What defines morals?

Answer 1

God is the ultimate definer for morals. You see the Hebrews gave us our moral categories, the greeks are intellectual categories and the romans gave us our legal categories. If we say there is good then their must be evil. If there is evil then their must be some moral law on which to differentiate between that good and evil--and we cannot deposit a moral law without a moral law giver.

If morals are defined by our society --THIS ONLY APPLIES TO THE SOCIETY NOT AS AN INDIVIDUAL. and philosophically speking people like Martin Luther King would be evil because they wanted a social change-- so its not this.

If morals are defined by ourselves---what our instincts tell us to do are not always right.

So I propose there are universal morals. We all KNOW its wrong to murder and rape for example and when certain "cases" appear like a pshyco--we all thing something is wrong with him. Thats why God gave us a conscience--think about it. Why does it only speak to you on issues of morality? And why does it only speak to it, not you to it?

For more click here,

http://apologetics.johndepoe.com/morality.html

Answer 2

The answers above are all good , just to add a bit. It's funny to note how involuntary definitions of morals unconsciously accepted seem to be more damaging in the end . It induces guilt when an act of imorality is commited and yet so little real solution. It is a fear based morality without intellectualing on an individual's part.
On the other hand, morality which is radically individualistic in it's conception, may also self destruct for the fact that it's hard to relate to your community and hence poor communication and likes and dislikes which leads to a conflict of sorts.
So, in my opinion, while the former is damaging to the individual, the latter is harmful to a larger group. And i beleive keeping a harmoniuos balance need not be at the sacrifice of individualism,...but it does imposes a certain limit we all must carefully consider each case............

Answer 3

Morals are beliefs for which you decide to live by. There should be no definition of morals, for morals are always changing. Morals should be an individuals choice, however, societies usually tend to define morals. Depending on which society you reside or what society you belong to; a local community, a religious denomination, or your family are all societies in which your morals are defined. Remember every individual can have their own definition of morals.

Answer 4

in the end you do.... there are many moral roadmaps but you are the driver and your choice of routes ultimately validates some morals and not others if you are of reasonable intelligence and even a drop of spirituality you can look inside yourself and determine the right answer when confronted with your particular moral dilema. you may also examine case histories of those diagnosed as "sociopathic" or having "antisocial personality disorder" to see what defines a lack of morals

good luck

Answer 5

Values ultimately determine morals. What is important, how do we prioritize the world around us. The above answers are correct to the point that the value system which we use as a gage is from the society in which we live.

Some people like those that founded this country placed Liberty at the top of their list, above life itself. Others like appeasers place life above everything else, regardless of how degraded it may become.

All morals are the result of what you value.

Answer 6

I would recommend that you look into "On the Genealogy of Morals" by Friedrich Nietzsche. Basically, it says, among other things, that originally "good" referred to the nobility and "bad" referred to the lower, working classes (take for example how "vulgate" means the common language and "vulgar" means crass and crude).

To answer your question, I'd say culture and religion have the greatest influence on defining morals.

Answer 7

For many individuals, religion, unfortunately, presets/establishes morals. I say unfortunately because religion has been the main cause behind so many wars and much bloodshed.

Answer 8

Confucius did that in China. He was criticized by contemporaries, who said morals are a pretense. I'm inclined to agree.

Answer 9

morals are the arts of pursuing happiness

some people think it is obeying rules but this is crazy - how are you going to know what rules to obey if you dont think for yourself?

there are lots of different sets of rules to choose from

one has to judge the rules to see if they fit or in fact do tend to your greater happiness

you are you and you have a right and duty to pursue your happiness with everything you have got

pursuit of your own happiness is meaning of life, excitement, sanity, joy, love, everything

the first thing you realise if you pursue your happiness sincerely and seriously is that hurting others is hurting yourself -

there are groups that would like you to obey them, and will tell you that to disobey them is bad

both obedience and disobedience are mindless, and so not in your pursuit of happiness, and are therefore highly immoral

mindlessness is mental and moral suicide - utter irresponsibility - selfdestruction - craziness

today people have been sold and have bought this idea that somehow that morals are obeying some set of rules made by someone or someones or claimed without proof to be from god

but if god is love and if god is sane, then his rules are to enable you to pursue your happiness with more success - they are suggestions from a friendly advisor - but one has to judge whether they are out of date or inapplicable in particular cases [for rules are general]

pursuit of happiness is the whole of duty, the whole of meaning, the whole of love, the whole of happiness, the thrill of being

charity begins at home and is the voice of the world

this means: only if you pursue your happiness ardently seriously devotedly can you know love of self - and only with love of self can you give love to others and only with love of self can you love love itself

the only love you feel is the love you give yourself

'love others as you love yourself'

means: love yourself to the max, and thus love others equally - proper selflove shines out for others - the only deep gift you can give is an example of selflove, ie, of pursuing your happiness totally shamelessly devotedly intelligently really

pursuit of your happiness is not selfishness - selfishness is pursuing happiness stupidly, imagining that your actions have no reaction from other people

no one has the right to dictate to you or tell you what to do - you are free and you make your own decisions

[the law is a different matter - you agree to obey the laws - but you also have to judge whether to oppose the continuation of a law - and when to break a law for your good]

the law is imperfect - as faulty as people - needs improvement by people

Answer 10

Society. What's acceptable in one culture may be taboo in another.