Who gets to decide what's moral?

[vaguely dissatisfied]

To avoid the inevitable conflict surrounding definition, for the purposes of this particular discussion we will use the following definition:

Moral = goodness or badness of character; distinction between right and wrong.

I read alot of things about whether or not certain actions are good or bad, right or wrong. It appears that individuals set their own standards for these parameters. If this is true, should that individual judge everyone elses' behaviour based on their own moral code and is this fair or prudent?

[Jgib5328]

Well morals are all subjective, so you get to decide what is moral or immoral.

I think you certainly can judge people by your own subjective view, but you also need to objectively analyze the person as well to get an accurate judgment. IE I think drinking and partying is immoral, however I realized that 90% of the population doesn't, so what I'd consider morally weak or immoral for me, doesn't make them immoral since drinking alcohol doesn't violate their moral codes (if they have any). So I sort of take a subjective and an objective stance on people. My subjective opinion may be that, they are morally inferior to me, but objectively if they don't go against their morals, they are morally equal to me. I used to get really arrogant because I thought that I was so superior because I could follow my morals without fail, then as my mind expanded, I realized that that wasn't an objective statement.

So, you can judge someone in two ways, subjectively and objectively. The key is to know that subjective =/= truth, objective does. You can however choose how you feel about someone due to subjectivity, that would be fine. I think ideally though, that'd you'd treat everyone objectively, but that isn't possible since we are only human.

[Brutananadilewski]

I'd say that judging another's behavior is neither fair nor prudent. By what right do we have to judge in the first place? How would it be fair to judge in any sense one person's actions based on an set ideals that the other person may not share?

Furthermore, why would making judgments in the first place be prudent? Often, (this is not universal) judgments are made by one's own internal standards, and this judgment then leads to a lack of acceptance of the other person's ideals. As a quick example; swingers. Many people think this may be morally wrong, while others do not. Some people, however, judge these actions as morally wrong, and in doing so, judge the individual as having poor character. This further gets expanded into those making the judgments trying to impose their moral code on the others (as in lobbying for legislation against it, for example). In the end, what we're left with is a lack of tolerance, compassion, and understanding of those making a moral judgment towards those that they're judging. This only serves to alienate those being judged and prevents a more harmonious and peaceful society from forming.

In a rather lengthy manner, I don't deem moral judgments of others by one's own standards to be prudent because it can (and this seems to be a frequent occurrence especially in North America as of late) lead to intolerance, a lack of compassion, and a lack of understanding.

Obviously, however, a moral system must be in place in order to promote group living and a functioning society. In this sense, we must all have objective moral standards in place to evaluate the behaviors of others. The key points involved here though are: that the moral question is an objective measure (we don't let any of our own feelings or viewpoints in on the decision) and that we don't apply the judgment to the person's character (a person's behavior may be morally wrong, but this doesn't necessarily mean the person lacks character). I think that adhering to those 2 criteria is the only way to make fair and prudent moral judgments in the diverse world within which we all share the same air.

[ArchonAlarion]

All I can say is Ayn Rand. What promotes human life and human happiness is moral. Things adverse to it are immoral. We must have life to have happiness and happiness is the only "reason" to live.

[Colette]

I read alot of things about whether or not certain actions are good or bad, right or wrong. It appears that individuals set their own standards for these parameters. If this is true, should that individual judge everyone elses' behaviour based on their own moral code and is this fair or prudent?

Like it or not, I think the moral framework of Western societies is still based on a Judaeo-Christian set of moral and ethical norms. The historical separation between church and state had its beginnings in Locke's writings and ideas of the social contract in England, and in Jefferson's famous 'letter to the Denbury Baptists in the US, which was later a principle embodied as the 1st Amendment to the Constitution.

However in separating institutions, I'm not sure that governments have (or are even close to) achieving a secularization of the legal system, or the general set of 'mores' to which people adhere, regardless of what the law prescribes in the modern day.

This set of norms can include things like morals based on the ten commandments (thou shalt not kill, steal, commit adultery, and so on), and the more general ones (that I'd put in the nature of conventions rather than morals as such, about expectations for how one is to live their life - work, marriage, family, property acquisition, etc etc).

People who attempt to develop and practice their own moral code outside the scope of society's one, tend to be viewed with suspicion.

