How Do You Define Morality?

[orthodoc]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

I believe we shouldn't look for "universal morals" but the morality that helps our society and the world the best in whatever goal we pursue.

But how can you define 'best' unless you refer to some objective concept that places choices on a continuum?

One is not more "barbaric" or "advanced" than the other, but just pursuing different goals.

Do you truly believe that there is no possibility of one morality being better than another, or that no concept of 'good' or 'better than' exists? So that Nazi morality, for example, was just a choice, like choosing to dye your hair blond or red, and there was no right or wrong involved?

I personally try to do what is best for the greatest number of people or society in general and with personal decisions I'll weigh that against my own personal want/freedom and make a decision.

What would be the drive to do what is 'best', even if you could define it, for others? Won't they all be pursuing their individual 'bests'? If their 'best' means killing your children and eating them, is that just a choice, or does it have moral value?

I'm still master of the uneducated multi-quote post. Can someone please help?

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by orthodoc

I'm still master of the uneducated multi-quote post. Can someone please help?

[*quote]I'm still master of the uneducated multi-quote post[/quote]
Then take out the *

But how can you define 'best' unless you refer to some objective concept that places choices on a continuum?

I can not define best but there are common sense choices. Usually that is a mix of freedom and the voice of the people for big choices. I don't have the time to get into my personal choices and hypocriticalness right now but I can later if you want.

Do you truly believe that there is no possibility of one morality being better than another, or that no concept of 'good' or 'better than' exists? So that Nazi morality, for example, was just a choice, like choosing to dye your hair blond or red, and there was no right or wrong involved?

According to my personal morals and my society's morals, what Hitler did was bad. You can not be all accepting with morals, if there is direct confrontation with morals, you have to fight for one or the other, I have chosen my side. That also brings up another problem...I love subjective topics.

What would be the drive to do what is 'best', even if you could define it, for others? Won't they all be pursuing their individual 'bests'? If their 'best' means killing your children and eating them, is that just a choice, or does it have moral value?

The way I see it, we live in a direct relation with society. If we help society, it will help us. If we work against society, it will work against us. Its gets a lot more complicated but most situations work out that way. I can go into my own personal theories when I have the time.

[orthodoc]

I can not define best but there are common sense choices.

My point was that, without an understanding of 'good' or 'best' as an objective thing to which we can compare other things, we can't talk about good or bad or choosing sides or common sense. We wouldn't have a concept of 'good', just of what we feel like doing at the moment. In order to choose what you think of as arbitrary, personal morals, you have to use concepts of good and bad that come from an objective definition of them. If everything was really arbitrary then morality, which addresses what we ought to do rather than what we like, wouldn't be a meaningful construct and we wouldn't be having a discussion about it.

[Pie]

Originally Posted by orthodoc

Do you truly believe that there is no possibility of one morality being better than another, or that no concept of 'good' or 'better than' exists? So that Nazi morality, for example, was just a choice, like choosing to dye your hair blond or red, and there was no right or wrong involved?

I'm pretty sure that in the grander sense, the universe doesn't give a sh*t if you are a hitler. However, your mother cares, your descendants may care, and therefore you may care if only by extension. It's all tied to time, place & circumstance.
The question of why one race might consider itself to be superior is merely an extension of why our species considers itself to be the culmination of creation -- IMHO, it ain't. There is no absolute.