What is morality to you?

[WVBRY]

What is morality to you?

Please explain your perspective.

I'm less interested in debate, and more interested and getting people to think and flesh out their answer.

[Adam Strange]

Morality is a set of artificial rules adopted by a population for the purpose of increasing the long-term number of DNA molecules of that population.

[WVBRY]

I'll go.

Morality is pursuing one's own happiness, all the while not impeding upon others' right to do the same.

"Happiness" is understood as fullfillment of one's values, over the long-term, not immediate sensual gratification. Rational self-interest, as per Objectivism.

[cR4z3dr4T]

Morality is a set of artificial rules adopted by a population for the purpose of increasing the long-term number of DNA molecules of that population.

There are evolved behaviors. For example most species do not kill / eat their own species... especially mammals. Considering the amount of energy investment it takes to create a baby mammal, it would be very counter productive for the parents to simply eat their offspring. So if there's some practical reason and evolutionary ramification for the moral than it is not merely an artificial rule adopted by a society, it's more like a natural law.

[WVBRY]

Morality is a set of artificial rules adopted by a population for the purpose of increasing the long-term number of DNA molecules of that population.

Do you mean that morality is non-existant, or that the furthering of long-term DNA molecules of a population is in itself a moral outcome?

[The Reality Denialist]

My view has always been minimization of external effect. So like I could consider species wide extinction as moral choice made by us if we deem ourselves as permanently faulty. Just to give an example.

Like being extremely critical towards human condition in general. I think since we put ourselves on pedestal is just nature's way of fooling us to believe into something which might not have an actual basis. Like what makes me more valuable than atoms next to me. Are we just bowing towards machines like us? Should we just respect better machinery if it comes along?

[Adam Strange]

Do you mean that morality is non-existant, or that the furthering of long-term DNA molecules of a population is in itself a moral outcome?

I'm saying that most moral rules that I've examined are commensurate with the goal of long-term increasing the number of viable DNA molecules in a population.

Here are a few examples.
1. Is it moral to kill yourself? Not if you can still reproduce. If not, eh.
2. Is it moral to kill someone else? Only if they are reducing the number of reproducers in your gene pool. (The scope of the gene pool varies.)
3. Is it moral to eat people, as the survivors of the airline crash in South America did to survive? Did it keep reproducers in the gene pool? Yes, so it was moral.
4. Is it moral to have sex with your children? Not normally, because it makes defective DNA in later populations, but if it is the only way to maintain the gene pool, it gets a pass, according to Genesis 19:30-38.

And so on. Note that I'm not passing judgement on any of this, I'm merely noting a correlation.

Consider this: Every living organism alive today came from a process that had only one common imperative: Act in a way that reproduces the species.
There must have been many creatures which acted in ways counter to this. None of them are here today. It would be strange indeed if this weren't codified in the behavioral rules of societies.

[WVBRY]

@Adam Strange, why not pass judgement on it though?

I think you're kind of dodging the question I had in mind, no offense. I appeciate your observations, but I am wondering what you think is morality, or ethics if you prefer, not why others pass moral judgement(s).

I realize this is not an easy question, especially for LIEs. It's ok to say you don't know, or haven't thought about it enough. I understand, as I've gone through a similar process until I realized how blind I was to this question.

I'm not trying to get you to accept my views either, just get people to think.

[WVBRY]

My view has always been minimization of external effect. So like I could consider species wide extinction as moral choice made by us if we deem ourselves as permanently faulty. Just to give an example.

Like being extremely critical towards human condition in general. I think since we put ourselves on pedestal is just nature's way of fooling us to believe into something which might not have an actual basis. Like what makes me more valuable than atoms next to me. Are we just bowing towards machines like us? Should we just respect better machinery if it comes along?

What do you mean by "external effect"? Anything that affects the natural world? Or just human activity that affects the natural world?

In other words, is a meteorite hitting the earth immoral, since it has an external effect? Or does that only count when it comes to human-caused external effects?

