Is morality real?

@Aristoddler,

Aristoddler wrote:

It's not real in a physical sense of the word.
It's the moment of realization that a person has, when deciding between what is right or wrong in their eyes, according to a lifetime of conditioning.
This moment is what we call morality.

What is moral, is supposed to be good or positive, or have a positive outcome at the very least.
What is immoral, is supposed to be bad or negative, or have a negative outcome, etc.

How we perceive it, is morality.

Who decides what is moral? The majority consensus?
Is morality real? It is a real subject, not a real object.
Is the result of morality subjective or objective? That depends on a number of things and perceptions, as well as the specific case.

I don't believe that anyone has thought that morality was physical. But if people are deciding what to do in terms of right and wrong, and morality is not "real", then what are they doing? I suppose the question really is this: what are you denying morality is, when you say it isn't real?

@TK421,

It exists, therefore it is real.
Now put it in a bucket.

Obviously the second statement is ludicrous.
I have never denied the reality of morality, just the objectivity of it.

@boagie,

Can we flop it?

What if good is real and evil is real and morality is simply our understanding, or lack thereof, of the systems themselves?

Can there possibly be a universal 'best way' that we are all seeking as the sum and morality as our incomplete formula to find that sum?

It seems to me as long as morality is the end in our mind, we'll always miss the point. Morality is our coping mechanism to make sense of an otherwise disjointed group of vigilantes.

@Katherine phil,

Katherine wrote:

Can we flop it?

What if good is real and evil is real and morality is simply our understanding, or lack thereof, of the systems themselves?

Can there possibly be a universal 'best way' that we are all seeking as the sum and morality as our incomplete formula to find that sum?

It seems to me as long as morality is the end in our mind, we'll always miss the point. Morality is our coping mechanism to make sense of an otherwise disjointed group of vigilantes.

Katherine, Smile

What is it you are trying to say.What do you believe morality is and is it real,it does not occuppy time and space as a physical entity.What do you mean when you say morality is simply our understanding,in what way?So morality is our coping mechanism,could you expand on that.Vigilantes Katherine are people who take the law into their own hands, how is you statement about them relative to our morality.

HONK IF YOU LOVE JESUS!!:p

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Katherine,

What is it you are trying to say.What do you believe morality is and is it real,it does not occuppy time and space as a physical entity.What do you mean when you say morality is simply our understanding,in what way?So morality is our coping mechanism,could you expand on that.Vigilantes Katherine are people who take the law into their own hands, how is you statement about them relative to our morality.

HONK IF YOU LOVE JESUS!!

I thought I said it. Science doesn't determine what the world around us is, it simply observes cause & effect and draws conclusions based on those observations. Then by those observations we have learned to interact with the world around us in ways that benefit us and not to interact with it in ways that harm us.

I am saying that morality is the of the same sense. Morality does not determine true right or wrong any more than science determines the law of gravity. It simply observes what is already there and tries to align itself in the most productive way.

Natural laws determine EVERYTHING around us. I am suggesting that those same natural laws are in play when we interact with one another. Maybe morality isn't what you or I think right & wrong is, perhaps acting in certain ways bring certain benefits to our lives both as individuals and in a society and that morality should actually be thought of as the study of those natural laws and not the begining of our determination of right or wrong.

And if we have reached the conclusion,as we have in this thread, that morality is simply whatever I think is right whenever I think it to be right, then we are in fact vigilantes.

HONK! Very Happy

@Katherine phil,

Katherine,

You are saying then, that morality is objecitively present in the physical world,I simply do not know how anyone would come to that conclusion.The essence of morality is identifing with another living thing in its hardships and suffering.Without this power of identifing with,there is no morality and indeed for the psychopath there is no morality for morality is weakness.

