Wasn't thinking the method that was picked? And, presumably, not just thinking but a specific way of thinking? So, how was that picked?

I believe that morality is an illusion and that now we have laws we have no need for morality, which is subjective at best. As far as I can see it is simply a slef-important way of saying that you have an unshakable opinion. I think to judge an act on it's intrinsic right or wrongness is to sey oneself up for a fall; there will always be situations that test your perceptions and force you to realign them. You live and learn, and it always astounds me how often and how easily people can change their morals and principles in accordance with new experiences. One may as well not restict oneself with a narrow focus and look at every situation as a new one, completely unrealted to any other the others - if one can. This is where logic is a more useful tool than emotion. With the passing of each age and the differences between each culture, values change. 'Morality' seems like a gross oversimplicfication of the way we think. If I had to guess where the concept came from, I would say it was an evolutionary way of establishing order by agreeing that some actions woul be disruptive to the group. For me, this explains why some people's feelings or "morals" on particular subjects are seemingly arbitrary.

Feel free to discuss.

Well stated Bruce.....good point in my opinion.

Maybe better or worse in terms of the values held by society. So in this way an objective opinion.

Ethics and morality are pretty much the same thing - I would have thought.

The ethic of honesty/veracity. I hold honesty to have moral value.

Ethics is a branch of philosophy that asks the question, morality is but one answer to that question and the question is "what is the correct way to act to live a good life?"

My understanding: ethics and commonly held moral values are a part of cultural influence.
A group of people (society) define commonly held beliefs, values and these become the norm within that society. Some of these norms become laws - which help provide structure and organisation within a society.

This post was last modified: 10-15-2010 05:57 AM by Chamuel.

Still lost as to your original point though Bruce.

That's roughly right.

I'd define morality as the result of an ethical decision process. You obtain morality by making ethical decisions and arrive at a moral code. Most people have 2 moral codes: a personal moral code and a social one.

The social moral code is the one that all of society generally agrees upon (there are a few odd exceptions, but most people agree on basics). Then there's a personal moral code which is often held to be higher than the social moral code.

For example, society generally says rape, murder, theft and so on are bad things and this is part of the social moral code in most western nations. My own personal moral code also includes things such as not supporting proprietary software whenever possible - that's something personal to me that society tends to disagree with me on.

But both moral codes have come about from an ethical decision process - whether that ethical decision process is unconcious or a result of rational thought processes doesn't matter, it's still an ethical process that has resulted in "this is good" and "this is bad" lists of actions.

Look, the thing is that 'BETTER than morality' doesn't make sense. There are practical issues that can be considered that don't directly affect morality. I was asked elsewhere which is better for cutting a plank, a saw or a hammer. So, a saw is better. That's not better than morality! It's a practical question. However, depending what you wanted to cut a plank for, it certainly could get into morality. If, say, your purpose was to break into a house and steal their stuff. Now, if you agree with the law against theft, you agree it's wrong. Else, you could plan to get away with the crime. It's really not THAT complicated a point I'm trying to make!

"morality" can be a loaded term when used within the english language with all sorts of expectations implied. Language evolves and changes and nuances develop. It doesn't pay to take language too literally. Look for implied meanings Bruce.

Such as? Generally, a morality is implied by most talk about what's good and bad. I can only work with meanings that I can see and or hear, really. Funny, I'll soon be told to take what people say at 'face value'! You have that argument with such a person. I'm not arguing their case for them.