What is Morality?

[MajorMitchell]

Well done Crazy Anglican for persistence, this discussion of the definition of morality has generated tracts of writing over many pages that I have not & will not read.
I prefer to ponder & discuss ethical principles and values rather than do so with moral principles and values as I believe that Ethics provide superior means to make choices and decisions about actions, behaviours, policies, laws et al than Morals and Morality.

The fundamental weakness with using Morals and Morality is that compared to Ethics they are subjective not objective.
A distinct advantage of using Ethics vis a vis using Morals is being able to remove what I will describe as the "Religious influence" and rely on logic and reasoning more than / instead of relying on belief systems derived from Religious beliefs.

Call me immoral but do not call me unethical!

"Tis more important to behave ethically impeccably than be morally pure". (the morally pure are invariably impotent)
Discuss.

[Hanging Rook]

I consider ethics is the study of morality- so neither subjective nor objective

You seem to have a different definition- would you mind to share it?

[Jamiet99uk]

Ethics is generally more codified than morality, I think.

[Hanging Rook]

So we agree to ask “What is morality?“ is an ethics question and not a moral one?

[Crazy Anglican]

So we agree to ask “What is morality?“ is an ethics question and not a moral one?

I agree that argument seems a bit odd. Still MM brings up a good point in the assumption that morals and ethics are different concepts with different sources. I ask the teasing question, so is it now the atheists who are claiming to be amoral (and that’s okay because they like ethics better anyway)?

[Crazy Anglican]

That also begs the question, why not be both moral and ethical? It isn’t as if they are opposing concepts.

[Crazy Anglican]

Ethics is generally more codified than morality, I think.

That’s a good point. How are the codified ethics of the medical profession doing on solving the problems with addiction mentioned earlier?

[Jamiet99uk]

Ethics is generally more codified than morality, I think.

That’s a good point. How are the codified ethics of the medical profession doing on solving the problems with addiction mentioned earlier?

I cannot speak for the medical profession but I have recently been hearing about the epidemic of painkiller addiction plaguing the United States. I do not believe this is a widespread problem in the UK or other parts of Western Europe. In my own experience in the UK (I have been on morphine on three occasions), doctors here are generally reluctant to prescribe such strong painkillers for anything other than short time periods, due to their potential to be addictive.

I wonder if the fact that the UK has a healthcare system founded for public good, while the US has a system based on private greed, is a factor? (I have no evidence to support this thought, it is only my musing just now).

[Jamiet99uk]

That also begs the question, why not be both moral and ethical? It isn’t as if they are opposing concepts.

I agree with you that we should strive to be both.

[Crazy Anglican]

Ethics is generally more codified than morality, I think.

That’s a good point. How are the codified ethics of the medical profession doing on solving the problems with addiction mentioned earlier?

I cannot speak for the medical profession but I have recently been hearing about the epidemic of painkiller addiction plaguing the United States. I do not believe this is a widespread problem in the UK or other parts of Western Europe. In my own experience in the UK (I have been on morphine on three occasions), doctors here are generally reluctant to prescribe such strong painkillers for anything other than short time periods, due to their potential to be addictive.

I wonder if the fact that the UK has a healthcare system founded for public good, while the US has a system based on private greed, is a factor? (I have no evidence to support this thought, it is only my musing just now).

Likewise, I haven't the credentials to really make a judgement other than simply looking on from the outside. My experiences with medicine has likewise been positive. We caught cancer very early (stage 0) and surgery took care of that. I have had no recurrences and have kept a sharp eye on it. I was diagnosed with diabetes in June last year and just before Christmas I got the news that diet, exercise, and medication have done the trick and my glucose levels have returned to normal within the span of six months. I was told the medicines do not usually work quite that well and that the lifestyle changes have been a major factor. The doctor is planning to take me off the meds if things remain positive. So, no complaints here.

I do not think the average doctor anywhere is trying to make his patients sick to enrich himself. In fact, my experience is similar the doctors are reluctant to prescribe strong painkillers due to potential addiction. Pharmacies are pretty careful as well when filling these prescriptions.

Still in the USA this is a problem that has actually had an effect on the life expectancy statistics for the past few years (decades, I think). Generally, I think of the medical profession as one with strict ethics, and having anything like the opioid crisis going on is a bad look for them.

You're right about striving to be both moral and ethical. Morality tends to protect you, "I don't feel like long term exposure to meds is a good idea if I can control the issue with other factors." Ethics protect others, "I've seen this patient a few times and they are asking for pain meds. Let's check into it before just handing over a prescription." It's definitely a gross oversimplification, but it seems to fit here.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Crazy Anglican, I can respond easily by just saying yes: my prefered style of moral inference is absolutely as flawed as a literalist Biblical one. It requires at least some supposition. In practice, it requires a ton of subjective interpretation. I accept fully that, although it looks like there really is moral progress, we might never be sure how far we've come or how far there is to go.