"Natural laws determine EVERYTHING around us. I am suggesting that those same natural laws are in play when we interact with one another. Maybe morality isn't what you or I think right & wrong is, perhaps acting in certain ways bring certain benefits to our lives both as individuals and in a society and that morality should actually be thought of as the study of those natural laws and not the begining of our determination of right or wrong.

"Nature red in tooth and claw",you are still assumeing someone has made you a little garden in which to dwell.You do not seem in the above to have any idea of the function of your own consiousness, your own humanity.The above sounds like you think these natural laws or a natural law is morality itself.

A common humanity,interesting title no? Humanity could never be common never one,without that characteristic of identifing with,from this arises compassion,and perhaps a realization that we are not separate after all, as time and space would tell us.Our morality has created laws, ethics, religions and charities and every institution in serves to our common humanity.That common morality creates a standard that reflects back upon itself,it is realitive to a degree,as not all cultures have the same values. The pyschopath, every culture has them, have no limitations other than the worry of getting caught.

HONK! Very Happy

[/quote]:eek:

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Katherine,

You are saying then, that morality is objecitively present in the physical world,I simply do not know how anyone would come to that conclusion.The essence of morality is identifing with another living thing in its hardships and suffering.Without this power of identifing with,there is no morality and indeed for the psychopath there is no morality for morality is weakness.

I do not believe morality is exists in itself anymore than science exists in itself. They are not entities, but studies of something larger than ourselves.

I am suggesting that perhaps there is a natural law at work in the consciences of men and that should we should not override that law based on our intellect. That is the equivilent of a migrating bird finally questioning his biannual route and then wonder why his flock is suffering from increased sickness and hardships. Maybe we should explore the natural laws that are already in existence on the conscience of all men and use our intellect to study them, instead of throwing them all out and wondering why we suddenly come to the conclusion that there is no morality.

The extremem example of the cat: maybe we can't explain why it is immoral, but the fact it we know somewhere in the depth of who we are that it is wrong. It is foolish to toss that understanding out because we have the sophistication to make arguments but not the wisdom to understand what is already there.

By natural laws I mean that every human being from the time that they are infants will protest to having something taken away from them without their consent. So stealing is a universal wrong. If you cut in line in front of anyone from any culture they will protest (unless you can justify your infringment on this law by your authority or otherwise). Again another universal law in place. Compassion and identifying with the hardships of others is exteremly important, but it is not the only tool we have for determining how to interact with one another. We have also got to understand that certain standards are mandatory in order to preserve society as a whole.

One example: When my husband & I first started in ministry (small group leaders) we came across many people who had financial needs. After months of handing out several hundreds of dollars to several families, we began to experience financial hardships ourselves. At some point we had to sit down and determine whether our compassion was actually helping these people, because the sacrifice would be worth it if it were making a difference: the answer was no, a whole bunch of money later their financial situation was the same and there was no way our family could continue to support these other families. Our moral choice had to be made to protect our first obligation--to our family and our creditors. Those people became very angry with us, but the truth is those other families' situation began to improve when they found out they had to take care of themselves. You see there are larger laws at work here and our compassion and generosity did more to hurt these people than help them.

It's the larger context of a universal truth that needs to be studied, not just our own little responses based on emotion.

@Katherine phil,

Katherine, Smile

I find your post mind boggling,you do mean to say that you do not believe that morality or compassion are innate? It is the structures and forms which are created that have there origin in the individuals sense of compassion,which then creates morality,which then creates in the physical world.There is no morality in nature,compassion arises most easily in individuals of a community,where this process of identifing with has more to work with,a community of kinds makes identification much more likely to occur.

It is the identifing of yourself with the self in others which evokes this compassion and identity with,even to the point of self-sacrifice.Morality in its essence is innate to humanity,although these characteristic have been found in the animal world as well.Morality in my opinion is entirely subjective,and only becomes objective when it creates in the physical world those forms and structure we identify with morality.Morality comes before any of these things,religion, law, ethics ect...I am trying to understand you,are you saying that morality depends on a situtation,and so this situtation/s are the real source of this morality.If so,I have come across this once before,it did not make sense to me then either.

