R&Srs, your opinion on a final moral authority...?

Question

Basically, it's like this. I'd like to read some responses to this from various sources. The question is, Who is the final authority on the subject of morals and right vs wrong?

Do you think that it is each individual person according to the dictates of their conscience?

Do you believe it's the head of a family or tribe?

Do you believe that a government or national leader should define what's right and wrong?

To say that no one should would be to say that each individual makes the determination themselves.

The reason I ask is because many answerers on R&S say that certain things are wrong - even many that are not religious. What exactly are these opinions based on? Who do you consider the final moral authority?

Answer 1

The word of God.

Answer 2

In reality, the final moral authority is the society in which one lives. Whether you believe in God or not, there are certain things that are taboo because the society makes that decision. This is the reason why dictatorships or totalitarian rule is so suspect and dangerous...one person making decisions for everyone in a society many times leads to defining ethics and morality on that one person's opinions.

Answer 3

Each individual person according to the dictates of their conscience. This does not mean anything goes. I believe that people are innately moral and want to do good. Those that harm others are punished by society through the legal system or societal sanctions.
.

Answer 4

There is thankfully no 'final' say. The system of individuals and institutions having input makes for reasonably good checks and balances.

The application of morality comes down to the individual though - a person either does or doesn't, and is alone in the decision.

Answer 5

Thankfully, as someone else pointed out, there is no 'final' authority.

The concept of morality, as well as right and wrong, have evolved with civilization and society. Things that were considered moral (and in some cases, even honorable), such as cannabalism, ascension to power through murder, etc., are now considered wrong. Currently, we have evolved to the point of personal freedom, as long as it doesn't infringe on someone else's freedoms; and there's no telling how this will change in the next 100 years of so.

Answer 6

There are some things in the world, like child molestation or genocide, that are so evil we cannot honestly say, "it might be good or bad, depending on your perspective, and either viewpoint is valid".

This gut reaction, this instinctive moral understanding, is evidence that there IS a moral standard out there. We may not fully understand it, but we know in our hearts that some things are quite simply good and others can't be called anything but evil.

The Bible says that this moral standard is established by God, our Creator. This makes sense to me in light of the fact that all over the world, in every culture, there is a moral standard. It might not be the same as it is elsewhere, but it exists.

Everyone has that instinctive compulsion to make moral judgments- about the guy who just cut us off on the highway, the person who broke into our house, and the woman who died rescuing a child from a burning house.

But if we want to go beyond the fact that there IS a moral standard, and we want to find out what the specifics of that standard actually are, we must go to the Source of morality: God Himself. Unless He communicates His expectations to us, we cannot know what they are. Hence the Bible: an introduction to God, His standards, our failure to meet them, and His solution.

When we failed to meet God's standards, we deserved His judgment. But He sent Jesus to die for us, to take the death penalty WE deserved, and then raised Him from the dead. By trusting in what He did for us, we (the law-breakers) can receive the forgiveness of the Law-Giver.

Without God as the standard-giver, all morality becomes reduced to opinions and polls: "The majority think that theft is usually wrong". But we know in our hearts that there are some things that really ARE evil, so therefore we know that there must be a real absolute moral standard, and therefore we know there must be Someone behind it.

Answer 7

i'm no longer completely confident the place you get carry of the thought there is not any such ingredient as ethical authority. I merely do no longer have faith ethical authority flows from a Bronze-age e book of mythology. regulation, custom and custom and guy or woman sense of compassion are the foundation for morality. I declare myself as my maximum suitable arbiter of ethical authority, besides the fact that I understand that my custom and society has regulations, and that if I transgress against those regulations, whether i think authorized to realize this, i'm going to be punished by using my community. i've got faith you may desire to by using arguing for a declare of a few form of divine and absolute ethical authority, wherein case, your first assertion is real. there is not any such ingredient.

Answer 8

my common sense tells me what is right and what is wrong, and my common sense tells me that if i wouldn't want it done to me then i shouldn't do it to others. as long as what you do does not directly nor indirectly hurt others then i see no problem.

atheist