[WVBRY]

It's a set of rules that allow me to make ethical decisions I don't regret (in most cases). It's a minimum standard for civilized dealings and I expect the same from others.

I can't help but feel like I don't know anything more about your views on ethics or morality by reading this.

I imagine you mean rules that allow society to remian organized/civlized? By in a broader sense, why is people being civil good? What does this rest on? That's what i'm getting at with my OP.

Perhaps I should have titled it "what is moral to you", and not "what is morality to you".

[Singu]

Morality is probably something that objectively exist in the abstract world, like mathematics.

It's interesting that everything that we do depends on having a moral stance of some kind. For instance, the entire reason that we do science is because we think that we ought to respect rationality and evidence and so on. But when we ask, "well why should we respect rationality and evidence?, then that can't be answered or justified, other than that we know those premises are required in order for us to do science.

So it's as if we've randomly evolved or selected those traits, and then science was made possible. Just as DNA was randomly created, and then life was created. There are certain laws in this universe that makes the creation of DNA possible. It's the same with certain moralities.

So I think that morality might have something to do with some objective laws of this universe, that makes something possible. Like science, or having the ability for people to act.

[Beautiful sky]

It is determining what is right and wrong according to what one prefers to see conducted. For myself it is right and wrong of interaction and treatment of others in a relationship system or a system of relationships.

[Not A Communist Shill]

A matter of personal taste that some individuals believe can be objectively decided.

There is no absolute standard of behaviour that humans can all agree is objectively good or bad. There is no means for achieving this, because taste is inherently subjective.

The best that societies can achieve is collectively deciding how to maximise good while minimising harm. In my opinion.

[Beautiful sky]

I had to remind my husband to call his mom this weekend and check up on her to make sure that she was feeling better because she was sick. Morality of relationships operated like this in me “it’s not right to not be concerned for a sick family member, your own mother no less. The right thing to do is to call and see if she’s okay.” So I told the extrovert to call her while I took care of baby. Aspire to humanism

[Not A Communist Shill]

Humanism is certainly more tasteful than vegetarianism: while maintaining the pretense is more tiring, it makes up for it with superior energy levels.

[Sol]

feelings, relations linked with them

what people like and dislike.
meanwhile they may like higher the more global result, but not the ways for it. as they like the result higher, dispite they may dislike the ways - that fits to their morality

[The Reality Denialist]

What do you mean by "external effect"? Anything that affects the natural world? Or just human activity that affects the natural world?

In other words, is a meteorite hitting the earth immoral, since it has an external effect? Or does that only count when it comes to human-caused external effects?

Are you in control of it? Most of the time not but sometimes, very rarely, yes. Like the progress in itself might bring out something that just makes temporary effect but overall reduces it. Time span can be very large.

I have nothing conclusive. Nature tends to go towards minimization of energy maybe we are just part of it but we can not really recognize ourselves as being part of it and thus we have no free will.

[Bento]

What is morality to you?

Please explain your perspective.

I'm less interested in debate, and more interested and getting people to think and flesh out their answer.

What if there is nothing I can "flesh out"? I don't think about morality or "my" morality that often. I do what I think is correct in a specific situation. There isn't anything universal in my behavior besides not wanting to get in trouble.

[Raver]

I'll go.

Morality is pursuing one's own happiness, all the while not impeding upon others' right to do the same.

"Happiness" is understood as fullfillment of one's values, over the long-term, not immediate sensual gratification. Rational self-interest, as per Objectivism.

Very similar to how I see it too. There is more complexity to morality than this and it can be subjective, but on a basic fundamental level, this is more or less of what being moral is. What morality is not is being subservient to others at the expense of yourself, this is often misconstrued as being moral when it is merely weakness. It also comes with the expectation that the service will be returned, which it usually won't with this kind of behavior. Morality is generally putting yourself and others at a level playing field where your own and others' rights are respected. Often the expectation is expecting others to treat you the same as you do to them rather than better. Basically the golden rule like many religions adopt.