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Katherine,

I find your post mind boggling,you do mean to say that you do not believe that morality or compassion are innate? It is the structures and forms which are created that have there origin in the individuals sense of compassion,which then creates morality,which then creates in the physical world.There is no morality in nature,compassion arises most easily in individuals of a community,where this process of identifing with has more to work with,a community of kinds makes identification much more likely to occur.

It is the identifing of yourself with the self in others which evokes this compassion and identity with,even to the point of self-sacrifice.Morality in its essence is innate to humanity,although these characteristic have been found in the animal world as well.Morality in my opinion is entirely subjective,and only becomes objective when it creates in the physical world those forms and structure we identify with morality.Morality comes before any of these things,religion, law, ethics ect...I am trying to understand you,are you saying that morality depends on a situtation,and so this situtation/s are the real source of this morality.If so,I have come across this once before,it did not make sense to me then either.

I think we are using the term 'morality' in slightly different ways, but other than that I'm not sure we are disagreeing too much.

I not only believe that 'morality' is innate, I believe, in its most fundamental form, it is universal. My post was in reply to this thread where the example of incinerating a cat was used. We all have something that cringes inside us at the thought of such and act (the natural law at work on our conscience), but when it was discussed further, no explaination for why this was immoral could be found (obviously this is an extreme example) hence, it was concluded that morality is subjective.

In this thread, morality was obvious at first, but was muddied by our ability to discuss the issue and ignore the initial response.

I say that it is ultimately NOT subjective, but innate and universal.

@Katherine phil,

Katherine, Smile

Yes,we did get off to a bad start and I believe the problem was in my backyard,you unfortunately you got a little misplaced hostility.I should learn to identify when personal problems are effecting me badly and stay away from the computer at such times.Katherine you do have my apology.I do not think we are quite on the same page though reguarding this topic.You state that you do not believe that morality is subjective,but state it is innate and universal,this contradicts itself.How could it be innnate and not be subjective.I thought the following post of some interest to the topic, no doubt because it agrees with my own perspective.

BILL MOYERS: How do you think the fundamentalists see an atheist? How do you think you are seen in their eyes?

SALMAN RUSHDIE: As somebody entirely without a moral sense. You know, I mean, that's to say, it is, in a way, one of the weaknesses of religious argument. That they argue that you cannot have a moral life unless you accept the moral code, which is defended by an ultimate arbiter. You know, of whatever god it might be. Or godhead it might be, in the case of polytheisms. My view has been, quite simply, that religion has been one of the ways in which human beings, throughout history, have tried to codify and organize their moral sense of the world. But that's to say, I would argue, that our sense of good and evil, our sense of right and wrong, our moral sense precedes religion. It's not created by it. It is, in fact, what creates our need for religion. So if we can accept that, as human beings, there's something intrinsic in us, which wishes to have an understanding of right and wrong, you know, and that religion is an expression of that, then of course, you can find other expressions of that, which are not formal religions. You know, and I think the history of the last couple hundred years will show there's been much philosophy, much thinking, precisely about this. How do you base a moral view of the world on a non-religious platform?

BILL MOYERS: How do you respond to their argument, that without an absolute God, from whom come universal truths, we will simply descend on that slippery slope of relativism that leads us into anarchy?

SALMAN RUSHDIE: Well I think relativism is a dangerous-- is a dangerous slope, you know. I think if we simply see that we all have different ideas, and we have to live and let live, that can lead to a terrible situation. I mean, for example, if one set of people believe that it's okay to stone women to death for adultery, is it all right? Should we then say, "Oh, well, that's their culture; we should let them go ahead and do it." So I think even when you have conflicting moral codes, all of which claim the support of some kind of ultimate arbiter, we still have to exercise a moral choice between them.