Thus as it relates to your opening question, most people might like to think they have an individual "moral code", but in the majority of cases I think this probably just amounts to minor variations on the 'general theme' that has been set by society (and handed down by parents, teachers, peers, and so on).

To the question of whether it's fair for an individual to judge others based on their own code, I suppose my response is that it's not fair or right for an individual to judge others at all (at least not openly, although they may do so privately, and indeed it would be crazy to expect people to behave like saints and not have any judgmental thoughts).

It may be appropriate to judge, if a person's behavior has harmed you personally or someone close to you, and if it falls so far outside society's unwritten 'moral code', that a reasonable person would agree with your judgment/s. Otherwise, I think by judging people are usurping a right to themselves that they don't really have (especially if it has some sort of impact or effect on the other person).

I think many people judge others on the basis that the other person is not 'acting or doing things in the way they should' (i.e. in the way the person judging would). This is not an acceptable basis; although it may affect whether you want to have a relationship with the person, or spend time with them, and so on.

[iamnotspock]

It is not a society if each individual operates according to their own moral code. That would be anarchy. The social contract as envisioned by Hobbes, in The Leviathon, is designed explicity to prevent that very threat. Better a king than a mob.

Also, each individual's actions have repercussions. This is why society must judge others. We must convict criminals. We must condemn outliers. We cannot allow the serial killer to run rampant -- or, many would argue, the serial slut. There are costs to unchecked actions. AIDS, for example, could not have spread without rampant unsafe sex.

As for religion, conservative social mores pervade countries like China and India with no Judeo Christian influence. That deflates the religious argument.

Overall, it's a neo-liberal ("liberal" used to mean Locke, who would not endorse it for those who use the term today) fantasy to let everyone do as they please. It does not work, and hasn't ever, and never will. Humans are social animals, there will always be rules, we call the ones we like "morals" -- and the rest "laws".

[Antares]

Colette: Not just religious moralities, but also capitalist moralities, as my teacher puts it. I have mentioned this experiment before where it is definitely more rational to steal, but being uppity idealists that my classmates are, they ALL refused to steal, whatever the cost. In my society (Chinese, Cantonese. They share pretty much the same values), the main influences are Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism. By the way, I really, really hate filial piety and Confucius' five relationships, but my parents never consider me their equals. Government leaders are more 'equal' than others; people abort embryos simply because the embryo's female; or in a more severe case, drown female infants (Or like Confucius said: Husband over Wife; let her obey and not be rude, let her suffer. Or something of that like. Nothing especially original, I don't think). Government institutions are always publishing what they call the eight 'honorables and despicables', and some of them are: "Never hang Taiwanese flags" (My History teacher did, illegally. But he's American working in an institution run by the US government, so I don't think it'd matter) "If you disagree with your country, its despicable." Hello? What if your country's wrong? But no matter. It's mindless people they want; it's obedience they want. My Chinese peers are appalled when I suggested that the government might have done wrong and that Communism is not that great, but that's their morality I suppose.

[Colette]

There are costs to unchecked actions. AIDS, for example, could not have spread without rampant unsafe sex

Ah, so does this mean that people with the common cold, or pneumonia, are also immoral, if they engage in activities where they are likely to expose others to infection? Which is immoral - the act itself, or the person choosing to expose others? If you think hard, you will see my distinction, which makes it (I think) well nigh impossible to argue that casual sex is immoral because the AIDS epidemic happened to rear its ugly head. It's like saying that drinking is immoral because some people are drunk drivers..

As for religion, conservative social mores pervade countries like China and India with no Judeo Christian influence. That deflates the religious argument

China isn't particularly morally conservative (not compared with countries like India, anyhow). Intense moral conservatism does tend to be linked with countries where religion and state are intertwined, or where historically, this was the case (e.g. UK, US).

[Antares]

China isn't particularly morally conservative (not compared with countries like India, anyhow). Intense moral conservatism does tend to be linked with countries where religion and state are intertwined, or where historically, this was the case (e.g. UK, US).

Morally conservative? Define that :thumbsup:

[Colette]

Morally conservative? Define that :thumbsup:

No sex outside marriage, rigid roles of men and women, intolerance for homosexuality and alternative lifestyles; that kind of thing, essentially. Moral strictures which fall short of 'truly' criminal behavior, but which (depending on how strict the country is, may actually be reflected in the criminal law (e.g prohibition on sodomy).