The imperfection of my preferred method of reasoning doesn't bother me that much because I don't assume that its the singular moral truth and I'm open to other, better ideas should they present themselves. So far in this thread, I haven't been convinced there's some better approach. I still think there are great reasons to think that morality is objective and discoverable, but these reasons will never be evidence.

All that argumentation against Christian morality was pushing back against Fritz' claims that the Bible contains the sole description of true morality and that this morality can be discovered perfectly through a simple literalist reading of tbe Bible (a reading he used to claim could be done somehow without any interpretation whatsoever). This is clearly false and I think you and the other Christians in this thread already agree with that.

There's been some friction in these threads with other Christians being offended by the arguments against Fritz' initially extreme claims, even though they agree those claims are too simplistic.

From our discussions I think we basically agree entirely about how morality should be practiced, though you'd undoubtedly put more emphasis on the Bible whereas I would preference methods that focus more squarely on the material facts of the case that seem morally relevant.

[Flash2024]

There is no objectively moral or amoral. Those are not "objective" concepts. One person's morality may deviate wildly from another, even within the bounds of the Christian/Judeo principles. Let alone outside them. Is slavery amoral? Not to many societies historically. Do I find it so? Definitely. See?

I fundamentally disagree. Everyone can have a moral opinion, but those opinions can be found to be wrong through greater inquiry.

I'm confused by what means you think that popular opinion is actually the way of determining what is right and wrong. How could a society that previously thought slavery was good come to see that it's bad if there was no genuine badness there to discover? Is slave-holding or slave-releasing just a fad or fashion trend with no genuine moral implications?

Morals and beliefs can change within an individual and within a society over time. Morals are not an opinion, they are what colors one's and a society's ethos. How does a society come to believe their previously held beliefs were "wrong"? Well, time and experience. Cultures change. But that does not mean the morals were right or wrong at the time. They were just different. Do you think all southerners, even today, think slavery was wrong? I don't. But in 1850 the majority certainly did believe in it as something correct and even God ordained. Time, war, new experiences changed the views of morality of slavery for many. But that does not mean, in 1850, their morality was right or wrong. Just different. Hell, even the Old Testament is ok with slavery. At that time, their moral views found it acceptable. But the modern Church believes otherwise.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

There is no objectively moral or amoral. Those are not "objective" concepts. One person's morality may deviate wildly from another, even within the bounds of the Christian/Judeo principles. Let alone outside them. Is slavery amoral? Not to many societies historically. Do I find it so? Definitely. See?

I fundamentally disagree. Everyone can have a moral opinion, but those opinions can be found to be wrong through greater inquiry.

I'm confused by what means you think that popular opinion is actually the way of determining what is right and wrong. How could a society that previously thought slavery was good come to see that it's bad if there was no genuine badness there to discover? Is slave-holding or slave-releasing just a fad or fashion trend with no genuine moral implications?

Morals and beliefs can change within an individual and within a society over time. Morals are not an opinion, they are what colors one's and a society's ethos. How does a society come to believe their previously held beliefs were "wrong"? Well, time and experience. Cultures change. But that does not mean the morals were right or wrong at the time. They were just different. Do you think all southerners, even today, think slavery was wrong? I don't. But in 1850 the majority certainly did believe in it as something correct and even God ordained. Time, war, new experiences changed the views of morality of slavery for many. But that does not mean, in 1850, their morality was right or wrong. Just different. Hell, even the Old Testament is ok with slavery. At that time, their moral views found it acceptable. But the modern Church believes otherwise.

I still find the relativists don't have a great argument here.

Chattel slavery was wrong, even if we can't agree to the precise moral reasoning that proves it as such. Is your contention that it actually was "good" just because some white people thought it was?

The wrongness of slavery has something to do with the real inconsistency of some human beings being extremely privileged over others for reasons that can't logically be sustained without widespread ignorance. And, of course, the extreme and unnecessary material suffering of slaves. Now that this ignorance is mostly lifted, I don't expect we'll ever have a popular movement for that style of slavery again. People were rightly convinced of the real wrongness of slavery. Yes, there remain some ignorant people who never stopped supporting slavery, they remain mistaken about its moral justifications.

[Pinecone333]

Morality is that which is accordance with God's will and law. Immorality is that which contravenes his will and law.

[Flash2024]

a

[Flash2024]

Morality is that which is accordance with God's will and law. Immorality is that which contravenes his will and law.

This falls into the ol' only the religious are capable of morality. Your God is not everyone's god. Get that through your head.

[Flash2024]

I fundamentally disagree. Everyone can have a moral opinion, but those opinions can be found to be wrong through greater inquiry.

I'm confused by what means you think that popular opinion is actually the way of determining what is right and wrong. How could a society that previously thought slavery was good come to see that it's bad if there was no genuine badness there to discover? Is slave-holding or slave-releasing just a fad or fashion trend with no genuine moral implications?

