Morality

[Snoopy]

What is morality?

What is / are the source /s of it?

How is it maintained in a society / Why does it deteriorate? (by what measures?)

s.

[wil]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

What is morality?

What is / are the source /s of it?

How is it maintained in a society / Why does it deteriorate? (by what measures?)

s.

Reminds me of when someone asked "Miss Manners" what etiquette was. She replied "A method of one group to create imaginary rules of decorum so they can thumb their collective noses at another group" or something to that effect.

I think it similar. For instance a canibalistic society may have a difference of opinion than many of us. Also your climate conditions can dictate difference in clothing. And since for most of the time of civilization sex started at puberty...they had different morals in this regard than today...

[Snoopy]

...and do you need religion?

s.

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

What is morality?

I think one interesting question is if there is a difference between morality and ethics. I generally interpret ethics to be social rules (formal or informal) about proper behavior/action. Morality tends to get wrapped up with some sort of worldview, generally religious. Ethics are relative to the social group in which they form. Most people, I think, view morals as absolutes and universal (though there are few of these that are, in fact, evidenced in cross-cultural comparison).

For myself, in everyday practice, I don't worry too much about ethics vs. morals, but just consider the path of most harmonious action. That is, in all cases, I try to intuit what I should be doing. This is not always consistent superficially, though I have found some absolutes for at least myself, which I suppose you could call morals.

Rather than think in terms of rules, I have very few rules for my behavior. I try to work toward the ideal of love, and I think in terms of Most Harmony. What is best in my situation? These are my questions.

What is / are the source /s of it?

I believe we have the intuitive power to know what is most harmonious, what is the best action, because we are a part of God. God is All and Beyond All, and is perfect and whole. So when we recognize and cultivate God's spirit within us, our actions align with what should be and there is harmony between us and everything else (which is really to say, there is a harmonious function of the All).

Societies determine laws and ethics and norms, but I think these partially grow out of that inner voice and partly are warped to meet people's self-centered needs. So while I recognize society is a source of ethics, I don't think it is the only source or even the best one.

How is it maintained in a society / Why does it deteriorate? (by what measures?)

Maintained in society through informal sanctions (gossip, relationships, etc.) and formal ones (laws, courts, police, etc.). I'm confused as to what deteriorates. This could mean a lot of things. Ethics can change because society changes. Or people could stop following social norms and ethics as much because there is a lack of solidarity (generally tied to anonymity and alienation from others). I'm not sure if you mean why ethical codes themselves change or fall apart (when they fall apart, they often do so as a culture falls apart) or why the general populace starts failing miserably at acting in accordance to ethics (i.e, the gulf between ideal culture and real culture widens).

I think ultimately, morality in individuals fails when individuals are centered on themselves to the detriment of others, and thus they do not cultivate that which they really are (a part of God). When we stop listening long enough to that small, still voice within, eventually we forget how to do so. It's always there, but we have to embrace it to grow in it.

Religion?

A handy social mechanism for teaching and enforcing moral/ethical rules.

Not necessary, but useful.

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

What is morality?

The opposite of lessality?

Chris

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

The opposite of lessality?

Chris

baddaboom

[seattlegal]

http://www.comparative-religion.com/...rals-8806.html

[Paladin]

Thanks SG, I knew this whole thing looked familiar. But in Snoopy's defense I think an exploration of what morals are could be interesting. Apart from the whole Summum Bonum thingy what does morality really give us? Sure, If we are good we get to go to heaven, or please the gods or something but what really happens when we are good?
If I remember rightly, didn't Plato point out that morals and ethics are created by the weak to even the playing field against the strong?
Can a case be made that good behavior somehow benefits the individual entity beyond normal dogmatic parameters?

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

I'm not sure if you mean why ethical codes themselves change or fall apart (when they fall apart, they often do so as a culture falls apart) or why the general populace starts failing miserably at acting in accordance to ethics (i.e, the gulf between ideal culture and real culture widens).

I think ultimately, morality in individuals fails when individuals are centered on themselves to the detriment of others, and thus they do not cultivate that which they really are (a part of God). When we stop listening long enough to that small, still voice within, eventually we forget how to do so. It's always there, but we have to embrace it to grow in it.

Interesting post as ever, Path. I think I meant the population (poor phrasing on my part). I'd got thinking from the Santa V God thread and the daily diet on the news of senseless violence. Where is the moral structure?

s.

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Thanks SG, I knew this whole thing looked familiar.

Yeah, I wanted to approach it from a different perspective...<coughs>

s.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

Yeah, I wanted to approach it from a different perspective...<coughs>

s.

See? Well there you have it, I knew there was something different here. I do find it interesting that there is a consensus about morality, ethics and religion, in that anyone outside that group is more likely to be self-centered, not concerned with others, and is lost to moral relativism.

[wil]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

...and do you need religion?

It appears so. Now as usual, I am just answering for me. But that is what religion has done for me. Given me a moral compass. I look at my life and it is obvious when I was without religion I had no moral compass. Sure there were laws, and there were penalties, but none of them hindered me from breaking them, nor from doing what is perceived by many as doing immoral and unethical (sorry to recombine) things flagrantly and frequently.

Other peoples concerns and feelings were not mine. Religion has given me a different perspective and changed my ways. Now I know this is not a philospical look but again personal and anecdotal, but it is a fact.

And I believe I am not alone. And I believe similar stories exist in most religions.

[17th Angel]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

...and do you need religion?

s.

Religion if you cut out the, magic, science, ultimate powerful beings above in the abode of the universe....... What do we have? Rules.... You need rules... You need a standard... So from me it's a yes and no answer You can easily have morales with it or without, you just have to keep yourself in check and abide by the rules

[China Cat Sunflower]

Codifying a moral standard often has the effect of legitimizing all sorts of unethical activities which now become technically moral under the definition. Having rules creates the possibility of loopholes. In that sense establishing a moral standard can have the effect of actually lowering the bar of what is ethically allowable. Morals can serve to protect and empower abusers.

Chris

[path_of_one]

I'm inclined to agree, Chris. I think codified norms or ethics (laws), whether through religion or a legal system, is a result of a breakdown in the fabric of informal sanctions and community. When the community is strong enough, no codification is necessary. People look out for each other because they have strong ties to each other, and informal sanctions like gossip or being thought of negatively is enough to keep people in line. There are already problems and alienation when you have formal courts and sentencing.

I would say religion is not necessary, but I base that on observation and personal experience.

Most of the atheists I know have been profoundly ethical in a communal sense. Most didn't have rules about sexuality or drug use or whatever, but they were very concerned with group stability and their impact on others. So most are very concerned with environmental and social justice, sustainability, etc. despite being pretty relativist on personal issues.

For me, religion is not necessary. I find it interesting and useful in other ways, but my moral compass comes from within, not from external rules.