Believe me when I say that I never would have dreampt I would be arguing this position a mere ten years ago.

I think laws are probably the best signpost as to what the majority of a population agrees is best for its society. I know the purpose of law is not strictly to define morals (rather to facilitate a workable society), but are there any other indicators?

Is there the possibility that morality is instinctive?
Is there the possiblity that it is the result of some cosmic consciousness?
Is it neccessarily linked to authoritarian control?
Can morality be taught?
Would a society devoid of public morality be sustainable?
Does it even exist, or is there no evidence of its existence?

I do not profess to know the answers to any of these questions and it is very interesting to read the different perspectives and opinions people have on the subject.

This thread doesn't seem to have been started for the purpose of debate, rather discussion, so I hope we can look forward to many other perspectives.

Re: What is Morality?
"Now here's a straightforward question. What is morality? Is it a personal code of conduct? Is it in some sense absolute? I would be very interested in understanding where the various participants in this forum are coming from on this one, as I hope it will help me to understand how people reach the conclusions they do."

As the objective here is to foster discussion, right or wrong not being the objective, I would follow Conus Lotus' approach and start with definitions of "morality". I add two (see bellow): one from Britannica online, and the other from All Words.

According to the first, "morality" became commonly used in the 14th century. We need to keep in mind that a word makes its way into the dictionnary following its common use by the public, or a certain public, in the society from which the dictionnary comes from. From another source (I did look at a few online), it indicated that the word first came from French and Latin. Further research would be needed to see its point of origin. Looking for, and into, other "related" terms would also help to better understand how "society's (which one?) reflection" started, including such aspects when thinking about itself/its behaviour... etc.

Understood from the various definitions, morality is used in different ways. Precision of thought, I believe, would necessitate to remain aware of which specific definition is being developed. If you read through the various posts, you could use the different definitions and point out the specific one being refered to at any given point.

The question itself is easy to answer. The various definitions do it quite well. What is up for discussion has more to do with the next questions.

Following your question, "What is morality?", you qualify your interest with two other questions. The first orients towards the "social" aspect of morality, i.e. a society's view on what is moral (re definiton #3 from All Words, where society refers to the different types of groups, i.e. small, specialized, greater society, etc.) Elena's post on March 9th, beautifully illustrates this level of "morality". It also shows the absolute "subjectivity" of morality.
This being said, it is a bit more difficult to explore the notion of the second question!

Can there be an "absolute" source of morality? Keeping in mind that the term only came into accepted public use in the English language during the 14th century, can rigoruous thought preclude such a question. A socio-anthropological search could look into all cultures and see what can be rumaged out of such findings. I won't go there. I simply wish to indicate a possible course to follow to further the reflection. It also implies further "culturo-centric" limits the topic could explore, i.e. cultural subjectivity.

When further considering the second question, "Is it (re: morality) in some sense absolute?", I would even question the term "absolute". Given the premice that all is subjective, can ther be an "objective" morality? Furthermore, "limitations" are a given. Can anyone irrevocably conclude that an "absolute" does in fact exist? ...for anything? What do we know? And the most knowledgeable would be first to admit that they, in fact, know nothing!

I would like to share with you a personal anecdote that has given me much thought for reflection. It marked me profoundly, as I was totally shocked by it.

This involves a dear friend of mine. He is among those I have had strong feelings for as a fellow human whose path I crossed. I had much respect for him. He has since passed away. He was around his sixties when he told me the following during another one of our regular in-depth discussions. "Humanity's skin is very thin. Underneath it lies an animal." In shock, I intellectually rejected this! Inner silence. I could feel my inner face/body contort with rejection. How dare he say such an absurdity? Etc. Etc. Outwardly, I tried to remain open to the discussion.

It took me months to work through that statement. This, I believe, is because of my existencial self-righteousness. Humans are above all of creation, just -sometimes- underneath God? Right? Or the "absolute"? Or "culturo-centric" presumtiousness". I realize that this attitude is profoundly inscribed in my social history. This implies my familly, my society, my ancestry... In fact, a fellow student at university mentioned that this attitude goes all the way back to the Romans who thought THEY were the perfect "man".

In time, I came around enough to understand what the statement ment. I came to see the animal in "humans". Historically, I believe, we have been trying to build our "humanity". When I look for examples around me of those who reflect a "greater" humanity, I would point to, Jesus (the Christ); Mahatma Ghandi; Martin Luther King; Mother Theresa. The list goes on, but its a short list given the numbers of us that have been around. We are more likely to face 8 men out of ten who would rape anything that doesn't have three legs... and even then! Talk about being an animal!

In fact, I believe the effort, to be morally correct, needs to be constant throughout one's life, and that, for every life. Neither do I believe that it ever gets easier. I believe it requires a tremendous effort of will. Good will that is. This would bring me to the saying you refer to in your opening paragraph: "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you".

