A question about morality?

Question

Since a moral rule like, "don't steal," can lead to immorality, as in not stealing to feed your child when that's the only option, is it possible we need a new way to define morality? Can morality be permanently codified in words, or should we use words only to point at what is beyond the definitions, and alter the definitions as often as we come to understand new things about the world and our role in it?

Wow, I'm going to have a hard time choosing a best answer to this one! Some of you have given real thought to this, as was the intention. The rest of you should understand something - This question is not a literal statement of fact; to pose a question like this, one needs an example. Your opinion of the example is irrelevant.

Answer 1

I think you make some interesting points - words definitely have limitations for the definer and the interpretter. Its always a rhetoric game and only real thieves hide behind definitions to justify their actions. As for morality - this is not a truth - it is a social norm - and each society determines what is or isn't moral based on their level of consciousness. As long as we are trapped in words - we are limiting our consciousness.

Answer 2

If morality isn't permanent, then it becomes meaningless. In the case you mentioned about stealing, it would still be immoral to steal for any reason, even though some reasons are much more excusable than others. There is (of course) moral progress and clearer understanding. . . but we don't achieve that by discarding the old rules and making up new ones. We do it by extension of the same principles we always had. For example, there was an old principle about not doing to others what you wouldn't want done to yourself. All fine and well, as far as it went. But Jesus extended it to the point of saying that you should do to others as you'd like them to do to you. That's a real moral advance- it's immediately recognizable as true, and it doesn't sell out or displace the old principle at all, because it contains it within itself. The old princple remains just as true as it ever was- it's just that our understanding has advanced. I don't deny that it might at times be possible to extend a principle too far or in the wrong direction. . . but that's a matter for further moral reasoning to clarify. My point is that true advances never displace earlier insights.

Answer 3

Morality is being defined and redefined in this world all the time. At one time abortion was considered wrong and evil, now America is embracing it. Same thing goes with other issues and practices. It is hard to conceive that stealing would ever be defined as being acceptable, but those who steal get off quicker and get lighter sentences today.

You ask if we need a new way to define morality. That way is being redefined all the time (which is again, causing our morals to be constantly refining themselves). There is no permanent definition of morals. History has shown that people make up their own ways and morals all the time, and that the majority gets its way.

When you bring the Bible in this, everything changes. But, from standpoint of worldly morals, this answer applies.

Answer 4

Good question! If I was in a position where my child is hungry I would steal. Someone said that the church would help.That's not true. What if the church is in need? I've been there and no one helped. Some one said food stamps. I've heard that there are requirements for this! We s a society must realized hard times can fall on any of us and we do what is necessary to help ourselves and families! I don't feel we should redefine the word "morality" though because Jesus,himself, ate from a field on the Sabbath and was he judged for a crime? No. He was judged for as religion and not hunger.

Answer 5

First, your basic premis that morality can lead to immorality is flawed. There are other moral options to feeding your children other than stealing.

Most moral people will help, if asked, and if there is a real need. There are agencies set up for this kind of help, because people care about keeping moral values in tact.

Second, Morality has been permanently codified in words. In The Word of God, or the Bible, we find God tells us how we should live; in relationship to Him, to others, and to ourselves. God esptablished four institutions for this purpose. 1) The family, where we learn how to interact with a few people, learning trust, love, and other moral standards for behavior. 2) The church, in order to expand this training into a larger setting of society, setting the standard for moral behavior, not by critisising, condeming, or rulling over others, but loving them as He loved us, and as we should love ourselves. 3) Government - to expand once more upon God's plan for people to live with a set of permanently codified morals, on the larger scale, still following His plan, allowing people of all people groups to have a means by which a standard of behavior was set, and followed. 4) Israel - His chosen people, to show the world that we are not perfect, and we must rely totally upon Him to live a moral life.

Thirdly, no, there is no need to rewrite what has been written by the Creator Himself. You can not improve upon perfection. We cant even accomplish or achieve perfection. So, why would we try to change it. To give ourselves an "easy way out" of doing what is right, because it is too hard for us to accomplish?

We need not work so hard to rewrite all that God has already given us. The difficulty is in following what does not come natural to us, do what God directs each of us to do, and follow His definition of morality.

Begin acting morally, and holding others to the correct moral standards, and you will see, "You can't think yourself into right action, you must act yourself into right thinking." (I do not remember who originally said this, but after trying it, it is true)

Answer 6

Ok, I don't beleive certain sins have any "what if" possibilities. If your not in an area that has soup kitchens, then your in an area you can hunt, fish or suplement in some way. Stealing to feed another or yourself would demonstrate a last resort situation brought upon by the decisions you made to bring you there.

I'd sooner beleive a situation where "Thou shall not kill" and you took a life defending yours or a loved one in self defence. At least that's a situation brought upon by another.

As far as stealing, commiting adultry, glutony, etc... there is no "only solution" but a choice. Even in 3rd world countries they manage to live by "thou shall not steal".

Answer 7

Thats a tough one! Stealing food to preserve life is wrong but you can allways make restitution later.I think at some point we have to rely on a sence of justice temperd with mercy in order to have an equal scale. The concept of morality differs in variouse cultures and comunitys. I dont think there is any way to codify it to include everyone without exception.

Answer 8

Gosh, you gave me a lot to think about. I especially like the thought of using words only to point us at what is beyond definitions and agreeing collectively on a new thought.

We must have done this prehistorically. How did we all agree on what the color blue is, etc.

Who decides what is moral the citizens, the Churches, each generation .....

Answer 9

Good point, but there is no specific set of parameters governing morality in my opinion. I just boil it down to how it makes you feel. Like when a person purposely starves an innocent child to death it's immoral, but if you starve to death the person that did that to the child it would be moral. At least that would my be ideal...

Answer 10

You shall not steal is one of the 10 commandments, so there is no way that God could ask for us to do something that is impossible to do. As morality I think is something that your soul tells you to do, that you are doing the right thing.