How Do You Define Morality?

[skysidhe]

A good read about morality.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/


“Morality” is an unusual word. It is not used very much, at least not without some qualification. People do sometimes talk about “Christian morality,” “Nazi morality,” or about “the morality of the Greeks,” but they seldom talk simply about morality all by itself. Anthropologists used to claim that morality, like law, applied only within a society. They claimed that “morality” referred to that code of conduct that is put forward by a society. This account seems to fit best those societies that have no written language, where often no distinctions are made among morality, etiquette, law, and religion. But even for anthropologists “morality” does not often mean simply “code of conduct put forward by a society.” Often, morality is distinguished from etiquette, law, and religion, all of which provide codes of conduct put forward by a society.


On all of the accounts of morality as a universal guide that all rational persons would put forward for governing the behavior of all moral agents, it is concerned with promoting people living together in peace and harmony, not causing harm to others, and helping them. For most philosophers, the prohibitions against causing harm, directly or indirectly, are not taken as absolute. However, unlike most kinds of actions, a justification is needed for violating the prohibitions in order to avoid acting immorally. Some philosophers who hold a strict deontology, such as Kant, hold that it is never justified to do some of these kinds of actions. Those who hold that the principle of utility provides the foundation of morality, such as Mill, hold that it is justified to violate moral rules only when the overall direct and indirect consequences would be better. However, all those who use morality in its normative sense agree that the kinds of actions that directly or indirectly harm other people are the kinds of action with which morality is concerned.

[Hime]

To me, "morality" is defined as the best possible balance between altruism, loyalty and self-interest. All three of those are necessary at times, and which is most important can only be judged by the individual situation.

I believe that morality is subjective, if only to a certain extent. Some things are pretty much always wrong, and vice versa, but even within one religious denomination people will argue about the morality of things like stem cell research, the death penalty, or dog fighting. The answers to those questions are inevitably based on the individual priorities of the person answering them.

Personally, I'm sure a lot of people think I'm an immoral person. I have engaged in a lot of practices that the majority in my country think are wrong, although they don't hurt anyone. Since I'm not a believer in the literal text of the Bible, I don't see any reason not to behave in a way that makes me and those close to me happy. I don't mind if other people disagree as long as they don't get in my face about it too much.

[DanaC]

To me, "morality" is defined as the best possible balance between altruism, loyalty and self-interest.

I would agree with that. I think you could probably make a case for that underpinning much of what we consider 'civilised'.