How should we measure morality by a universal standard?

Question

We all need to be govern by a set of laws, yet a supernaturally preordained ethical system is often a morality without meaning, and moral relativism do not resolve moral judgements in disagreement?

Is it always a tedious case by case process, or do a universal system exist but is undiscovered by all?Hope that made sense.

Thanks.

Answer 1

You have answered the question in posing the question, it is in the universal that morality lies. this is to say that be absolving oneself into the universal a person can do no other then that which is in accord with this universal, being then that this act is nothing other then moral.
a maxim that provides the answer you are looking for follows as such “I ought never to act except in such a way that I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law.” It would follow then that the morality of an action, in this regard, is to be found in the sustainability of that action. This is to say that if an action universally applied becomes problematic in this universal application then it is not good; e.g., it is immoral to kill because if killing another was a universal law then all of us would be killing each other and society could not be sustained.

Answer 2

Well put. I wish I had a good answer. We already know right from wrong without having to resort to "supernaturally preordained ethical system(s)." It's just that there's too many people. I think it's the degree of selfishness amongst billions of humans that causes moral decay. The competitiveness of humans determines who benefits. Those that are more competitive (and criminal if they have to be) are the ones that benefit at the expense of moral values.

Answer 3

First of all Morality cannot strictly be legislated, while ethics has pretty much become long registered with standards. Morality is a very specific, personal, individual issue, and impossible in a Universal sense, when interpreted by various people and cultures. What is GOOD to me, may not be to YOU, and certainly, possibly, not to ALL.

Obviously morality is as widely known, IE: "Though shalt not kill" isn't just some rambling set in "Stone"

The issue is more related to WHO judges moralities, and decides what is or isn't WRONG in any given situation or circumstance. An example of that might be equated to a kill or be killed issue, where I might be the ONLY one who can decide, is it OK for me to kill someone attempting to kill me? I suspect some might suggest BOTH are wrong in that case, but if I allowed it to happen, I'd not be alive to offer my own opinion.

Steven Wolf

Answer 4

Individuality and life. A little thing I like to call "The New Golden Rule". Rather than "do unto other as you would have them do unto you" try "don't do unto others as you would not have done unto you". When you hold life and individuality as your prime in an ethical philosophy you will find that those are the true universal laws.

Killing is wrong because it is taking someones life without their permission, compromising their life and individuality.

Stealing is wrong because it is that persons property for which they spent their time and individuality earning.

Cheating in a relationship is wrong because it is forcing another person under false pretenses into a relationship under the guise of monogamy when in fact it is not.

It goes on and on from there. I'd suggest reading Ayn Rand. Her fiction is dry but has excellent philosophical points. Her non-fiction is excellent philosophically (although she is a bit of a zealot and contradictory at points).

Another good book is "Bible Stories Your Parents Never Told You". I can't remember the author, but it is an excellent book. Even if you don't want to read the negative references to the bible, in the second half he lays out a very Randian concept of ethics.

If you are interested in fantasy novels, Terry Goodkind wrote an excellent series of books called "The Sword of Truth" series. Dragons and magic and what not, but in the books he illustrates Rands philosophy quite well without all the zealotry. Plus, his fiction is better than Rands.

Answer 5

I don't think, as of yet, that it would be possible to measure morality by any type of universal standard. The world as we currently know it is simply too diverse and divided to impose any universal moral code or standard. Even the few things that you would think everyone could agree on (murder, rape, etc.), there are people out there that do not think those acts are morally wrong. I think, once we exist as a planet and not as countries, what you hope for may be achieved.

Answer 6

That’s a great question. If you can define morality in an objective way, I can answer your question. In fact, the answer to your question is a objective definition. The problem with the word morality is just vague enough that people don’t quite know what it means. To make this concise, I will state that morality can be measured by the degree of happiness it results in, to the entity performing the action.

By my definition, in order to determine if something is moral to yourself, you need to attempt to predict what the result will be. If that result produces happiness then it is moral.

Answer 7

"who is to say there is any basis to pass judgment?" Nobody. Your point? Morality is subjective. Believing it is objective does not change its subjectivity. The laws established today are [typically] put into action because they benefit society as a whole. I mean, it doesn't take a genius to tell you that murdering someone doesn't help society. If everyone in the world murdered someone, do you know how many people would be left? None.

Answer 8

You cannot legislate morality. It always ends in failure after causing unrest and tragedy.
So it may be inefficient by your standards and be inconvienent, but it is a personal set of rules unique to each individual. Let it be.

Answer 9

How about "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you."? -- The "Golden Rule." That sounds like it should work for most situations involving morality.

Answer 10

Morality should simply be the golden rule. Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. Nothing else.