It seems like it's been a while since there was a Morality topic (sure there is, what makes Sin, Sin, but I contest that has little to do with morality and more to do with organized religion).
So what creates morality? What causes actions to be good and bad? Or does morality exist at all?
In this situation, both the person selling food and the thief may have their own ideas concerning morality, but this in itself does not make either person correct.
Yes and that's the point. Each person according to their perspective see the situation from differently from a moral aspect. That's because they are subjective.
Second, you're assuming that a hypothetical morality applies only to the adherence of rules. This is not necessarily true.
No I'm not making that assumption with this example. Like with the thief, the rules may say he is in the wrong, but he still sees what he is doing as morally acceptable regardless of the rules.
Each person according to their perspective see the situation from differently from a moral aspect. That's because they are subjective.
Well then, just because people can have different views does not say anything at all about the reality or the truth. And "the rules" do not say anything about it either.
I am inquiring about the underlying reasons why things are right or wrong. I am not talking about how two different people can have differing opinions on the subject of morality.
Everything is an object.
Well...what is pressure? What is acceleration? Surely these also are not objects!
How do you figure? You just explained how they were physical objects. Everything is an object.
Sorry - I just realized that I misused many words in that previous post.
Everything may exist physically, but that doesn't necessarily make them an object.
Thus, this is my objection to your initial statement that Morality is not an intrinsic trait of an object. If you count actions and intentions as objects as well, then I suppose then, it may be an intrinsic trait of an object.
I have seen pedophiles say they are doing what is natural, common, etc but at least they aren't queer. To them, it's moral to **** an underage girl but immoral to **** an underage boy.
Reminds me of a remark I came across where a pedophile claimed they were "child protectors".
I am inquiring about the underlying reasons why things are right or wrong. I am not talking about how two different people can have differing opinions on the subject of morality.
The underline reason things are right or wrong is the people's individual views. Morality is nothing but opinion based. Though there can be real effects from it.
So intentions don't matter at all? Is it just as wrong for a doctor to accidentally kill a patient while trying to save him as it is for a serial killer to murder someone? Both actions have the same result, but the intentions are different.
This example isn't quite fair. The doctor is not even performing the same action as the serial killer. Unless the serial killer's MO is to perform an intentionally botched surgery on his victims the doctor is likely to have very different actions while trying to save a life.
Also on the subject of thoughts. I don't know if I can accept thoughts as objects. They certainly aren't objects in the traditional sense so I think there is room for debate there. A human can't really comprehend the form of thoughts, the same way a person can never really grasp what a computer program is. My web browser may appear to exist when viewed on my monitor, but it actually looks nothing like that. It, like all objects, is made from smaller particles, however those particles are not actually bound together. You can't remove the program from the computer and "have" it. When it's removed from it's digital environment it's no longer really a web browser is it? it's just a bunch of particles. Thoughts are the same way their form is a product of their environment. Can a thought even exist outside of a brain? If it can is it still a thought or just some nerves and electricity?
What people say or think is morality is not necessarily what morality is.
1 a : a moral discourse, statement, or lesson b : a literary or other imaginative work teaching a moral lesson
Not exactly applicable here, thought I could argue the moral lesson of the story is simply reflecting the authors belief or the readers beliefs.
2 a : a doctrine or system of moral conduct
Again usually based on a groups perspective of right and wrong, or what that particular group thinks is moral.
3 : conformity to ideals of right human conduct
Again one must first think those ideals are the right way to conduct one self.
4 : moral conduct : virtue : conformity to a standard of right
As pointed out before whether that standard is set by the individual or another person or group, it's still just the subjective views based on what they think.
Now, you have two people - A and B, which have differing views on morality. Are their views necessarily equal in merit? Or could one of their views be better than the other?
In a purely objective manner of speaking they have equal merit. However, subjectively speaking, each will have pros and cons when applied to varied situations and groups. For example, in some cultures and groups public nudity is not only accepted, but the norm within that group. In other groups the citizens are expected to meet certain standards of dress, such as have specific body parts covered. Both views are equal in merit, however when viewed against the context of the group in question we can say that one or the other is more or less valued.
As has been mentioned already, morals are only 'moral' or 'immoral' if one agrees or disagrees with them. I would contend that no moral views are more or less valuable, only that some are more or less beneficial in particular social groups or even down to specific situations. Our morality comes from our personal opinions of what is good and bad, and these are often the result of the teaching of our authority figures as well as (particularly in adulthood) personal experience and observation.
