Let's talk about the morality of humanity. Is is objective?

Aaand GO!

1665323 Is morality subjective? In some ways, yes. I think murdering someone in cold-blood for no discernible reason is considered a very bad thing in every culture, and so is theft. However, it is in a way that western nations tend to hold more value on the individual and consider the rights we have moral and natural, while other cultures place more value on the community. Most here will agree that cannibalism is wrong, but if you are starving, with no other food source but some dead guy, is it wrong to use it?

Morality of humanity...
That is a rather open ended topic. Care to define the topic further?

1665346>>1665347 1665323

I kinda see it as as subjective. If it is done in cold-blood, we view it as bad. But when it comes down to it, if it's viewed as necessary, we tend to not really care. I'm kinda the same way to be honest.

1665347
Do you think that humans are objectively moral, or amoral?

Do you think that there is no such thing as morality, as modern culture defines it?

Morality is a tool to ensure group cohesion. Because all humans are essentially the same, have the same needs and societies that function in fundamentally the same ways, morality tends to be fairly similar everywhere.

Of course no society is the same and as such no moral code is the same as well.

I dont think so. Though I may be a minority.
From my perspective anything that breaks things down can be seen as wrong and anything that builds up is good.

Simple yes but it goes deep.
What does it mean to build and what is ti to destroy.

You know this really ties into the meaning of life

Practically any question concerning morality can be answered, "Yes, but..."

Is it wrong to kill another person? Yes.
Is it wrong to kill another person who has threatened the lives of ten other people, and has the means and motive to carry out that threat? Yes, but...

1665360 This would be a hard one to define, because the definition of morality itself can be so hard to pin down. What one person views as moral actions can, and most often is, viewed as immoral by someone else.

As an example. Some see the concept of gay marriage to be very immoral. These people generally believe that it is their moral obligation to put an end to any and all legalized homosexual relationships, with gay marriage being extremely offensive to them. Others will view the actions of those opposed to gay marriage, and homosexuality in general, as being immoral, and filled with hatred.

Who is right? Different people will give differing answers, depending on how their moral compass dictates.

We, as a species, are capable of great good, and equally great evil. And what is good and what is evil may greatly vary within any given populace. Morality is something which is supposed to bind society together, but whereas we cannot agree in most circumstances on the definitions of what is, and what is not moral, it serves more to drive wedges between us.

Are we a moral species? In our own individual views, each of us would for the most part say, yes. But collectively, that truly cannot be defined.

1665323

I agree with Pratchett.

1665667
Love that scene.

I was hoping someone would post it.

1665696

......Wonder Twin powers, activate! Form of a hurricane!

Personally, I think that the majority of people who have been raised in a society are generally moral.

The morals of the society will of course dictate the morals of the individual, but by and large, the basic morals are probably quite similar.

I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of people wouldn't murder an innocent.

I also believe that by and large, humans try to do what's best for themselves and for what's best for their society. I think that while we are capable of doing terrible things, we generally don't.