Determining what is “moral”

What rational criteria ( if any ) do any of you use to determine what is “moral” and what is “immoral”?

And if there is no such rational criteria you could use, wouldn’t that mean that all moral claims and beliefs are baseless and totally arbitrary?

Exactly what determines whether or not you agree that something is “moral”?

But, overwhelmingly, this is the question I would really most like to see answered:
Can anyone give a specific example of this and explain the whole mental process that goes from the premise to the conclusion that "X is moral"?
Anyone?

First of all, I separate two types of morality:
1. Do not harm others unnecessarily.
2. Sexuality related issues, mostly to do with tradition.

I think your question mostly relates to 1.
I would say 1. is basically as I stated "do not harm others unnecessarily" and possibly add on "assist others in distress where doing so will not overly inconvenience you."
Of course evaluating given situations may be difficult, but it always comes down to the above.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
What rational criteria ( if any ) do any of you use to determine what is “moral” and what is “immoral”?

And if there is no such rational criteria you could use, wouldn’t that mean that all moral claims and beliefs are baseless and totally arbitrary?

Exactly what determines whether or not you agree that something is “moral”?

But, overwhelmin ...[text shortened]... whole mental process that goes from the premise to the conclusion that "X is moral"?
Anyone?

I cant explain it. But I respect others sense of morals.
I'm not really sure about my own morals, I certainly dont harm others, but other than that I'm not sure.

This is the sort of area where to be set in stone is a liability.


Good question.


I would run around with gay abandon enjoying the bliss that is this life, but then again who knows what the christians may interpret that as...surely another work of satan🙂 No?

(I would probably look too old and foolish taking another ride in a shopping cart🙂 )

Originally posted by karoly aczel
I cant explain it. But I respect others sense of morals.

So if somebody tells you that he believes killing others is the most moral course of action when he meets them, would you respect it?

Originally posted by twhitehead
So if somebody tells you that he believes killing others is the most moral course of action when he meets them, would you respect it?

Y'know ,in my 36 years on this planet, its never come up. (And I really dont think it will)
Since I am one to speak from experience rather than hypothesis, I'll decline to answer thnx...

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Y'know ,in my 36 years on this planet, its never come up. (And I really dont think it will)
Since I am one to speak from experience rather than hypothesis, I'll decline to answer thnx...

You've got to do better than that!

You ask about the definition of morality, something that is non-existant and very abstract. Morality itself is an abstract word, of wich you assume a definition is possible. Yet you refuse to go into a hypothetical question?

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Y'know ,in my 36 years on this planet, its never come up. (And I really dont think it will)

So would you say that everybody has some morals more or less in common?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
What rational criteria ( if any ) do any of you use to determine what is “moral” and what is “immoral”?

And if there is no such rational criteria you could use, wouldn’t that mean that all moral claims and beliefs are baseless and totally arbitrary?

Exactly what determines whether or not you agree that something is “moral”?

But, overwhelmin ...[text shortened]... whole mental process that goes from the premise to the conclusion that "X is moral"?
Anyone?

If one believes in the Bible, it is a guide from God on many things and that would include his guidance on morals as the understanding or concept of morals is something we are not automatically born with. We have to be taught to a degree what is expected and accepted by the society we live in. But in some societies the moral climate has changed and has drawn away from the morals that the Bible speaks of.

Originally posted by TheMaster37
You've got to do better than that!

You ask about the definition of morality, something that is non-existant and very abstract. Morality itself is an abstract word, of wich you assume a definition is possible. Yet you refuse to go into a hypothetical question?

I said "I cant explain it but I respect others morals". So yes , I agree that it is abstract.
In twiteheads example I would rather not go into that particular hypothetical question because I think it is a highly unlikely scenario.
Also , with such an extreme example, I would like to know more about the situation before I answer...

Originally posted by twhitehead
First of all, I separate two types of morality:
1. Do not harm others unnecessarily.
2. Sexuality related issues, mostly to do with tradition.

I think your question mostly relates to 1.
I would say 1. is basically as I stated "do not harm others unnecessarily" and possibly add on "assist others in distress where doing so will not overly inconvenienc ...[text shortened]... course evaluating given situations may be difficult, but it always comes down to the above.

You sort of have to value others don't you, to care if they are hurt or not.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
So would you say that everybody has some morals more or less in common?

... I reckon it depnds on the situation.
If the situation is dire enough, even the most moral of people may break their beliefs.
eg. it says "Thou shall not kill" , but I would say something more like: "Thou shall not kill in general, but always benefit the greatest number of people through your actions and if that means killing , then so be it."

Everyone has basic moral tendeincies. To set them is stone causes problems and often negates the individuals resposibility to think for themselves.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
What rational criteria ( if any ) do any of you use to determine what is “moral” and what is “immoral”?

And if there is no such rational criteria you could use, wouldn’t that mean that all moral claims and beliefs are baseless and totally arbitrary?

Exactly what determines whether or not you agree that something is “moral”?

But, overwhelmin ...[text shortened]... whole mental process that goes from the premise to the conclusion that "X is moral"?
Anyone?

I frankly just don’t worry about it much anymore. In my past history, it seems to me as if my spontaneous responses have been generally more helpful—and less harmful—to people (including myself) than any of my premeditated, reasoned attempts to be “moral”.

I make decisions that may or may not be accurate (or erroneous), and that others may or may not judge to be properly “moral”. I try to learn from my errors—at least as seemingly similar circumstances present themselves. Mostly, I try to refrain from causing unnecessary harm—again, as circumstances seem to allow. That’s all.

If you ask me for a "moral theory" behind my desire not to harm anyone, I don't have one. Maybe its ethical intuitionism, I don't know.

Originally posted by vistesd

If you ask me for a "moral theory" behind my desire not to harm anyone, I don't have one. Maybe its ethical intuitionism, I don't know.

Me neither, any more. Those just get in the way. Methodologically, it is the intuitions that are primary anyway.

Originally posted by bbarr
Me neither, any more. Those just get in the way. Methodologically, it is the intuitions that are primary anyway.

Well, I learned it from you! (Or at least learned to embrace it.)

Originally posted by KellyJay
You sort of have to value others don't you, to care if they are hurt or not.
Kelly

We do what is moral because we care, but there is an allowance for some amount of selfishness. How to balance selfishness against the good of others is a matter of opinion. When selfishness is not involved, then morality becomes crystal clear: maximize the benefit to others. This is why arguments about the morality of an all powerful God cannot be argued with analogies using people as an all powerful God does not loose anything in his actions - so the benefit to the recipient becomes primary.