[Chakram]

I never really thought about this before, despite having read some of the old school morality theories. It is a good question.

We could of course say that morality is putting the needs/ lives of the many over that of the few. If a train was barreling down a track towards a group of many people and you could save them by pushing a single person off a ledge and to their death where they would hit a switch saving those people, would you? (I believe this is a common scenario for this sort of question)

I definitely would. Now, if my own mother was standing on that train track I would still push that person. If it required 20 people being pushed over the ledge to activate the switch would I do it then? Yes. That being said, I think that she is the only person I would do that for.

If I had to die so that my country could continue to prosper and be free and happy, and if I didn't die there would be countless deaths and destruction on a large scale, would I?

Yes.

If a magic button that, when pressed, kills a random innocent person in the world but gives me a large amount of money, say over a million usd, would I push that button?

This one is definitely harder to answer but I think would press it, because then I could donate money to a cause that could help to save many more lives than that one person.
(And I make some money)

Overall, I would say that morality is loyalty. Be it to yourself, others, ideas, groups, it doesn't really matter. I would also say that it is very circumstantial.

[ToTheMoon]

This is not an easy question. I could only come up with this at this time: morality is being responsible for your choices you make in relation to other people.
And since there are some absolute statements in previous comments, I want to add: while remaining alive. I would not give my life for anything or anyone. I could live with guilt or shame but I would not die for a cause. It is my choice and my consequences. That is my take on responsibility.

[Sisyphean]

Short version: Divine Command Theory

Long version: https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi...24&context=dlj

[perpetuus]

I'm not sure how to answer what it is to me because I'm still thinking about it, but I assume our ideas of morality are in some way tied to what humans have developed disgust responses to over the course of our evolution.

I might speculate then that morality is really just a name we've given to a survival tool (kind of how we've come up with the concept of love to explain chemically induced feelings of infatuation), but I'm not sure if all instances of moral outrage actually lead to decisions or reforms that contribute to the survival of human societies. Some religious fundamentalists, for instance, believe that more death and destruction on massive scales will speed us all toward the judgment day and thus lead to salvation for those deemed morally "in the right". So in that scenario, morality wouldn't really be helping the human race to survive but rather putting us closer to extinction to satisfy the delusions of a few self-centered bible or koran thumpers.

[cR4z3dr4T]

One way to think of morality is in terms of nature. Alot of people say nature is just this state of complete chaos, war, and anything goes. Though you have free will in nature, nature itself is highly organized and evolution selects for certain behaviors and patterns over others. And it also actively selects against certain behaviors. You have free will, but there are consequences to the choices you make - you can get rewarded or punished harshly by nature. A typical example is the aversion most species (especially mammals) have to killing their own species. It's not evolutionary... people typically have a strong aversion to such people. Murderers are automatically ostracized by the society. There's an evolutionary incentive to instill that emotional aversion in people, and to ensure they have it; and also an incentive to evolve mechanisms that inhibit people from committing such acts. If you commit the act, you face the consequences - ostracism, possibly execution.
Evolution is very practical... if something works, it is selected for. If something doesn't work, it is selected against. Morality is also very practical... is the proposition useful? Does it promote the ultimate growth and wellbeing of the individual, the group, the world as a whole..? etc..
So basically morals are a set practical adaptations which evolved into laws as they became ingrained into people, which facilitate the maximum wellbeing and growth of the individual / the group.

I have often heard people this a step further and say morality is an action which follows a path of transcendence, the logos. This is an interesting and complicated statement. On one hand, by default you exist in a state of transcendence - the endless chain of events which led to your current existence can be traced back indefinitely to the undefined source of creation. You also are endlessly striving forward, toward some infinite undefined end, and you are always changing. So, assuming you are not being actively selected against by evolution due to some action which violates a natural law... you are in a transcendent state by default. But this transcendent state must be maintained by constant striving and growth toward an infinite end.
So from that standpoint morality is that actions which both conforms to and also instigates the ever evolving, ever changing state of the universe. Morality is actions which are both adaptive to circumstance and which drive further evolution.

