From where should we derive our "Moral Authority" for society?

Question

By Moral Authority I mean that which defines good and evil, right and wrong.
Here are some examples, please note this is not a comprehensive list and I don't mean for you to chose from it, they are just examples of what I mean by Moral Authority:

1. God, as you define him/her/it
2. God, as a religious text defines him/her/it
3. Yourself, you decide what is right and wrong
4. Family/Friends/People you know
5. Majority Rules (voting)
6. Elected Officials (president, parliament, congress, etc)
7. Courts (like the Supreme Court)

I know some of you will be tempted to say more than one from the above, but ultimately when two of these conflict (like the Supreme Court vs. Majority Rules) you will have a tendency to lean toward one or the other, so please chose your primary "Moral Authority" source and then say WHY.
I of course have an opinion, but this is a question, not a soapbox, and best answer will be chosen on who gives the most comprehensive and best argument for their choice.
Thanks!

From where do you get your definition of Karma? A book, a person, etc.? Who defines what Karma is what it is not?

Who defines what common sense is?

Capitan Atheism: Am I correct is saying your opinion is that we should look out for ourselves and by doing so we look out for all of society? Is that the "social contract?"

Cap. Atheism: Thank you for your edit. I think you concept of the social contract is an interesting one. My question was, where "should" we derive our MA, not where do we get it from now. In an ideal world, where from where should we decide what is morally right and wrong? thanks!

Answer 1

There is actually one more. It's called "social contract". It's basically number 5, but a little different. Social contract is the instinct that all animals have, to do what they feel is best for their survival. This generally involves the survival of their peers.

You can see the social contract when you look at a pack of wolves, or a colony of gorillas. There is no rational thought that goes into their behavior. They just group together, and work together, to ensure each other's survival.

In doing this, they help ensure their own survival.

We are no different.

Edit - to your edit, I'm not saying we "should" necessarily. But I do believe that that is the basis of our morality, currently. The interesting thing is, we do have the ability to imagine something that is perhaps a bit "greater". One day maybe it will be our instinct to act on it.

Edit Edit - :) Boy, what SHOULD we derive it from? Phew, I'm not really sure. But as I said, we can imagine some pretty good stuff. I guess the best thing I've heard out of humanity yet is the "Golden Rule". I'm also a big fan of Taoist philosophy, which is a bit more complicated. That's how I try to live my life, but I falter just like anyone else. I'm certainly not as "enlightened" as I would like to be. :)

Answer 2

2. God, as a religious text defines him/her/it
Think about all of the other answers here. What do you think about other people's opinions? Even if God was invented by people, it's the only answer above that doesn't directly depend on a person or people to decide what's right. Do you think that anyone or even any small group of people you know has any authority over you and is completely just when exercising it? Does it really get better when you include EVERYBODY and decide on the majority?

Answer 3

I try to separate my moral code from any spiritual... opinions I may hold, because I think it is I'd like to think that morality should not be dependant on fear of punishment or the hope of some future reward. To act "morally" because we fear God or the law, or because we expect reward for our actions is not moral. It is reactionary, which makes it inherently animalistic.

Instead, I'd say my moral code is philosophically deduced. I start from the point of departure that the animal kingdom follows the morality of survival - every man for himself, the strong survive, etc. And for the animal kingdom this is indeed the only real alternative. Animals don't have the social structures, capacity for reason or wisdom needed for anything other than to rely on themselves. By this morality of survival, a good act is any act that maximises the survival of the individual and the group, and a bad act one that threatens that survival.

Now, like it or not, but we are animals, and as such, our natural moral state is that of survival at all costs. We react. When we feel threatened, we lash out, when we need, we take, by force if necessary, regardless of the consequences to others, the environment, or even our own long-term welfare.

But we are also more than animals. We have conscience, we can reason. But most importantly, we can choose - we have free will. That is what separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom, we can go against our instincts if we choose to do so. As fully realised human beings, we are subject to the morality of Choice/Will.

So I define a basically moral act as an act that maximises free will for the individual and the group, and an evil act as one that limits that free will.

You can apply this to pretty-much any situation. Take murder, for example. By commiting murder, you are constraining the other person's choice to live or die, so you are commiting an evil act. By the same token though, denying somebody the right to suicide is also evil, because likewise, you are constraining his free will.

You'll notice that this bears a marked similarity to the Wiccan Rede.

"An it harm none, do as ye will"

That's because it is. I constructed this myself from my readings of philosophy and religion, but I identify myself primarily as a Buddhist/Wiccan, because I've found them to bear the closest resemblance to my own code.

Answer 4

All individual moral authority is derived from sentiment. We can gather as much information about a subject as we wish, but it will always be how we feel about that information that decides what we will consider right or wrong to do. This is true whether our sentiment is shaped to defer to some deity, legal structure, or confidant. Society as a whole, then, should do its best to provide examples that instill care for our fellow beings, and the intellectual capacity to evaluate information clearly. Then morality will generally be straightforward.

Answer 5

Since morals are really nothing more than actions that are acceptable to a given society, I would have to say Majority rule if I can only pick one. Truthfully I believe it needs to be a combination of most of your choices to ensure minority beliefs are not trampled. Except personal belief. That leaves the door wide open for anything. A psychopath doesn't think he is doing anything wrong.

Answer 6

Depends on the political system. Small tribal groups decide by consensus. Larger groups decide according to the will of the tribal chief: in still larger groups such as temple-states there is a balance between the political power of the King and that of the Preistly classes. Democracy is a further development, but except in the case of referrenda, decisions are still made by a political class - the only difference being that they are ultimately held accountable to the people through elections.

Answer 7

I think that Kant's "categorical imperative" is a very good "golden moral rule" for society. Why is this not on your list of suggestions? :)

It basically says what nuthnbettr already said: Do not do to others what you do not want done to you. Ask yourself how society would be if everyone acted like you.

I think this principle is worth more that all your seven suggestions combined :)

Cheers!

Answer 8

The Good Lord gave us enough since to know right from wrong. It's a person choice whether they want to follow it. I personally, don't believe people that say they don't know the difference between right and wrong, for example a person that goes out and kills a bunch of people. They get to court and say they didn't know what they were doing. I think that it's a bunch of crap when they say that. They just don't want to take responsibility for their actions.

Answer 9

Moral decisions have been made based on biblical knowledge/ Christian faith for centuries. It's just that we live in a fallen world that is increasingly circling the moral drain. Even in the court system, morals were biblically based. My choice.... the Bible.

Answer 10

If you imagine that karma is real and that every thought word and deed you put out there will be revisited on you, that is a good place to start.