Who or WHAT decides what is "moral" according to society?

Question

This is a question for everyone. I'm asking it of this section simply because even though this tangent I'm on is fairly philosophical, I'd like to hear from all belief systems on this.
Now, for the details. The reason I'm asking this question is because I hear many people saying that the government can't "legislate morality." So whose morality do we use? Who's to say what's right or wrong? Do we use circular reasoning to decide, if it's apart from God's law? What I mean by circular reasoning is, what is moral is decided based upon society, which then affects what the government rules; at the same time, the laws which we're governed by are dictated to us by those who are in charge. But what happens if NOTHING is considered wrong by society? Can government still step in and legislate? (These questions are rhetorical.)

And before anyone can say it, I'm not implying that a person cannot be non-religious and still be "moral." I'm just curious how we decide what's right and wrong.

Answer 1

The silent majority, or public trend. It isn't a single body of people or a government etc...

Answer 2

It's one of those things that's very hard to pin down, and not something an intelligent person can say with any certainty - which is why there's still a lot of debate between ethics philosophers...

We do know however, that morality changes, it's a "shifting Zeitgeist". Slavery was once considered moral, burning nonbelievers to death was also once considered moral. Clearly those things aren't seen as moral anymore. Even fairly recently such as WWII, a single day would see many hundreds of thousands of people dead - far worse than the Iraqi war, but morality has changed to where even the death of a couple hundred or thousand soldiers really effects us and makes us cringe.

However, we do know that morality is not derived from the bible or any other holy books. Simply the fact that morality has changed so much while the bible has not is indicative of this point. More pressing though is the fact that if morality was derived from the bible we would still own slaves, would kill any people of other religions (men women and their children), wouldn't be allowed to go near a woman who's on her period, would stone to death disobedient children (which even Jesus says to do, twice), kill a woman if she marries and her husband doesn't think she was a virgin, force a woman to marry her rapist (if he's caught in the act, otherwise he's free), it would be an "abomination" to eat shrimp or lobster, we would be morally obligated to kill our own family if they believe other gods, and so on. The Torrah is much the same and the Quran is even worse.

So obviously morality isn't based on religious texts because everybody cherry picks passages while either ignoring or making excuses for those they don't like. On what basis do they cherry pick? What makes them think that homosexuality is a sin while they completely ignore the part just 3 verses above it (on the same damn page!) that says we should kill disobedient children? How can they also ignore the part 5 verses below their "homosexuality is a sin" where it says "having sex with a woman on her period is an abomination" and they should both be deported?

So their morals are not biblical, they're not simply from law either (that should be fairly evident) so where do morals come from?

Evolutionary Psychology has some answers, and some explanations of how we evolved to have morals, but much of it is still unknown.

Frankly, society knows, there's a common consensus, and we're not entirely sure yet how it comes about.

Answer 3

It is a societal question based on the principles and concepts deemed acceptable by the people. For this reason laws are not static. The problem with religious authority is that it seeks to be absolute based on concepts that may or not be relevant in the current time period. Government cannot legislate morality and law is not morality. It is instead an absolute based on specific behaviors and actions. Morality transcends these absolutes because the concept deals with the existential idea of right and wrong based on the ideology of the person making the determination. So government can pass laws, but these laws will not stand if the people do not accept and embrace the concept in which they are presented.

Example: I think having an affair is immoral. This is based on my belief that if you profess to love someone then loyalty to that union should be absolute and unwavering. However 2 different people might decide that they are okay with engaging in sexual conduct with other partners and therefore form a loyalty based on that concept. So is their behavior really immoral? Only from my viewpoint. However, if enough people share my viewpoint then it becomes immoral as a standard for societal behavior in general.

Answer 4

This is definitely more of a philosophical question.

As such I guess I will have to argue from a philosophical view. Much of this question and answer has to do with your personal view of philosophy and ethics. Are you a Natural Law philosopher? Then there is a set code of conduct that is pretty much universal throughout society. Are you more of a Moral Relativist? Then what you believe is right and wrong is ultimately up to you and you alone.

Ultimately, as much as people hate it, government does legislate morality. There is no way around it. The Government decided that it was wrong to murder, so they made a law against it. The government decided it was morally wrong to take what is not yours, so they outlawed it.

In final response, without a governing body society would become anarchical. There would be nothing stopping people from doing anything they so wanted to do. This is called the Natural State in Philosophy. This is the state that Social Contract philosophers believe humans were in before the creation of society. Each person looks out only for themselves, as an effect people live in continual fear and danger of violent death; the life of a man is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.

When it comes down to it, the Government has power over us because we gave it that power, and they do in most cases legislate morality.

Answer 5

The purpose of government is to create a stable society in which the rights of people are not violated by other people, including the people that work for the government. Anything necessary to that end is not moral in nature, because the freedoms granted are negative, not positive; e.g., you have no restriction to saving your money to buy a big screen television, but you do not have the right to that television itself (and, therefore, should receive it even if you can't pay for it). The government isn't saying something is right or wrong; it's merely stating that society will be structured in a certain way so as to prevent rights abuses.

Morality deals with how an individual guides his/her own decisions and actions. The government can put barriers in the way to keep you from acting in certain ways, but they cannot decide things for you, and certainly can't force you to believe something that you think it's false. When it tries to restrict a person from doing something that is not harming anybody, it is being abusive, not because of a moral system, but because it is overstepping its boundaries and assigning to somebody, somewhere, a positive right.

Answer 6

The past decides what's moral. The distant past as well as the fairly recent past. I would say at least 100 years ago would constitute "fairly recent past". Anything earlier than that and a majority of a society can argue "That's not the way it was when I was growing up." So we (today) are making choices that in a hundred years will shape what our great, great grandkids will grow up believing is moral. Morals are kind of like global warming, they don't change in the short term, it takes a LONG time for anything really noticable to happen. But just as there are "climatical changes" there are "social ques" that change... well like the weather.

Answer 7

Society decides what is moral according to society. What is it we mean by "society?" In this instance let's stipulate that society means the collective wisdom of the culture in which one lives.

The pressures to conform to a basic ethical code are first of all genetic. Since we are social animals we are born with an instinct for what works in a social setting. Through observation, teaching and experience, those instincts are honed.

As societies become more complex, moving away from the tribal to the urban, for example, the ethics that have been developed are codified and become laws.

Answer 8

I believe it is pain who decides what is MORAL. or HAPPENS which decides the MORAL.
we know what pain means and what ever comes out of it then we base our Moral. like when we hear some one got killed the pain proofs that the killer had no Moral.
Happens, when we hear a person is happy for any reason this person will have a good Moral cause he/she sends out good Moral vibes.
HISTORY decides what is MORAL. Out of history comes small groups or society which they base the Moral only on 2 things BAD or GOOD. RIGHT OR WRONG.

Answer 9

Morality is determined by God, not by mankind. If mankind determines morality then it is subjective. That means theres nothing REALLY wrong with what Hitler did, you just happen to disagree with it. Subjective morality creates a set of principles that nobody can live by.

Is murder still wrong if society agrees it is ok? Of coarse it is. Humans do not determine what is right and wrong, God does. Even if they do for a short time accept a falsehood, everyone else knows better.

Answer 10

Society decides.