Top | Newest First | Oldest First
SW-User
It’s simple, in my opinion. If it has a diminishing affect on wellbeing, then it’s wrong. All we have to do is agree morality correlates to wellbeing; from there we can make objective statements regarding morality, and not all answers to moral questions would be equal.
View 1 more replies »
Mickwnes72 · 51-55, M
@SW-User has a Buddhist element to it
SomeHand · 31-35, M
@Mickwnes72 Islamically anything that is a sin is not good for you. There are circumstances in Islam such that stealing food is permissible if you are going to die if you don’t steal (I.e. no other means available).
SW-User
The problem with that is; what is the criteria by which a sin is determined in the religion of Islam? It’s whatever is written in their Stone Age books, right. It’s outdated, and things condoned in the religion of Islam, are today condemned. However, a secular morality can evolve alongside our ever changing understanding of reality. It can take into consideration new information.
TeresaRudolph71 · 51-55, F
Here's how I see it: Your rights end where the next person's rights begin. If you're doing something that is harmful to someone else, that's wrong.
Of course, this still leaves a couple of questions. Is it okay to take your own life, or harm yourself? And what about the way we treat animals?
I think it's also wrong to harm ourselves, as this causes pain and grief to those who care about us, and to ourselves.
As for animals, this is a bit of a gray area. Some people say that we should treat all animals with the same respect we treat humans. I think that's a bit extreme, because then we couldn't even kill mosquitoes. But I do think it's wrong to torture or needlessly kill certain kinds of animals, like dogs and cats. I guess I tend to play favorites when it comes to animals. But then, doesn't everyone?
Unlike some people, I do believe in moral absolutes. I remember a story someone told about a young man who was taking a logic class in college. The first thing his professor said, on the first day of class, was "There are no absolutes." The young man immediately raised his hand and said, "That's an absolute." The professor flunked him. But I don't think he should have flunked him. I think the professor was just upset because his student had hurt his ego by calling him out. But that's just my two cents.
Of course, this still leaves a couple of questions. Is it okay to take your own life, or harm yourself? And what about the way we treat animals?
I think it's also wrong to harm ourselves, as this causes pain and grief to those who care about us, and to ourselves.
As for animals, this is a bit of a gray area. Some people say that we should treat all animals with the same respect we treat humans. I think that's a bit extreme, because then we couldn't even kill mosquitoes. But I do think it's wrong to torture or needlessly kill certain kinds of animals, like dogs and cats. I guess I tend to play favorites when it comes to animals. But then, doesn't everyone?
Unlike some people, I do believe in moral absolutes. I remember a story someone told about a young man who was taking a logic class in college. The first thing his professor said, on the first day of class, was "There are no absolutes." The young man immediately raised his hand and said, "That's an absolute." The professor flunked him. But I don't think he should have flunked him. I think the professor was just upset because his student had hurt his ego by calling him out. But that's just my two cents.
SW-User
I need to re-read Pirsig’s Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.
He argued (I think) that most of us can see “quality.” Some better than others.
Think about those toothpick bridges we made in science class. You could tell which ones were “quality” and which ones would probably hold weight.
Hence, morals might be the same way. We sense what is of good morality. Most of shade a base sense of it. Some have it better than others or through training/teaching get better.
He argued (I think) that most of us can see “quality.” Some better than others.
Think about those toothpick bridges we made in science class. You could tell which ones were “quality” and which ones would probably hold weight.
Hence, morals might be the same way. We sense what is of good morality. Most of shade a base sense of it. Some have it better than others or through training/teaching get better.
StokedFox · 36-40, F
I believe it's all indifferent. We need harmony to coexist, evolve and survive. But chaos is inevitable. I strive for kindness and choose my battles very carefully. When people call things good or bad, I don't listen. In the end nobody knows, so go with your heart.
Mickwnes72 · 51-55, M
@StokedFox good answer
SomeHand · 31-35, M
Guidance from God. And “fitrah” ( the innate disposition). Also when we have complex emotions such as guilt and shame.
SW-User
Faith
bijouxbroussard · F
“Morality” is indeed relative; determined by social, cultural, religious, even national customs and mores. It’s why many specifics are not universally acceptable, ie, the death penalty, “honor” killings, etc.