer at all.

Click to expand...

What about people who gain some twisted forme of happiness from doing horrible things, like murdering someone in cold blood?

I'm not arguing your point. I'm just interested in your take on the matter.