Categories of Morality

[amrchaos]

If one go through many of the threads on this board, they would most likely recognize two general types of morality.

The first one is Universal Morality--the belief there exists some unwritten moral code for all human kind.

The second is described as moral relativity, the belief that whatever one person believe is right is moral, despite disagreements of others.


But if one sits down and analyse the arguments, two differing types of morality are actually present. Group morality(the morality based upon the claims of a group or group leader) and Situational morality(Morality based upon the situation at hand using general principles of right and wrong and ones personal perception). Note that none of the types of morality discuss so far are equivalent.

For instance, it is obvious that Universal Morality and Moral relativity do not derived from the same basis.(one ascribed to a universal rule, the other is based only on how an individual feels about an issue)

Universal Morality and Group morality are not the same due to the group is making claims to right on wrong. These claims need not be a universal law and could even reflect the thinking of the groups leaders concerning reality. Group morality is akin to hand waving in this regards.

Finally there is situational morality in which concepts are borrowed from the other types of morality. The difference is that in situational morality, there is a such thing as the Good Sin. Such as the Good Lie, The Good Kill, The Good Rebellion. In short, what is considered normally right or normally good behavior, can be wrong in special situations.



What do you think about the above? Do you agree that there are more types of morality, or do you think there is only one moral code? Is there other types of morality that think can be included?

 

[BreezeWood]

What do you think about the above? Do you agree that there are more types of morality, or do you think there is only one moral code? Is there other types of morality that think can be included?

Seriously, there is only one morality that is universal for all living creatures ...


individual consensus's as organized religions are impediments to the general well being and a healthy, fruitful environment.

 

[oldfart]

What do you think about the above? Do you agree that there are more types of morality, or do you think there is only one moral code? Is there other types of morality that think can be included?

My observation is that a majority of people think that their personal morality is universal and should be applied to everyone. By happy quirk of fate, their personal morality imposes very light burdens on themselves and people like them and is much harsher on the immoral "others" who cause most if not all of the ills of society. [/snark] Therefore everyone's critique of another's moral system is often correct, while their defense of their own is more problematic. More than what answers one gets from a moral system is what that moral system asks about.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

If one go through many of the threads on this board, they would most likely recognize two general types of morality.

The first one is Universal Morality--the belief there exists some unwritten moral code for all human kind.

The second is described as moral relativity, the belief that whatever one person believe is right is moral, despite disagreements of others.


But if one sits down and analyse the arguments, two differing types of morality are actually present. Group morality(the morality based upon the claims of a group or group leader) and Situational morality(Morality based upon the situation at hand using general principles of right and wrong and ones personal perception). Note that none of the types of morality discuss so far are equivalent.

For instance, it is obvious that Universal Morality and Moral relativity do not derived from the same basis.(one ascribed to a universal rule, the other is based only on how an individual feels about an issue)

Universal Morality and Group morality are not the same due to the group is making claims to right on wrong. These claims need not be a universal law and could even reflect the thinking of the groups leaders concerning reality. Group morality is akin to hand waving in this regards.

Finally there is situational morality in which concepts are borrowed from the other types of morality. The difference is that in situational morality, there is a such thing as the Good Sin. Such as the Good Lie, The Good Kill, The Good Rebellion. In short, what is considered normally right or normally good behavior, can be wrong in special situations.



What do you think about the above? Do you agree that there are more types of morality, or do you think there is only one moral code? Is there other types of morality that think can be included?

Interesting. I suppose I'd line up more with situational morality than the others you listed.

 

[orogenicman]

Here is what my paleontology professor wrote on the subject in his memoirs:

"In the great classic, near eastern religions, man's life on earth is conceived as pain and suffering, and an inheritance of man's fall from grace (or Paradise Lost). According to these traditions, after man's expulsion from paradise, because of his disobedience to his "God", man alone could not recover his erstwhile innocence, even by striving to become
a superhuman of humility, submission, and kindness, etc., but only by an intercession of a god, or God-man sacrifice, could man ever hope to regain paradise, in another world, a spirit world. This "New Jerusalem" is a concept which it contrary to the universal order of things which man's science has inductively gleaned from the study of nature, and as such,
man's concept of morality is a product of his vision of the world and his hope to regain lost innocence.

Man's concept of morality has most recently been connected with what he conceived to be good (moral) and to be bad (immoral). Man's immorality has been equated with "sin" in his apriori understanding: this idea of morality has changed tremendously during his short tenure on earth. But contrarily, what is moral in Nature? And has this natural morality altered through time? "Truth" and "falsehood" are important ingredients in man's consideration of morality, but truth may be defined, in the sense of subjective truth with its definitions and criteria, differing from person to person, institution to institution, place to place, and time to time.

Man is essentially incapable of committing "sin" beyond the magnitude of the individual and collective sins, for the universe is independent of mankind's hopes, fears, aspirations, and indeed, complete understanding, past, present, and future. We may, however, admit a possible transient misdemeanor in that man's efforts have had some deleterious effects on the earth, and even possibly on parts of the solar system, but certainly this can have little or no effect on the galaxy or the universe at large. Further, the earth and sister planets and their satellites are almost insignificant parts of our almost insignificant star system in an almost insignificant galaxy, and in an almost infinitesimal speck in our universe (be it cosmos or chaos matters not).

Man's paradigm of morality is religion based on axiomatic reasoning, not subject to objective proof, personified as God, omnipotent throughout time and space. According to this paradigm, Man need not strive to obtain knowledge from any source other than religion for all is given by God; submission to his God will make all known which man needs in his life, and the rest on a "need to know basis" will be revealed to him in the afterworld. This is a lazy system for man need not strive to find truth, but it is handed down from above: All things are known to God and all man needs to do is apply and follow these laws which are made known by individual revelation from God to man.

Man's concept, and Nature's concept of reality and harmony differ in the highest order. Man has accused his a priori deities of duplicity, for men have always asked the question, "Why should good men suffer", and very often the misery of good men is far greater than that of those who do not conform to the highest criteria for goodness as defined by man's totomic customs and religions. This question has been asked and answers have been attempted ever since man realized his "selfness" and became an introspective creature.

In the last analysis of the morality of Nature, we see no evidence of mercy in the cosmos; its indifference extends to the lowest forms of life to that of man. The cries of humanity, whether the suffering is imposed by man upon himself or upon other men, or by natural laws operating independantly of man, echo down the corridors of time and space and evoke no response from indifferent Nature.

These anguished cries and pitiful prayers for help are merely cosmic background "noise" to which Nature must (not out of evil intent, spite, revenge, or punishment, but by necessity) turn a "deaf ear"; for were it not so, Nature itself would be destroyed by these same laws which Nature had ordained "in the beginning" (if there was one) and must continue to operate in perpetuity (iftime and the universe are truly eternal), or there would be and ending to the cosmic laws: a true "twilight of the gods", and of cosmic harmony,
Chaos never returning to Cosmos."

- James E. Conkin, Professor Emeritus, University of Louisville, 2002

 

[jwoodie]

"Do unto others..." Is this not the basis for (Western) morality?

 

[orogenicman]

"Do unto others..." Is this not the basis for (Western) morality?

You forgot the other part of that equation, as used in the west these days:

"...and let god sort it out."