What is morality?

Is it objective or subjective or something else completely?

Where does it come from or is it a conscious creation?

Are we born with some connection to morality or is it purely environmental?

There are no such things as morals

Well I've heard that anything evil is what comes from the ego, and anything not evil is what doesn't come from the ego

that doesn't mean we judge and label, the labelling of good and bad is a human construct

but, nonetheless, it's all about the ego, for example throwing litter on the floor, you're doing something for yourself at the expense of something else (the environment) and so that's not a good act

I think therefore we're born with some connection to morality, but at the same time, morality does develop and evolve with human societies over time, if you compare us in the past to now, and we still have improvements to make, but of course also on an individual level

this is also why atheists can have morals too, as many religious people think atheists have no morals, but I believe it doesn't take religion to have morals

and finally, brain damage and mental health issues can ruin our sense of morality suggesting some kind of biological component, as can abuse and so environment also has some influence

What an absurd claim...

I actually think the word is inept as there are no consequences to your actions if you so choose to do an action which society deems as "morally wrong". It just is, it's an action based on human nature, not morals. That's if you don't believe in karma or god, then morality has no right or wrong, it just is.

Inept doesn't really make sense there, but I know what you mean...

Anyhow. Why do you think that there being moral facts means that your actions will have magic consequences if they are bad (or perhaps too if they are good)?

What does it mean to say "morality has no right or wrong, it just is"? This is pretty incomprehensible to me. What is this morality that you are talking about? Do you mean, what we should do in terms of how we act has no right/wrong?

I mean inept as in void.

Okay take for example I decide to become a cannibal over night, western society may see this as being "morally wrong", whereas some tribe in Papa New Guinea will see this as perfectly feasible. Now Western society may see adultery before marriage as a normal part of everyday life, but someone in the Middle east will shun upon you as " morally wrong". But the truth is there is no right or wrong, as if you feel that there is no purpose to our life or that we are here for no just cause other then to just live and die, then what's to say what you persevere as being bad to actually just be a normal human action that just accord like say murder for instance? Morality has no middle ground into what is wrong or right, we do what we do out of human nature, making the word "morals" rather empty and desolate.

Which isn't what inept means, but I'm being pedantic and it doesn't change your argument at all so whatever :P

So, different societies have different perceptions concerning what is wrong, therefore nothing is wrong? It doesn't follow. Of course, I understand your point though - if I were to say it is wrong to murder, you would ask why and I would say because it creates harm and you would say so what and I would say we ought not to harm others. At which point you go, well, according to what basis? And unless I infer here "God told me to" or "mummy said so" what can I say to suggest why we ought not?

How about I say the following - rationality tells me that certain actions are wrong insofar as they possess attributes that make them such. The property of wrongness is such that any rational human being is able to realise that they should not commit the action. Why? Because it is wrong! That's the whole point of the notion of this property of wrongness. If someone is wrong then we should not do it. If something is right then we ought to do it.

This is not to say that the notion is 100% accurate when it comes to our intuitions. And it is not to say that there will be universal agreement considering it. What it is to say is that it is possible for some actions to be wrong and some to be right and some amoral. What we must do, is figure out which are what. That takes empirical evidence, quite a lot of theorising and rational introspection. I don't see why it means there can be no right or wrong concerning morality.

I think personally, it is intuitively quite obvious without further explanation that murder and other near-universally immoral actions, are not ordinary human actions. Hence morality is serving its job there in telling us what we ought to be doing, no?

If the murderer says "I believe murder to be morally permissible" I can simply retort, and justifiably so I would think (but perhaps you disagree) - That's a wonderful opinion you have Sir Murderer, but it's wrong, because murder is not morally permissible (in this scenario). Under your view of morality if you were to say he did wrong, what are you actually saying to him?

Is it objective or subjective or something else completely?

Where does it come from or is it a conscious creation?

Are we born with some connection to morality or is it purely environmental?

I agree with you that there has to be some form of justice in the world that separates what is right or wrong. But I also believe morality is not intrinsic but governed and installed in us through our environment and upbringing. We justify our morality on a subconscious level based on our teaching and values not that someone else might interpret that in the same manner.

Morality is subjective, and even if you see murder from sleeping with another mans wife as "morally wrong", based on your teachings from this society, someone in the Middle east may see this as a terrible sin and under the law of that country sentence him or her to stoning, now you may say how "disgusting", how could they be so barbaric, but someone in his/her shoes who has been brought up to believe that adultery should be dealt with in death, and that is what is considered "morally right", then who are you dictate or oppose his/her opinion? this is how he/she was brought up to conceive as the correct form of treatment.

