Feel free to justify your foundation as well...
2007-05-31 07:50:16 · 14 answers · asked by InvisibleHand 3 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Lots of great answers. Thanks!
2007-06-02 04:09:17 · update #1
All of my moral decisions follow (or should follow) this evaluation process:
1st - The positive or negative impact of that action/stance on another human being. If no impact, then . . . .2nd - The positive or negative impact of that action/stance on another living creature. If no impact, then . . . 3rd - The positive or negative impact of that action/stance on my environment (Earth). If no impact, then . . . .4th The positive or negative impact of that action/stance on me.
Watch out for sleepers, for example - Polluting water sounds like a 4th level consideration, but it clearly impacts other humans negatively, so it would morally be a 1st level consideration.
2007-05-31 08:36:17 · answer #1 · answered by freebird 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Reading all the answers make me feel dimmed. They all seem so smart =/
But anyways, you're taught right from wrong somehow, but you're always taught that. However, it's by the teacher that makes everything all screwed up. If you were to have a good role model who knew what and how to teach you this kind of stuff, then you would be able to recognize good morals. And vice versa. Bad model means that you might think the normally bad morals would be considered good in your opinion and vice versa.
And of course, it depends on how you want to use this information and what you think is right. Meaning that you know what's right and what's wrong, but you want to be wrong instead of being right. It could go out as a lot of factors between who's a good person and who's a bad person.
2007-05-31 19:31:15 · answer #2 · answered by Banana Hero [sic] 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is self, other selfs, and groups of selfs. Each self or group of selfs has a wellness score. Every action affects every selfs wellness score the higher the score the moreler the choice the lower the score the unmoreler the choice. Then things get really confusing when we introduce morel laws. Like it is wrong to kill. It so violets the wellness of one self no matter how much it brings up other selfs or groups of selfs scores the action is unmoral. Every culture draws these moral laws up a little different but the ideas are the same. You me us and them. This is what they taught me in school anyways.
2007-05-31 15:12:09 · answer #3 · answered by grey_worms 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The line between right and wrong is a grey area. Human actions can directly or indirectly produce a level of "harm" to themselves, others and/or the environment. Low levels of harm may be acceptable or even necessary. High levels of harm would be inexcusable. Everyone is different and doing the best they can. Perhaps we should focus on eleiminating crimes against humanity and stop punishing people for trivial behavior.
2007-05-31 15:05:44 · answer #4 · answered by Jane Henry 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The foundation of my beliefs regarding what is right and what is wrong, is simply common sense.
Killing people is wrong.
Giving to charity services is right.
Smoking is wrong.
Eating healthy is right.
Name-calling is wrong.
Complimenting is right.
Get it? It's basic common sense.
When the line is skewed and a logical conclusion cannot be reached, it is up to the individiual to decide what is BEST, even if it is slightly wrong.
2007-05-31 15:19:30 · answer #5 · answered by its_victoria08 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ultimately, morality is based on the natural law of the universe.
Most religions are based on natural law. I was raised catholic, educated by clerics and was well versed in epistomology and metaphysics as well as theology.
Morality is relative and expresses local cultural norms.
Unfortunately, the "anything goes" form of participation in society, leads to no responsibility for the societal mores.
2007-05-31 15:08:13 · answer #6 · answered by jerry_seinfeldfan 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think that the major influence is not religion but the way you are raised by your parents. Studies have proven that children raised alone tend to be more criminal as they don't know the difference between right and wrong. Of course, parents can be a bad influence if they beat or hurt their children
2007-05-31 14:55:34 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
All things considered, what is the fairest thing I can do in this situation? It is obviously flawed by how much I know and the fact that my personal interpretation of fair might not be yours, but you've got to start somewhere. I have to sharpen it up and choose rules and sanctions with my class but it is always difficult to deal with exceptions.
2007-05-31 14:58:20 · answer #8 · answered by K H 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
My brain.
In a combination of genetics and upbringing my brain has come up with a general sense of what I consider right-wrong- and gray.
I read a lot of eastern philo and science. I am currently a nihilist if that helps.
2007-05-31 15:09:56 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Generally, the golden rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Of course, if there is a certain action that you don't mind someone else doing to you, but you know it bothers the possessins out of them, then that's not right.
2007-05-31 15:27:48 · answer #10 · answered by thesunwasshiningonthesea 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