BILL MOYERS: Moral as opposed to religious-- as a religious belief might confirm it, might condone that.

SALMAN RUSHDIE: Exactly. So my view is that morality is previous to religion. You know, and that religion is an expression of various people at various times' relationship with morality.

BILL MOYERS: What is morality?

SALMAN RUSHDIE: Well, it's as I see it, I think, something intrinsic in us, which wishes to distinguish between right and wrong. And I think we are hard-wired to it. You know, in the way that scientists now believe that language is an instinct. That we're hard-wired to develop it. You know. And I think that morality is somewhere in there in the DNA. That we are created, born as creatures who wish to know is it okay to do this or not okay to do this, you know. And we ask ourselves that question all the time. And religion is one of the answers.

But it's in my view only one of the ways. It's a lot of the answers. But it's perfectly possible for me to say that we can as civilized people create moral codes to live by. We do not need that ultimate arbiter. And one answer to the question is democracy. And it seems to me that what happens in a democracy is that we don't have an absolute view of what is right and wrong. We have an argument about it, you know. And the argument never ends.

We have a continuing argument about what's okay and what's not okay, you know. At a certain point we believed that slavery's okay, you know. At the later point the argument develops and we decide-- I mean in that case with a lot of bloodshed--we decide that slavery's not okay. At a certain point we believed that women should not have the vote. Or that people-- or that only property holders should have the vote. At another point the, the argument proceeds and we say that that's not right, and that everybody--we have universal suffrage. So it seems to me that that argument is freedom. You know, it's not to win the argument, because actually nobody ever wins that argument. But the argument itself is freedom.

@boagie,

Hello, Katherine, Boagie and anybody else who has contributed to this thread. May I join in? I realise that doing so is always fraught with dangers arising from a failure to appreciate what has gone before; to mimimise this risk, I have at least 'browsed' entries-to-date.

@GridLok,

GridLok wrote:

Hello, Katherine, Boagie and anybody else who has contributed to this thread. May I join in? I realise that doing so is always fraught with dangers arising from a failure to appreciate what has gone before; to mimimise this risk, I have at least 'browsed' entries-to-date.

Gridlok,

You are most welcome,we could use another perspective on this.Gridlok welcome to the forum.I would be most interested in what you might have to say on this or any other topic.These topic are open to anyone who wishes to contribute,it does tend to enrich the experience.

@boagie,

Hey, I knew you couldn't stay mad at me. I'm just too cute! Very Happy

Just because you run across some loud-mouthed Christians in a forum, doesn't mean we're all that way. The faithful are usually not so pushy and arrogant, not on our good days anyway! :rolleyes:

Actually, I think Rushdie has a very good perspective (for an atheist Wink

). I agree 100% with a few of his statements:

Quote:

SALMAN RUSHDIE: Well I think relativism is a dangerous-- is a dangerous slope, you know. I think if we simply see that we all have different ideas, and we have to live and let live, that can lead to a terrible situation. I mean, for example, if one set of people believe that it's okay to stone women to death for adultery, is it all right? Should we then say, "Oh, well, that's their culture; we should let them go ahead and do it." So I think even when you have conflicting moral codes, all of which claim the support of some kind of ultimate arbiter, we still have to exercise a moral choice between them.

Quote:

SALMAN RUSHDIE: Well, it's as I see it, I think, something intrinsic in us, which wishes to distinguish between right and wrong. And I think we are hard-wired to it. You know, in the way that scientists now believe that language is an instinct. That we're hard-wired to develop it. You know. And I think that morality is somewhere in there in the DNA. That we are created, born as creatures who wish to know is it okay to do this or not okay to do this, you know. And we ask ourselves that question all the time. (deleted last statement)

This is exactly what I have been saying! The one critique I have is throwing all practicing theists in the same pot called 'fundamentalism'. There are just too many differences. Heck, we can't even get United Methodists to agree on gay marriage and they want to throw Mormons, Muslims and Methodists in the same pot? They can't be catagorized that way, not with any validity for very long.