Now when you talk about transcendence... you are automatically discussing the existence of God. Because God is that transcendent source of creation that bounds the universe, to which all inevitably return. Therefor the argument that morality stems from evolution, and conforms with the logos, amounts to the claim that "morality comes from God".

[Nunki]

Being a moral person simply means obeying my conscience. If my conscience says an act is good, it is good in the fullest and deepest sense possible; and if my conscience says an act is wrong, it is wrong in the fullest and deepest sense possible. What being moral doesn't mean is following a certain code of behavior. A code of behavior attempts to impose regularity and law on that which is free and changeable. If I were to follow a set of moral guidelines, I would be setting myself up for a conflict between what is legal according the guidelines I'm following and what is actually moral as dictated by my conscience.

[Beautiful sky]

Judgements on right and wrong actions and thinking

[Aeris]

I wonder.

[ouronis]

Morality can be a lot of things depending on the person engaging in it, but I don't think it's objective or that there is any way to assign truth to it except as a descriptor of intent or desire.

[ooo]

I do think killing can be justified. If someone came at me with a knife right now, & I stab them to death, I think I would be justified.

so what if he kills you? would that be justified, maybe he's angry?

[ooo]

Him trying to kill me is just him being a crazy person.

which is just a moral judgement

[ooo]

No, rationally speaking if someone I don't know just randomly comes up to me out of nowhere & tries to stab me, I'm sure there's something psychologically off about him.

Would he seem sound of mind to you? Lol

no of course lol, but saying he's psychologically off is still a moral judgement

[sbbds]

The word “morals” is like the word “diet”.

Technically everyone has certain morals just like everyone has a certain diet.

It does not mean they’re “on a diet”, or being intentionally moral. It does not mean that their morals are objectively good or that their diet is healthy.

The expectations for diet and morals of a kid will have different standards compared to the expectations for diets and morals for adults. One size doesn’t fit all, usually. There is much variety and subjectivity out there. There is also a lot of objectivity in some respects. It’s all up for discussion.

[consentingadult]

Morality is a set of artificial rules adopted by a population for the purpose of increasing the long-term number of DNA molecules of that population.

The only right answer. This thread can be closed.

[ooo]

So what's the difference between a moral judgement & an analysis of a person's behavior?

absolutely no difference, anyway labeling someone "crazy" sounds nothing like an analysis

[Grendel]

The survival strategy of a given group.

[sbbds]

absolutely no difference,

I’m not sure if you’re joking here, but one can describe behavior relatively objectively without attaching moral judgments, if they try to remain neutral in wording etc.

[ooo]

I’m not sure if you’re joking here, but one can describe behavior relatively objectively without attaching moral judgments, if they try to remain neutral in wording etc.

no they really can't, the way we define behaviors is embedded with prejudices about how we expect people to be like.

unless you're writing a scientific report about someone's actions, there's no way you're gonna escape morality, also the "scientific" description of an event still falls within the accepted biases of those rules. psychiatry/psychology are examples of behavioral analysis and theyre far frome being objective.

[sbbds]

no they really can't, the way we define behaviors is embedded with prejudices about how we expect people to be like.

unless you're writing a scientific report about someone's actions, there's no way you're gonna escape morality, also the "scientific" description of an event still falls within the accepted biases of those rules. psychiatry/psychology are examples of behavioral analysis and theyre far frome being objective.

I know what you mean, which I why I said “RELATIVELY” objectively. That is, by making sure any known or conscious biases are eliminated. Of course some unconscious ones would remain. But I think it’s backwards to think that all judgments fall under the umbrella of primarily moral judgments. It’s more like, it’s an ever-present factor that’s sometimes big yet can also sometimes be smaller too.

[ooo]

all narrations are subjective, socionics should teach just that

[sbbds]

all narrations are subjective, socionics should teach just that

Is the narrative of socionics subjective? Lol

Objectivity can be reached to a great degree sometimes, is all I’m saying. It’s not a futile goal.