I still feel morality has now place in society and is just a form of one's own interpretation and which can be altered to fit another persons agenda.

I think we should just agree to disagree on this one? as you feel morality fits in this world and I am against that based on my review and analyzing.

What we think is moral, for most people, is indeed not at all intrinsic and is influenced by others massively, yeah, I agree. But that doesn't mean there is no right or wrong. It just means that most people's conceptions of right and wrong will be massively over-simplified and not veridical. When one says morality is objective, typically what one means is that there are moral facts AND those moral facts are made true by something other than the opinions of human beings. For example, it could be some empirical fact about the event that the moral fact talks about. Rather than merely - this is right because my mum thinks it is right, or this is right because the judge that it is right, or this is right because the constitution is right. Aka, we have to work out what is right and what is wrong - this is a science that needs to be done!

In the second case that uncivilised brute probably also believes that scripture and likely a bunch of other superstitious nonsense. All of which they believe not because their IQ is leagues lower, but because of the environment that they were brought up in. Do you think I am justified in questioned their queer believes concerning physics? If I am, then why am I not concerning ethics? So what if their belief system means that they has different beliefs than me - that's all the more reason to go and debate with them so we can figure out whose beliefs systems are better. After all that's precisely how science works! If this is not the case and we simply concede either that moral truths are non-existent or that what is morally true is merely a reflection of what a certain person or group of people believe to be morally true then how can we actually progress society? The result of either belief is that there is no longer an objective way to argue that our society that we live in is "better" and thereby more "desirable" than the society that they live in, for what one finds desirable is based on one's underlying moral beliefs. But can it not be the case that people are susceptible to delusion? After-all if I ask many poor Brazilians how happy they are with their lives they will generally state that they are happier on a scale of 1-10 than your average Briton is, yet, objectively your average Briton has a higher quality of life. Therefore people can delude themselves. The same can surely occur with regards to ethics. People thinking that their way of life is optimal when really they just refuse to think rationally because of their upbringing and various other phenomena that are frankly quite easy to explain with psychology.

Regardless, if you try and adopt nihilism or relativism, which are terms for the two other cases possible outside of moral objectivism then how can you argue that a more "ideal" society than the one at present exists? Ideal for whom and in what way if not morally? It seems to me that even now in contemporary society the law is created with morality as its underpinning. Of course I am not saying that what is moral is what the law says. The law doesn't dictate morality, but the state, it seems to me, is a thing because the crafted and maintaining of one is a moral duty of us humans and the law comes from that and is a way to enforce moral revelations onto us.

I view moral truths as akin to mathematical truths. We aren't born with the knowledge that pi = 3.14... to 164 digits... We have to decipher that. And some people will say, no! You are wrong, pi is not of that value. And they may have empirical evidence to prove that it cannot be such. And so we refine our value of pi until it perfectly explains that which it is meant to. Furthermore, despite being very real, objective truths pertaining to morality just as there are to mathematics, niether morality or mathematics talk specifically about the world since all mathematical and moral facts about an object that exists are reducible to descriptive properties possessed by other objects that exist.

The same can be said about ethics, although because ethical truths directly affect how every human should act I feel that politics gets in the way of ethical research quite a lot. This is a shame but only natural since humans are naturally megalomaniacal. Regardless, moral truths themselves then are a thing and they are true by virtue of a given scenario's own properties. I.e. If you inflict more pain than pleasure to a person in an act then the act is bad. Of course that's massively massively simplified. But the point is that it is the properties of pain and pleasure changing as a result of your act that makes your act bad - it truly is bad and what makes it bad is not the opinions of any human or humans. Hence moral truths are objectively true. This doesn't imply that we can ever know moral truths for certain - just like we can never know for certain scientific truths about reality. We will never know if electrons actually exist. It is not possible. That doesn't mean the claim that electrons exist is neither true or false, it just means we will never know which is the correct answer for certain. But lacking certainty certainly doesn't stop us researching something. Science has always lacked certainty but look at the progress it has allowed us.

I think there are two ways of viewing morality, subjective and objective. I'm a Christian, but at the same time, there are views that if someone doesn't follow them, that doesn't label them immoral. But to many Christians, it would. But there are objectively moral things like the laws we govern with...it's immoral to murder, to steal, to kidnap, etc. Objective to me, is when we all can pretty much agree on what is moral.

Oh come on you must be kidding me? you expect me to read all this at suck peak times of the morning. Sorry but I can't it's way too early for this!!