Morality, good or bad?

Question

Morality, is it a good or a bad thing?

For example:
It is not moral to steal. However it is moral to steal to feed a starving family.
It is not moral to kill. However it is moral to kill if it is protect your children.
It is not moral to do harm. However it is moral to not prevent harm, in the case of a mugging or alike.

Morality when examined truthfully and unbiasedly seems to be completely subjective to the situation and circumstances.

This then begs the question, Is morality a good thing since it is so subjective? Can the argument not be made that morality is dangerous due to the nature of its subjectivity?

A better system would seem to be an honour based system. Honour based systems are based on strict rules, if it is not honourable to kill it is not honourable to kill under any circumstances. Moreover an honour based system can be made with caveats for curtain rules which clearly define the boundaries for the exception to the rule i.e. it is not honourable to kill under any circumstances except under the circumstance where the ‘victim’ is posing a defined and immediate threat to the lives of those within the household. This provides for a clearly defined set of parameters and there can be no argument about it, either it was or was not honourable.

So my question is, Are morals a good thing, have they outlived their usefulness or so they still have an important function to play?

Please explain your thoughts.

Serious answers only please.

Thanks.

Answer 1

Morality is NECESSARILY both subjective and situational. Morality is simply the rules each individual follows when dealing with other humans; a lone man on a deserted island has no need of morality so long as he is alone.

Viewed as rules of interaction between individuals, morality can then be looked at in terms of how one's actions affect others. A general rule of thumb is that anything that harms another is bad, while anything that helps another or is neutral (the absence of bad), is good. From there one can develop more specific rules based on the situation. Sometimes, as in the examples you gave above, the choice is not between doing good or doing bad, but between doing slightly bad (e.g. stealing bread to feed your starving family) or very bad (allowing your family to starve when you could do something about it).

I think morals are generally good. Morals too are subject to evolutionary forces; the "better" morals have a higher chance of being passed on than do detrimental morals. Still, there are a number of outdated morals out there that persist because they're embedded within religious teachings. (E.g. the idea that it's bad to work on the Sabbath.) I would argue that such morals, created millennia ago in a very different world (more primitive & barbaric), have indeed outlived their usefulness, and should be discarded.

Answer 2

Morality is a good thing, but for a different reason than you may imagine.

First, your honesty model is still based on subjective morality. For example, your assumption that it is not honorable to kill is a subjective viewpoint, not a natural rule. There are many cultures that view killing as not only OK, but essential (like the Mayan sacrifices)

But the reason why morals, whatever they are, serve a purpose is to define the shape of a given society. Of course they're subjective, but when they are applied in a society, they provide consistency. It's sort of like spelling. There's no naturally defined way to spell a word, but a defined set of spelling rules within a society serves a function.

The morals a society adopts define it's people, and are the foundation for its culture. As such, morals are key to the formation of civilization.

Answer 3

The answer to your question is this...
Life IS NOT an "Either/Or situation...
Life IS a "Depends on the circumstances" situation.
Every case of "questionable" morality should be treated "differently," within the parameters of a "fair" trial.
The very reason our legal system treats every case as "a new case," is that it IS a "new" case!
In one case, we "as a people" think that a certain punishment is "moral," such as the punishment for "murder."
In another case we "as a people" DON'T think that putting a "non-violent" offender of "partying too much" is moral at all.
There are people serving a "worse" sentence in prison for "recreational" drug use, than those who committed "violent" crimes of a "much worse" nature.
"Morals" are interpreted "wrong" sometimes.
"Ethics," too.
The "American" struggle, is to treat each case as a "challenge" to our "built-in" instinct to think all things are either "right" or "wrong."
But our individual experiences show us that life is NOT "right' or "wrong," life is...
"Could be one or the other, could be none of the above, could be a combination of everything and nothing in-between."
Each crime/case/action is unique...and even if it "isn't" unique, the only way to be as fair as we can be, is to "treat" each case as if it is "unique."
Understand?

Answer 4

Now THAT is a funny question. If morality did not exist, then there would be no such thing as good or bad. So your question answers itself immediately. Here you go trying to ask for a moral judgment on morality!!! Therefore you are already saying that morality is GOOD!!! How did that escape you I wonder?

For your examples, please take note that subjective does not mean, depends on the situation. Subjective means depends on the subject or the observer. It is objective to say that a particular act is wrong for the particualr circumstances all the time. It would be subjective to say that a particular act is wrong for a particular person.

Now as for your honour system, you have to ask yourself a question, does law exist for the benefit of man. Or does man exist for the benefit of the law. I'm sure you can take it from there.

Now as for the answers supporting moral subjectivity below, may I now ask if you submit that the Korean mass murdering Cho acted morally simply because he thought so?

Answer 5

Yes ,morality as perceived is absolutely outdated and hangarian . What good are ten truths ,if they leaves even a single soul empty .One must have morals ,( that is enlightenment as what is good or bad ) , but not morality which is rigid. Let's have adaptive virtues. Let virtues be till I do not get or harm somebody . Morality is upheld by those self -proclaimed world do -gooders when in their own back -yard some outrageous things happen and they turn blind eyes to them .

Answer 6

nicely each little thing quite slightly has a real opposite (or what scientifically minded human beings might want to call an equivalent and opposite reaction). homicide is undesirable, self protection is permissible. Stealing is forbidden, yet stealing to live to tell the tale might want to be extra sympathetic. yet what you seem announcing is that considering that those are possible contradictory, it would want to be extra efficient as if there have been no morality, which skill because it really is lawful to act in self-protection, for this reason the idea of homicide is contradictory and for that reason it will be approved for any reason. in case you made the kind of end, you may want to be calling for the death of all civilization. guy is by way of their nature an animal that needs to be ruled.

Answer 7

Surely certain question of morality are subjective, but on the more general questions, I think we can basically agree with what constitutes moral behavior. You're examples in the beginning are good ones, and those who live in a rational and educated society can generally agree with them.

Answer 8

If we want to go like the the Roman Empire then No Morals would be fine. Our society would simply collapse from within and logically Morals (good or bad) would be redundant.

Answer 9

LOLOLOL.... Morals are not the problem nor the systems in place!!! Its what's wielding them..... "Operator error"! LOL Human beings are inherently flawed by design! You can have any perfect system in place you want, it won't be or remain that way if human beings have anything to do with it!!! LOL

Answer 10

Morality is an honor based system. Simple huh?

Jonnie