Romans 2:12 (read it all before you get mad at me for using Scripture!) All who sin apart from the law with also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. Indeed, when Gentiles (non-jews), who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing withness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.

This not relativism, it is acknowledging that they understand there is a univeral, innate morality and they live in obedience to that morality. So, Biblically, I disagree with his first statement.

Christ's sacrifice comes into play because--even judged under the law of my own conscience, I am guilty and deserving of punishment.

@TK421,

Love to have you Gridlok! Welcome!

@Katherine phil,

Katherine, Smile

Not bad for a Christian! I see you are from Nashville,that explains much:D
I am still puzzled over your statement that morality is not subjective,if it is innate and universal, how is it NOT subjective.:eek: Katherine,with a name like that,sure you have some Scottish blood? Wink

"This is not relativism, it is acknowledging that they understand there is a universal,innate morality and they live in obedience to that morality. So, Biblically,I disagree with his first statement.":eek:

So then from the above I gather you should not have any difficulty in embraceing any moral code of another religious tradition,there is no independent moral choice to be made in this innate universality of morality.Perhaps I misunderstand? I was in error once back in 1962, could it be? Very Happy

and now for a commercial------wakeup all you creationists!!:rolleyes:

The Pope Speaks Out On Evolution:eek:
By James F. McGrath(James F. McGrath)
The statement also rightly states that evolution doesn't answer certain questions, not because of problems with the theory or inadequate scientific data, but because they are philosophical questions, such as why something rather than ...
Exploring Our Matrix - http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/:eek:

@Katherine phil,

"I refuse to accept as guilt the fact of my own existence ... I do not seek the good of others as a sanction for my right to exist, nor do I recognize the good of others as a justification for their seizure of my property or their destruction of my life." - Ayn Rand 'Atlas Shrugged'

If morality were an inherent trait, it would impossible to behave immorally. Morality is a construct of our reason, and as our experiences and knowledge forms our reasoning it is variable, therefore not universally True.

My reading of the Scripture Katherine cites is not a proof of morality as a universal Truth, it is a discussion of how to reconcile a moral code with what we 'believe in our hearts' to be right behaviour. In other words a sin is still a sin even if there is no law to define it as such. Adultery for example may be outside of the Law, but it is still a sin according to religious morality, in other places it is both a sin and a criminal offense.

@Doorsopen,

Doorsopen, Smile

There is a universality in the compassion that arises from the identification of oneself with that of another,it is not absolute,as an example the psychopaths within a society are defined by their lack of compassion,lack of the ability to identify with.I disagree with Katherine when she says this is not subjective,indeed it could be nothing else.Identification with,thus compassion might be said to be cognitive in its conception of identifying with,but when it grabs hold it is not an intellectual evaluation,it is an emotional response,which is quite proper I think, as emotion might be said to be the marrow of the life.Doorsopen,welcome into the fray!!!

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Katherine,

Not bad for a Christian! I see you are from Nashville,that explains much:D
I am still puzzled over your statement that morality is not subjective,if it is innate and universal, how is it NOT subjective.:eek: Katherine,with a name like that,sure you have some Scottish blood?

"This is not relativism, it is acknowledging that they understand there is a universal,innate morality and they live in obedience to that morality. So, Biblically,I disagree with his first statement.":eek:

So then from the above I gather you should not have any difficulty in embraceing any moral code of another religious tradition,there is no independent moral choice to be made in this innate universality of morality.Perhaps I misunderstand? I was in error once back in 1962, could it be?

and now for a commercial------wakeup all you creationists!!:rolleyes:

The Pope Speaks Out On Evolution:eek:
By James F. McGrath(James F. McGrath)
The statement also rightly states that evolution doesn't answer certain questions, not because of problems with the theory or inadequate scientific data, but because they are philosophical questions, such as why something rather than ...
Exploring Our Matrix - http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/:eek:

