Everyone has a different perception of morality. Some are moral because they believe they will be rewarded for it, and punished if they are amoral. This reward/punishment system could be government based, religious based, or even down to parents and their children.
In my opinion genuine morality means that one is moral despite rewards/punishments. If one can be moral for the sheer sake of the good of mankind, then that is a stronger sense of morality than the reward/punishment basis.
2006-09-11 09:34:33
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
In my opinion, morality is a matter of how YOU view it. It is a matter of opinion. Not anyone Else's opinion but your own. You may do something that others think is immoral, but there are others who see what you did as moral. Because someone says something you did is immoral, doesn't make it true. Your morals are your own. It is up to you to decide what is morally correct, not society.
2006-09-11 16:28:26
·
answer #2
·
answered by wilchy 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Simply following the rules of your society. Whatever society decides is moral, is moral, and whatever it decides is immoral, is immoral. It's strictly a societal concept.
2006-09-11 16:25:14
·
answer #3
·
answered by The Resurrectionist 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
The Definition of Morality
First published Wed Apr 17, 2002; substantive revision Thu Apr 21, 2005
The term “morality” can be used either
1. descriptively to refer to a code of conduct put forward by a society or,
1. some other group, such as a religion, or
2. accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.
How morality is defined plays a crucial, although often unacknowledged, role in formulating ethical theories. To take “morality” to refer to an actually existing code of conduct is quite likely to lead to some form of relativism. Among those who use “morality” normatively, different specifications of the conditions under which all rational persons would put forward a code of conduct result in different kinds of moral theories. To claim that “morality” in the normative sense does not have any referent, that is, to claim that there is no code of conduct that, under any plausible specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons, results in moral skepticism. Thus, although, not widely discussed, the definition of morality has great significance for moral theory.
When “morality” is used in this descriptive way, moralities can differ from each other in their content and in the foundation that members of the society claim their morality to have. A society might have a morality that is primarily concerned with practices not related to other persons, e.g., which days must be devoted to certain rituals, and might claim that their morality, which is concerned primarily with ritual, is based on the commands of God. Or a society might have a morality that is concerned primarily with sexual practices, and claim that their morality, which has this concern, is based on human nature. Or a society might regard morality as being concerned primarily with practices that minimize the harms that people suffer and claim that their morality, which has this concern, is based on reason. Many societies have moralities that are concerned with all of the above and that are claimed to have all three of the above foundations. But, in this sense of “morality,” regardless of its content, or the justification that those who accept the morality claim for it, the only universal features that all moralities have is that they are put forward by a society and they provide a guide for the behavior of the people in that society. In this sense of “morality,” morality might allow slavery or might allow some people with one skin color to behave in ways that those with a different skin color are not allowed to behave. In this sense of “morality,” it is not even essential that morality incorporate impartiality with regard to all moral agents, those people whose behavior is subject to moral judgments, or that it be universalizable in any significant way.
2006-09-11 16:34:19
·
answer #4
·
answered by Amy L 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Enduring to the end without falling into any pitfalls that go against what you feel is moral.
2006-09-11 16:24:59
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Living in the state of unconditional LOVE.
2006-09-11 16:34:52
·
answer #6
·
answered by Weldon 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Morality is subjective. You have to decide for yourself, what YOU think morales are. Is it immoral to steal? To most people, yes...but to the person stealing because his/her children are starving and they have to have food...it isn't .
2006-09-11 16:24:38
·
answer #7
·
answered by Lisa E 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
Golden rule is a nice guideline. Don't do stuff to others that you wouldn't want done to you.
2006-09-11 16:28:55
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
You would have to ask the Biblical God on that one. None of us could give you anything useful.
2006-09-11 16:24:43
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Bible says to keep the commandments
2006-09-11 16:24:31
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