Morals and beliefs can change within an individual and within a society over time. Morals are not an opinion, they are what colors one's and a society's ethos. How does a society come to believe their previously held beliefs were "wrong"? Well, time and experience. Cultures change. But that does not mean the morals were right or wrong at the time. They were just different. Do you think all southerners, even today, think slavery was wrong? I don't. But in 1850 the majority certainly did believe in it as something correct and even God ordained. Time, war, new experiences changed the views of morality of slavery for many. But that does not mean, in 1850, their morality was right or wrong. Just different. Hell, even the Old Testament is ok with slavery. At that time, their moral views found it acceptable. But the modern Church believes otherwise.

I still find the relativists don't have a great argument here.

Chattel slavery was wrong, even if we can't agree to the precise moral reasoning that proves it as such. Is your contention that it actually was "good" just because some white people thought it was?

The wrongness of slavery has something to do with the real inconsistency of some human beings being extremely privileged over others for reasons that can't logically be sustained without widespread ignorance. And, of course, the extreme and unnecessary material suffering of slaves. Now that this ignorance is mostly lifted, I don't expect we'll ever have a popular movement for that style of slavery again. People were rightly convinced of the real wrongness of slavery. Yes, there remain some ignorant people who never stopped supporting slavery, they remain mistaken about its moral justifications.

First, leave slavery out of it. The question is are morals relativistic or absolute. Better minds than ours have argued this. But slavery brings in cultural baggage that distorts the question. And in today's America I think we can pretty much say the vast majority look at it as wrong--as moral beliefs have changed. How about abortion? There are those who would die or kill to protect a fetus. Obviously abortion is wildly immoral to them. But not to me. Not to those in my social circle. Morals are not absolute. The same with being gay.
Or take different classes or castes within the same culture. Some actions may be considered moral for one group but not another. Or atheism. I have known "Christians" who consider me immoral because I am atheist. But my actions going about my daily life is pretty much identical to them. So my belief system is immoral, even if we are neighbors, go to the same school, live in the same cultural realm?

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Morals and beliefs can change within an individual and within a society over time. Morals are not an opinion, they are what colors one's and a society's ethos. How does a society come to believe their previously held beliefs were "wrong"? Well, time and experience. Cultures change. But that does not mean the morals were right or wrong at the time. They were just different. Do you think all southerners, even today, think slavery was wrong? I don't. But in 1850 the majority certainly did believe in it as something correct and even God ordained. Time, war, new experiences changed the views of morality of slavery for many. But that does not mean, in 1850, their morality was right or wrong. Just different. Hell, even the Old Testament is ok with slavery. At that time, their moral views found it acceptable. But the modern Church believes otherwise.

I still find the relativists don't have a great argument here.

Chattel slavery was wrong, even if we can't agree to the precise moral reasoning that proves it as such. Is your contention that it actually was "good" just because some white people thought it was?

The wrongness of slavery has something to do with the real inconsistency of some human beings being extremely privileged over others for reasons that can't logically be sustained without widespread ignorance. And, of course, the extreme and unnecessary material suffering of slaves. Now that this ignorance is mostly lifted, I don't expect we'll ever have a popular movement for that style of slavery again. People were rightly convinced of the real wrongness of slavery. Yes, there remain some ignorant people who never stopped supporting slavery, they remain mistaken about its moral justifications.

First, leave slavery out of it. The question is are morals relativistic or absolute. Better minds than ours have argued this. But slavery brings in cultural baggage that distorts the question. And in today's America I think we can pretty much say the vast majority look at it as wrong--as moral beliefs have changed. How about abortion? There are those who would die or kill to protect a fetus. Obviously abortion is wildly immoral to them. But not to me. Not to those in my social circle. Morals are not absolute. The same with being gay.
Or take different classes or castes within the same culture. Some actions may be considered moral for one group but not another. Or atheism. I have known "Christians" who consider me immoral because I am atheist. But my actions going about my daily life is pretty much identical to them. So my belief system is immoral, even if we are neighbors, go to the same school, live in the same cultural realm?

I'm just thoroughly unconvinced that the existence of moral uncertainty is evidence that there's no such thing as morality. Another plausible explanation is that some moral beliefs are mistaken, like the moral justifications of slavery were. Many of these truths may be ultimately unknowable, but I don't think they all are, and so I reject the idea that morality is just whatever anyone feels in the moment.

[Crazy Anglican]

I am atheist. But my actions going about my daily life is pretty much identical to them. So my belief system is immoral, even if we are neighbors, go to the same school, live in the same cultural realm?

What is this belief system that your neighbors think is immoral?

[Flash2024]

No one is saying Morality is what one thinks at the moment. That is patently absurd. But a society's morals do change with time, change, and historical experience.