Conscience.
2007-11-30 03:11:41
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Society as a majority. The majority decides what is or is not moral. Example: The early Mormon Church felt that multiple wives was moral. In fact, the U.S. government gave the women of the Utah territory the vote, hoping they would vote out polygamy, but they didn't. They then took away their vote. So while the majority, men and women thought that polygamy was moral. The greater majority felt it was not. So, the majority, justifies morality. It is a form of ethical relativity.
2007-11-26 17:34:41
·
answer #2
·
answered by Songbyrd JPA ✡ 7
·
2⤊
1⤋
I believe that morality is justified by our need for collective security..... the individual moral codes have been drawn up by the society so as to ensure smooth and secure cooperation amongst its members. Morality is basically a code of conduct by an individual opposite another or other individuals so as to ensure maximization of collective security and wellbeing in the society as a whole. Religions have reinforced them since the purpose of religion too was not any different..... namely ensuring the wellbeing of one and all!!
2007-11-26 19:24:13
·
answer #3
·
answered by small 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
I'd assume that results would justify the moralistic structure in question.
"Morality" itself is too relative and tenuously developed by societal implementations to be an entity in and of itself. That would require a tangible reality of abstract fictions.
2007-11-26 21:03:45
·
answer #4
·
answered by damlovash 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Reality justifies morality... What is correct, successful, rational - that which works is moral.
"If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational."
2007-11-26 23:53:10
·
answer #5
·
answered by Mr. Wizard 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Immorality may be justifying morality.
2007-11-26 18:00:37
·
answer #6
·
answered by The More I learn The More I'm Uneducated 5
·
1⤊
1⤋
I agree with Trina. Although there is an answer to the question as stated, it is a bit confusing. I'll try to answer.
Morality, in and of itself, needs no 'justification'. It is a purely individual quality that does not depend directly on outside influences. Our perceptions and experience can help shape our morality, but the ultimate judgment on how to implement it is entirely up to the individual.
2007-11-26 17:20:01
·
answer #7
·
answered by Gee Whizdom™ 5
·
2⤊
1⤋
Morality means virtues and self-control. This relates to the three types of laws.
*Laws of God
*Laws of Nature
*Laws of Man
The Laws of Man need to work on harmonizing with the laws of Nature, and the Laws of God.
Therefore, we see that morality is righteous if it is to harmonize the laws of man with the laws of nature and the laws of God.
To kill someone or cause their death outside of fair combat is immoral.
To torture anyone weather human or creature of the earth is immoral.
To allow or create trouble for others whether human or creature is immoral.
For instance, abuse of people or animals for sex is immoral because sex is governed by the laws of nature and the laws of God. When sex is handled incorrectly this can result in a disruption of the subtle biological aspects of an individual's personal existence. Even animals have sex only in season. And the main concern of humans is to use their human intelligence to understand their true eternal identity in relation to God rather than the pursuit of sensual thrills such as sex.
Therefore, when a human being is making proper use of their human intelligence they should normally have natural control of their sex and conception of children through simple abstinence.
2007-11-27 05:57:10
·
answer #8
·
answered by devotionalservice 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Immorality requires justification. Morality is self-evident.
2007-11-26 17:20:07
·
answer #9
·
answered by infinite_joke 1
·
2⤊
1⤋
MORALS ? , ooooo , pretenders ( mostly politicians and religions scholars ) had a lots of morals that's you might says. How about if i say : SELF UNDERSTANDING IN TRUTH OF ABOUTS ONE'S OWN SELF AND ALSO ONE'S OWN SELF TOWARDS OTHERS in truth.
2007-11-26 20:16:27
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