What is 'morality' ultimately about?

[Boerseun]

There are now roughly about 6,5 billion individuals on planet Earth. And about three or four in orbit. And each of them have unique and individual approaches to certain issues, based on various variables. Religions come to the fore as shaping mechanisms, to shape and streamline vast bodies of individuals' sets of morality into one big manageable (and, of course, profitable) set of Morals. But whatever the case might be, individuals still do their own thing and manage to justify their actions through their own peculiar interpretation of morality. For instance, the Bible says "Don't kill your neighbour". So a religious nut goes and kills his neighbour, and justifies his actions by saying "I killed him because he's against the Bible". As far as he's concerned, he was totally justified in doing it.

 

I cannot see 'morality' being beneficial to the survival of the human race, because popular sets of morals are clashing head-on on a bigger and bigger scale, and they have millions of followers each. For instance, Islamic sharia law and a Christian-orientated society cannot co-exist in the same geographic area.

 

There are roughly 6,5 billion people on Earth. There are 6,5 billion individual and unique sets of morality. We are trying to generalise what might simply be termed 'human nature'. As far as I'm concerned, there is no such thing as 'morals' that might be appliccable to more than one person at a time. Therefore, I picked 'hogwash'.

[Oso]

There are roughly 6,5 billion people on Earth. There are 6,5 billion individual and unique sets of morality. We are trying to generalise what might simply be termed 'human nature'. As far as I'm concerned, there is no such thing as 'morals' that might be appliccable to more than one person at a time. Therefore, I picked 'hogwash'.

 

I chose fair and just as my answer to the poll. In keeping with Boerseun's prediction that each person has a unique set of morality I will contribute my own interpretation to the contrary.

 

Morality is in keeping with what is fair and just but with the caveat of according to a majority. These fair and just rules or guidelines will always benefit this group and define them on a plane other than physical attributes such as wealth and privilege or lack thereof. Thus it is historically moral to whip your slaves, drape yourself with diamonds and participate in orgies.

 

Oso

[Eclogite]

Thus it is historically moral to whip your slaves, drape yourself with diamonds and participate in orgies.

Have these rights been rescinded?:hihi:

[Oso]

Have these rights been rescinded?:hihi:

 

I wouldn't presume to know what majority of morality you live with Eclogite but I do want to add some empirical evidence to my above post.

 

For example the evolution of morality in churches of varying denomination has been shown to reflect the economic prosperity of the township within which they reside.

 

So imagine a small town church sermon with the minister advising constituents wear plain clothing and no makeup and to not display any type of wealth or accouterments of affluence (as only a few are so fortunate). Sermons will expound on the dangers of alcohol and excess and the virtues of frugality and hard work. This same type of morality training occurs in the home or any multitude of environments but for simplicity I chose a church. Consequently, as prosperity thrives under these circumstances, the level of disposable income increases and the rules for conduct begin to change. Color appears in clothing and jewelry becomes acceptable. Alcohol is also allowed for "special" occasions and spending for pleasure increases. Although a simplistic example the genesis for morality is clearly the group.

 

As for empirical evidence for my preference of Just and Fair vs. sex/happiness/peace/survival/natures fabric etc I would point to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Only after we fulfill our need for food and safety, love, belonging and self love can we begin to afford our minds the time to contemplate morality and the right conduct for ourselves. It is at this point that we find the consequences to our actions may disrupt the basis of self actualization and should be tailored or that such actions should be guarded against. For those still in need of food or shelter etc morality has no place and the perception of inequity will continue to torture the soul.

 

Oso