Right and wrong? morality? your opinion?

Question

we have been set a research project. i think i might want to do some research about morality, and the differences between right and wrong, and how teenagers see right and wrong.

can anybody help me with this? any information about what morality is, its history, its meaning to you, what you see as right and wrong - anything on topic is good.

if u have no source but yourself please leave your name. i wont take credit for your ideas.

Answer 1

Why don't you try to ascertain the SOURCE of teenagers concept of morality.  Do they learn their concept of morality from their parents, their teachers, TV, movies, friends?  What really affects the direction their moral compass points?

Answer 2

What is your question?

Are you looking for someone to do your work for YOU?

What do you think of the morality of someone who asks others to do his work?You say, you want to do some research about[on] morality...are YOU doing the research, or are you asking US to do it for you?

Answer 3

Right and wrong are relative they change in time and place.

Like the death penalty

Slavery

You could look up phenomenological ideas about deviance in youth culture - Jock young wrote soem stuff many years ago that was good about drug culture since he wrote we have down-classed cannabis.

For me teenagers are the ones who mostly press for change because at that age we are going through  such great changes within  ourselves - amking the transition inot adults and having to make huge decisions and pscyhologically separate - It is a tiem of huge roiling energy and it helps to put it out into the world - we try out  very strong opinions and sensitivities.

So new topics which come on the agenda are supported - like animal rights  anti hunting green issues each wave of youth invents or reinvents its own causes in its own way and nostly succeeds in changing the set of the moral compass.

As a teenager I was involved in CND - The co-operative movement and feminism - all of these were influential  

and eventually  made it to laws.

I think teenagers make some expression of our society for us to see and we often misread it and help bring it to fruition but don;t quite get what hey menat.

Wm. Morris wrote in news from Nowhere a great quote that I am forever losing so this isnt verbatim.

peopel fight for what they believe in . they lose the fight but the thing comes about despite their defeat. it turns out ot to be what ehy wanted so then others have to fight for the original cause under a different name.

Answer 4

Morality is going to be a very wide subject. I applaud you for tackling this subject and looking for multiple views.

For me, morality is based on my beliefs and how i was raised. I believe there is a right and wrong and those gray areas, really aren't so gray for me. If I know something goes against my beliefs, will cause someone else pain, become something that I do not want in my life or cannot assume responsibility for, then it is wrong.

I could list many things that I think are morally wrong and tell you why, but what I see today in the youth that I work with, they do not have any definitive lines that they draw. It maybe because of society, TV, poor parenting, acceptance of bad decisions by our culture, or maybe they just think only of themselves, I am not sure.

I feel we as a society have forgotten to teach these things to our children or have crossed lines we wish we had not and now do not feel we have the right to impose those morals on our children.

If you wish to narrow your topic to something like the manner of dress, premarital s*x, drug and alcohol use, lack of morals in youth concerning their interaction with adults, you may get more information.

I wish you luck and if you would like clearer information with definitive comparisons from my era to what I see in the youth I work with, I would be glad to supply that to you, if I can.

Answer 5

Three men were living in a valley with two women.

The Alpha male had both women.  The Beta males had nothing.

One day the Betas teamed up & killed the Alpha male.

Now both Betas wanted both women.  But they agreed to settle for one apiece to keep the team together & avoid fighting each other.

And that my dear is morality.

Answer 6

A good start would be all the variations on the "Golden Rule". Such as "Karma". And the scientific explanation, "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction".

Answer 7

right and wrong are matters of opinion.... morality is when the influences of right and wrong become to great....

Answer 8

Morality is pretty easy to define, as it is the principles by which we infer what we ought to and ought not to do.

The problem, though, is with what we ought to do, and what we ought not do. This is where people often, in ever-day life, disagree.

More perplexing, I think, is what the terms 'good' and 'bad' mean, and whether or not we can know what the terms mean.

For instance, I have heard many people say this sort-of thing:

"There is no real 'good', it is relative to what people think is good and bad..."

But, that the last sentence is offered as profound is silly, as it is really trivial; Look at the argument:

1. Goodness or badness is relative to what people think is good or bad, right or wrong.

Therefore,

C. There is no real goodness or badness

The conclusion (C) clearly doesn't follow from the premise(1); so the argument is just bad.

I, like many other philosophers, think that 'goodness' and 'badness' is a property of certain actions. That is, an action X has the property 'good' just in case the action does not cause any nontrivial harm and induces at least some pleasure in the participants of the action.

This is just an example, of course, but at least many agree that 'goodness' and 'badness' is a property of either (1) persons or (2) actions, or (3) intentions. While many agree that 'goodness' and 'badness' is a property of some-sort, many differ over what type of property it is...Some, for instance think it is a natural-property. That is, they think the property of 'goodness' or 'badness' is reducible to a more basic naturalistic phenomena like 'pleasure', for example. Others, though, think it is a natural property, but irreducible in terms of explination. That is, 'goodness' is a natural property, but it natural in the sense that 'yellowness' is natural. If you try to reduce either properties, you loose certain fundamental features of the phenomena.

Others claims that 'goodness' and 'badness' are nonnatural properties. Such nonnatural properties are like ['goodness' is 'whatever action God commands of a person'. So, for an action to be 'good' on such a nonnatural definition, is just for that action to be commanded by God  - and that is all.

Relativist's - at least as this is what the thesis implies - think that 'good' means that 'whatever people in your culture or society or group think one ought to do.

So, then, by such a relativist's definition, for an action to be a good action is just for the action to be thought of by the culuture as what one ought to do in the relevant circumstances.

Of course, we can always ask: "Why ought we do it? Just because a lot of people in my culture think I ought to do such and such doesn't necessarily mean that it is what I ought to do."

____

The links may be helpful.

Any way, that is just some help - good luck!

Answer 9

it's a sad trend that sometimes people only deem things immoral because they don't like to see and are afraid that it might happen to them. Laws most of time are made to protect  people, creating a shield of that unlikeable things.

So if you ask me, morality is an ever changing status. It's not fixed. it's not true. it's an illusion.

Ask yourself, when you deem something as sinful or immoral or unethical, whether it's solely based on your own disgust or fear or hatred or pure empathy that is just compassion?

You are the best project. you know better.