Aye! From a long line of dysfunctional Irish Catholics. Can you imagine how embraced I am for being a Protestant? Actually, I was born & raised in Detroit. That probably explains more! Very Happy

Now we go back to how I was using the term 'universal law' instead of 'morality'. There is a univeral law, it is not subjective, it is on the hearts of every human being. Now we are products of our societies. And we all buffeted by a barage of ideas and experiences. As a Christian, I would use the argument that we have a 'carnal (or selfish) nature' that is in constant competition with the natural law. An evolutionist would probably refer to it as self preservation. Either way, you can see that the desire to love another in self sacrifice flies completely against the nature of self preservation. So we live in this dichotomy.

Morality will only be 'subjective' because we have the desire to obey the universal law, but we also have extremely strong desires for self preservation. Ie. "I'd love to share with you, but that would leave less for me!" Our morality, I would argue, is the compromise we make between these two desires. Some have matured to the point of putting their obedience to the natural law over their obedience to their selfish desires. But none of us are completely obedient to the natural law.

That being said, I would not embrace a moral code that I felt was more on the selfish side of this dichotomy than my own. I do recognize when people are further down this path than myself and I try to understand the way they think. Which is why I like to come to places like this.

Oh, and I don't think you want my view of creation. It isn't evolution or new earth.

@Doorsopen,

Doorsopen wrote:

"I refuse to accept as guilt the fact of my own existence ... I do not seek the good of others as a sanction for my right to exist, nor do I recognize the good of others as a justification for their seizure of my property or their destruction of my life." - Ayn Rand 'Atlas Shrugged'

If morality were an inherent trait, it would impossible to behave immorally. Morality is a construct of our reason, and as our experiences and knowledge forms our reasoning it is variable, therefore not universally True.

My reading of the Scripture Katherine cites is not a proof of morality as a universal Truth, it is a discussion of how to reconcile a moral code with what we 'believe in our hearts' to be right behaviour. In other words a sin is still a sin even if there is no law to define it as such. Adultery for example may be outside of the Law, but it is still a sin according to religious morality, in other places it is both a sin and a criminal offense.

Hey Doorsopen,

The Scripture I cited was in response to a tangent that Boagie and I went on when he posted a quote that religious people do not believe that atheists have any morality. It wasn't posted as proof of anything else.

I think if you read my last post, it may clear up the rest.

Welcome!

@Katherine phil,

Where to start - in response to that which lies before me, already on-the-table as it were?! Perhaps in partaking of this or any such feast, we should look to our utensils. By this I mean to suggest that what is crucial is not so much the dish - "Is morality real?", as the way in which we carve it. In short, the conclusion is determined by the methodology we implement.

Firstly then: Are we able to determine just what morality is, that we may discuss its reality? Can we point to any object or thing, any existence that is demonstrably apart from ourselves (at least in the usual physical sense of being so), that we may call morality; just as we might point out water or air or heat etc.? I think not, but perhaps there is something in this regard, that I have not experienced - that would, it seems to me, make such a morality 'thing' rather rare. Of course, discussion to date in this thread points to something less tangible, in and of itself; something that, though its effect is momentous enough, is nonetheless rather elusive.

Secondly: Perhaps we can agree that morality has at least one peculiar property; it seems to be specifically related to human behaviour. No example arises to my mind of behaviour in non-human entities, that might seriously be advanced as an example of morality in practice.

Thirdly: Morality it seems, in common grammatical usage, refers to an assessment of human behaviour relative to some criteria that are known as (not surprisingly) morals.

So, may it not be that it would be more appropriate to direct our inquiry to the question of the existence and nature of morals per se? Are morals real? For, in addressing this issue we lay the foundation for a consideration of morality, and its manifestation(s).

But then what shall we understand by 'real'?

Philosophy Forum

Is morality real?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know