The subtleties of morality and being 'right' or 'wrong'?
450503
Ok, this is the thing. As far as morality is concerned there is no real right and wrong. That is totally determined by the person who is in the situation. Society has a grander scale on which they see things as right or wrong but then again society doesn't enter into this question.
848791
"If there’s no absolute standard for “good”, then who’s to say what’s good and what’s bad?"\nIf you need guidance from an imaginary friend to prevent you from becoming a serial rapist, then do us all a favor and keep going to church.\n\nMorals are relative. They are dictated by society. They stem from the human need to continue the species and avoid as much unnecessary harm as possible. We didn't need Christianity or your hypocritical God to tell us that stealing, killing, and rape is wrong. A very simple question of "would I want that done to me" is all that is necessary to determine if the action is "moral" or not.\n\n"Sure, “good” might exist in a temporary sense, such as this society or civilization, or even the propagation of this species. While I’m alive."\nYou answered your own question, but you keep going.\n\n"But after I’m dead, if there’s no judgement or next life, what do I care what happens here when I'm gone?"\nWhy do you feel the need to be judged? Has Christianity really seeped that far into your thought processes? \n\n"Logically, it seems foolish for me to care."\nBut you asked the question.\n\n"And if there’s no harm to me and my life gets better, then why should I feel bad?"\nYou shouldn't. Are you considering the questions you're asking? Truly considering them? Or are you just asking them for the sake of argument? You would feel bad if you are harming others... that is, unless, you see nothing wrong with harming others.\n\n"After all, I only have one life, and who’s to say that I shouldn’t make the most of it for myself? I can choose to not feel bad because it wouldn’t make sense for me to feel bad."\nThat's the beauty of it! MAKE THE MOST OF YOUR LIFE. Decide what is ethical and what is moral by doing what makes YOU feel good while doing what makes OTHERS feel good... because when you make others feel good or you prevent or reduce unnecessary harm, I can guarantee you that you will feel good. You don't need a god or religion to tell you that.
395348
Morals just what are they? They are the difference between right and wrong. If you break one of the ten commandments you are immoral for example.\n\nExamples of moral codes include the golden rule; Wiccan Rede, the Noble Eightfold Path of Buddhism; the ten commandments of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam; and the ten Indian commandments.\n\n\nIf you have done wrong you are immoral. If you do the things that society says you should you could be considered being a moral person.\n\nCulture sometimes plays a role. In one culture what you did that was immoral might be considered as being right in another.
938505
Short answer: My brain.\n\nRight and wrong doesn't really have a source.  There's no spigot you can turn to pour right or wrong out.  It's not a substance.  It's not a form of energy.  Right and wrong are judgments.  Such judgments are formed by the brain.\n\nThat said, people tend to have common morals because of a common human experience.  This includes some genetic selection.  Many of our morals come from instincts that have worked for us as a species.\n\nAnother source of morality is society.  There have been countless societies with various moralities.  As societies have competed, some moralities have proven more effective at allowing people to live amongst each other in relative peace.\n\nThat, btw, is the purpose of morality, to allow people to live close to each other.\n\nWhen it gets down to it, though, the "source" of your morality is your brain.  My morality is influenced by my human genetics, the world I live in, my country, my state, my neighborhood, my culture, my friends, my family.  But ultimately, I decided, for myself, what my place is in society, what I want to do with my life, and how I think I should relate to other people.\n\nI can go on to explain how people with different morals come to common morality and how that translates into laws in society, but this post is already too long.
706782
If you badly cheat an atheist, he will be upset. He appeals to a natural moral law that he expects everyone, including the cheater to know and obey. "That's not right, or that's not fair" are acknowledgements that there is a standard of right and fair that everyone should know. It is not subjecive in moments like that. Moral law is very absolute at times like these. The atheist demands justice. Blind to his own behavior that well establishes the natural moral law common to man, he then says morals are subjective.  He bullsh*ts himself. A hedonist likes to say morals are subjective because if morals are relative then there are no morals at all. Punch him in the nose and suddenly morals become absolute again.
382314
Justify being considerate outside of a "religious" context? Well ... I do good for others or am considerate for one simple reason that has nothing to do with religion. Gravity is a physical law. I think that, and I underline "I think" because its just my opinion, that like gravity there is a mental or psychological law that operates along these lines ... "What goes around comes around." I've noticed that if I'm inconsiderate, well, that's pretty much what I get in return. If I'm considerate, well, I get that back too. So, as selfish as it may sound, doing good can be viewed as enlightened self-interest.
8920
Both are about values and right and wrong, but ethical usually is more related to professional behavior where morality is more personal.  Government, to me, should act ethically.  When government gets "moral", I feel like they are taking on more personal beliefs.  As a government, I think we need to be ethical about right and wrong, as long as those definitions are universals instead of those related to a scripture.
163833
Been reading Plato's Socratic dialogue with Euthyphro?  The question is: Is something good because it is loved by God(s), or is something loved by God(s) because it is good?  It's a delicious paradox.  Since I'm an atheist, I answer it by saying that morality stems from that which is considered good  in the society in which one is brought up.  Immorality stems from that which is considered wrong in that same society.  Right and wrong are not absolutes, but also not under the control of any beings other than ourselves.
8568
To know right from wrong you need a foundation. I found that foundation to be very firm with the Bible. Every difficult moral decision I have had to make in my many decades of living have been illuminated by the light of scriptures.