Full of limits, this axiom can be used as a "rule of thumb" in determining the "morality" of a particular behavior. Keeping in mind the social context (Elana's experience in Spain and America), one can establish rules of conduct that are "good" and "bad". This would maintain one in the even middle. This example also refers to aspects I would consider more... mundane. More serious issues would be euthanasia, public executions, treatment/care of the poor/uneducated/sick/mained etc. A society's morality can be measured by the humanity it shows to all its citizens: how fufilled are its individual members? How many people sleep on the streets?

To further "humanity", i.e. make the skin a bit thicker so-to-speak, one could choose to lead others to adopt a behavior that would be/is "humanizing" (if I can use that word to mean - make one more humane). Your "annoyance" with yourself Elena may be that you did not have the "social courage" to impose, lead others, into a new behavior (for them) that you thought was morally acceptable. Your difficulty appears to be accepting "lustful" looks! Which may have included a tinge of judgement in some or others! Moral judgement that is: "You should not dress that way, it is unacceptable". Your high degree of social intelligence and sensitivity, combined with your consideration for local culture, prevailed. To be concordant with the afore mentioned axiom, to have continued wearing the bathing suit, it would have implied (among other things) you have a right to express yourself in any way you want, some of which may offend me, but I will accept and respect you nonetheless because I believe in the right to self-expression.

Babara Coloroso, an American public speaker who wrote "Kids are Worth it", and "The bully, the Bullied, and the Bystander", offers a measuring stick to determine the "acceptableness" of a behavior. It is physically harmful? Is it morally acceptable? Does it impact negatively on anyone's dignity (your own included?) The morality in this context would be locally determined. She speaks to parents, teachers, and those working with children.

In conclusion, where I'm at in my today-thinking, the questions I would ask would be something like the following:

What type of morality can a society promote that would permit individual fulfillment, while at the same time contribute to the betterment of the society? For today, I believe this should include the world-society somewhere in its considerations.

What methods (including a process for evaluating the outcome) can we use to help determine a morality that would insure these elements?


Monfrancom






http://www.britannica.com/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=morality

Main Entry: mo·ral·i·ty

Function: noun

Date: 14th century

1 a : a moral discourse, statement, or lesson b : a literary or other imaginative work teaching a moral lesson

2 a : a doctrine or system of moral conduct b plural : particular moral principles or rules of conduct

3 : conformity to ideals of right human conduct

4 : moral conduct : VIRTUE





http://www.allwords.com/query.php?SearchType=0&Keyword=morality&goquery=Find+it%21&Language=ENG&NLD=1&FRA=1&DEU=1&ITA=1&ESP=1&v=46507560
Definitions

morality

noun

1. The quality of being moral.

Thesaurus: virtue, righteousness, decency, goodness, integrity, honesty, standards, principle.

2. Behaviour in relation to accepted moral standards.

3. A particular system of moral standards.

Thesaurus: propriety, mores, respectability, chastity, purity.

What type of morality can a society promote that would permit individual fulfillment, while at the same time contribute to the betterment of the society? For today, I believe this should include the world-society somewhere in its considerations. What methods (including a process for evaluating the outcome) can we use to help determine a morality that would [ensure] these elements?

The whole "Do unto others..." thing sounds like a pretty good starting point to me. One must be careful not to take it TOO literally, of course. After all - if you happenned to be really interested in Star Trek, that would not imply that everyone else would like to receive the latest DVD boxed set. ...and if a masochist took the principle of "do unto others as you would have others do unto you" too literally, they would quickly become VERY unpopular. Which is why my guiding principle is a variant of that - basically it's "Don't force other people to do stuff they don't want to do, and don't prevent them from doing that which they do want to go (so long as it harms no-one else)". From then on it's a numbers game, because this ideal is never completely achievable in practice.

What methods can we use to ensure these elements? Well, laws that were fair to everyone would be a good start. There should be no such thing as a victimless crime. (Fining someone or putting them in jail for a victimless "crime" makes the jailee themself a victim, and their imprisonment a greater crime).

Well, that's just the way I see it.
Rommie

I think I was trying to make the point that that was most likely NOT right (in my view). So I don't think we need to ask, or answer, either of those two questions. The only one that matters is the one that you put aside - why do they want to kill the guy? If he/she is carrying a dormant virus which, if let loose, could wipe out everyone on the planet, the others may indeed be justified in doing what needs to be done to save the planet. But I don't believe that the morality changes because there are or aren't other people outside the room. It may make a different to whether or not those guys get caught/arrested, but I don't see how it can make a difference to the rightness or wrongness of the thing. Remember, in Rommie-philosophy, "morally right" is NOT defined by majority opinion.

we are all human

Speak for yourself

Consider it from the point of view of observing an alien civilization

I was.

They're killing each other. Do we intervene?

Now THAT's the hard question. It's the sort of question to which I do not have an answer, and the sort of decision that I'm very glad I never have to make. I am definitely not qualified to answer this question. The honest answer is that if my friends were involved, I'd side with them, otherwise I'd probably assume that I did not have enough information, or authority, to intervene. People in America are being killed by electric chairs - should I threaten to blow up the Whitehouse unless this practice stops? I think not. Not my planet; not my society; not my problem. Who am I to tell them they're wrong? What if it's me that's wrong? In that circumstance, I would not intervene. Would you?