639306
agree....we have morals, values, integrity, and sense of what is right--which may vary depending on the person and situation--but, no... I don't believe that I am sinning, and while a religious cat may say that what I am doing is a sin, it is only a sin only by the fact that he is judging me based on his on belief system.  Ironic of course, I mean doesn't your bible say, "judge not lest ye be judged likewise also,"  or have they removed that section?
590629
Morality as in?\nIf you tell me I can help.
1170105
Hi,\n\nThis sentence - which, despite some answerer's comments, is very often said - is a very valuable sentence because it gives us a lot of insight into the believer's mind. It's my belief that somebody who grows up in a very insular 'fundamentalist' house often tends not to develop an independent sense of right-and-wrong. There must be exceptions, of course, but a lot of people refrain from killing, stealing, coveting and wearing mixed fabrics not because they've ever objectively considered the right-and-wrong of these actions but merely because 'God told them not to'. 'Hell' is the equivalent of 'wait till your father gets home' - but the difference is that the latter is only applicable for children who don't have a fully-formed concept of actions and repercussions.\n\nFor somebody whose definition of 'good behaviour' is based solely on what they read in a book, it's quite logical for them to presume that an atheist would not engage in good behaviour. The unfortunate implication is that, for these people, they would freely murder, rape, steal, pillage and wear mixed fabrics if it weren't for God's decree against those actions. Furthermore, they see murder as bad not because a person's life has been lost and his/her family torn asunder but merely because the perpetrator 'sinned' against God. Would you trust such a person with your child?\n\nLastly, what objective conclusion can you draw about the morality of a person who says 'A sin is a sin - lying and killing are equal in the eyes of God'? What conclusion can you draw about the morality of a deity who would believe that?
58466
No. We each have an obligation to ourselves and to society to do the right thing. Unfortunately the line between right and wrong is blurred, distorted and beyond recognition. \n\nMost people know (either by experience or knowledge) that is is morally wrong. Most people who know that is it wrong and see others without a moral compass get hurt, confused, feel shame, guilt, or despair, mostly want to help others. It is this "helping them to see the light" that turns into bashing (unfortuntely). \n\nThis lifestyle may be fun for a season, but ultimately it will end, and sadly.\nWhy so you think gays try to "normalize" their life? They try to get married, try to adopt kids and try to be accepted?
465975
Morality is very subjective.  It's something we learn, and something we develop.   There are somethings that MOST people with agree with, like murder is wrong.  But there are many issues where people differ on it.  \nMorality is not set in stone.  It's a belief system that stems from who we are, and the society we are a part of.
335128
For me, and this is just my perception, morals have a basis in religion. The Jewish 10 commandments, for example, constitute a moral code. Ethics on the other hand are derived from sources out side religion. You might derive a moral code from philosophy, science, or any number of other things. I, personally, do not consider myself to be "moral" because I'm not religious. I do however have an ethical standard that I try to live by. I derive my "code of ethics" from what I think of as a simple Universal Principle (This principle also defines the subject for me.) ... Cause and effect. I do a thing. That's the cause. That causes a sort of chain reaction that culminates in the result or effect. So I consider that I can pretty much do what ever I want so long as I'm willing to accept and live with the consequences. Which thing makes me stop and think before doing a thing. So I tend to act rather than re-act. That works pretty good for me. I usually end up treating the other person the way I'd want to be treated, accepting things as they are, just letting some things pass (I mean, how important is it ... Really?), etc. So ... For what its worth, that's my take on the thing. And it works well enough for me. ~ Peace & Blessings ~
451630
It depends whether you belive that absolute truth exists, or if truth is subjective.  Absolute truth would say there are definite rights and wrongs, but subjective truth would say that it was 'his truth' that it was good what he was doing. Liberal society today is desperately trying to make peace by saying there are no absolute truths and that every thing must be tolerated except intolerance. However, most of us are good at being absolute on some things and subjective where it suits us.  Think on this though: If I were to say that the earth is not spherical but flat, then that would be 'my truth' but it would be wrong. Absolute truth does exist, both scientifically and morally, and I think we have a responsibility to look for it.
890927
Moral Relativism Refuted \nHave you ever heard these words: ‘What is true for you is not true for me’ -- ‘Don’t impose your values on me’ -- ‘You have no right to tell me what to do’? Sure you have. These words are very popular. Unfortunately, they have been taught in schools. How many teachers have you heard say, “Come on guys, don’t be scared. There is no right or wrong opinions.”\n\nThis is from the idea called relativism. Relativism is the philosophy that denies absolutes or what is really true. There are four kinds of relativism: metaphysical, epistemological, moral, and religious. The metaphysical relativism is the claim that there are no absolutes in reality; epistemological is that there are no absolutes in knowledge; morality is the denial of moral absolutes; and religious is the clam that there is no true religion. We are going to deal mostly with moral relativism in this essay. But first, I must refute the propositions ‘what is true for you is not true for me’ and ‘there is no right or wrong opinion.’\n\nThe first proposition, what is true for you is not true for me, is self-contradictory since it asserts an absolute, which is, what is true for you is not true for me. In other words, is it absolutely true that what is true for you is not true for me? Again, it asserts an absolute, making it self-contradictory.\n\nThe second proposition, that there is no right or wrong opinions, is a wrong proposition too. Let me give an example of an opinion that can either be right or wrong. If someone says, ‘In my opinion, Osama Bin Laden is dead,’ can he be right or wrong? If Osama is dead, then he is right, if not, then he is wrong. He might not know if he is right or wrong, but he is either right or wrong. Both cannot be true at the same time. Therefore the proposition that there is no right or wrong opinion is false.\n\nhttp://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p17.htm\n.