What actually are morals?

Question

Is it true that they are simply a set of "guidelines" established by the chiefs of the first societies that must be followed in order for a community to properly function without human instinct for survival interfering?

Answer 1

Morals are acceptable ways of speaking and behaving in a certain society.

A person lacking morals would be someone who lies, cheats or  saying, doing things which are indecent. Morals in one society, say a First world, may be perceived differently from a Third world country. A civilized society would practise good ethics and morals, so that there is family and social harmony. This also results in a gracious society.

But sadly, nowadays many modern societies are failing, and a large percentage of the population are getting immoral in the way they behave, esp in dressing. Far too many females are dressing scantily with their tops and bottoms pulled down to expose more flesh and cleavages. We hope that we dont become like what revellers in ancient Rome did, with excessive drinking, partying, orgies, etc which brought a quick decline to their society. The only way it seems is to have more rein on our excessively liberal media which has more influence than the family and educational institutions. :-((

Answer 2

Morals are a persons way to tell the difference between right and wrong. Todays morals were very different from 100 years ago, So morals evolve and change over time. I dont think it has anything to do with instinct, It has more to do with The human psych.

Answer 3

This is actually a good question for the philosophy section. I say that because usually you can find questions either being irrelevant here or simply childish.

Many people who have already responded to this question have given definitions of morality than can be found wanting. For instance, one answerer has said morals are "a person's way to tell the difference between right an wrong". My mind also has a way of telling the difference between what's right and wrong, i.e. conveying it to me. Should we assume that morals are the same as the mind, then? My eyes often distinguish between right and wrong as they are manifested in other's, and our own, actions. Should I assume, then, that morals are my eyes? The point is that this definition, for one, is too broad. Since this person has not taken the nominal way of defining morals bur rather attempted to logically define morality rules do apply.

Another answerer has said that morality "defines for us what is right and wrong". This is more of an explanation as to what morality does rather than telling us what it is. Unfortunately, though, you haven't asked what morality does.

Another fails to even signify the thing being defined (morality's) genus. Now, a genus is the class the thing being defined belongs to. An example may be that a car is a vehicle. Vehicle being the class to which the thing being defined belongs. However, there is also what's called the specific difference which distinguishes the thing being defined from other things also in the class of vehicles of transportation, like a bus or plane. So, if we defined car as what transports a small group, sometimes only one, person, often being personally owned to difference destinations. A person who had no experience of what a car was would still have no idea what we were talking about. But, put it in the class of vehicles to give him an idea then he would probably be able to point one out. By the way, this is a rule to giving a good definition.

I would say that morality is a relationship between a known dictate, code, or set of rules (whatever you want to use there) which orders a person's conduct or actions. From this we can gather that not all that a person calls moral is such, since codes can be obviously wrong. When tyrants issue decrees of slavery and the power to have any women in his kingdom, whether she is married or not, any night of the week he pleases, people don't argue about whether this wrong or not--something immediately tells them this is. A better question to ask is what makes that code or dictate that governs a persons conduct right or not? Can we know it? These are central questions that have lingered in philosophy for generations. Thomas Aquinas, following Aristotle, says that there is a natural law in reality men grasp with their minds that gives us this code. However, I'm not yet studied enough to give you a better explanation as to why this natural law is what makes man's conduct right or not. Some have said that if the existence of God can be shown to be true, then "divine command theory" is what we ought to follow, since the code or dictate of man's action flows necessarily from the nature of an infallible being. Thus, it would have to be what is right. Anyways, you also have your Utilitarian positions, Ethical Subjectivist theories, relativism (which, by the way, most of the people answering on here follow whether they know it or not) which says the code is determined by the culture one is in; morality is bound to the culture, and there are also a few others.

Moral Theory by Timmons is a good intro to the numerous theories and problems that have been posed against each.  

Answer 4

You know what your morals are, because certain behaviours will be repulsive to you.  There are things you would never ever do, and other things that make you feel worried.  That's your own personal moral outlook.    

Answer 5

Morality defines for us what is right and wrong. These rules are determined by the culture we live in, and very often have their source in a religion. But atheists develop their own set of morals, as do pagans. People are way to obsessed with the morality of sexuality. Being g*y or L*****n is not morally wrong. Nor is it morally wrong to m********e. It's not even morally wrong to have multiple partners, as long as everyone knows what is happening.

Answer 6

Sort of.

Morality IS the social 'contract' as per the power of the group and/or its leaders to enforce.

But it is present in ANY animal exhibiting group behavior.  For example  'pecking' orders are a primal form of morality.

Morality did not begin with homo sapiens,   just the ornate Moral codes that enable the construction of vast societies.

Many feel it is no accident that Religion appears to have begun about the same time as civilization.  Apparently biological morality cannot handle human groups much larger than 30 or so individuals.    Beyond that there needs to be a LIST of forbidden behaviors, preferable enforced by God in event that misdeeds are unnoticed by human leaders.

Answer 7

A concisely expressed precept or general truth; a maxim.

morals Rules or habits of conduct, especially of sexual conduct, with reference to standards of right and wrong: a person of loose morals; a decline in the public morals.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/m...

Answer 8

Morals are what we know to be right. weather we choose to do it or not!!! Its the right thing!!! Time should not change morals. We should teach them in school. They seem to have been lost in time. I also feel alot of our leaders have lost theres too. Thats such a shame!!!! Thats why morals are changing over time!!!!!!!!

Answer 9

Morals are what we perceive to be right and wrong.

We were "given" morals by evolution. For any species to live in a community type setting and get along, there has to exist rules or morals, or else it would just be every man for himself and the community would fall apart. Many primates and even other animals that live in communities have morals. Oftentimes, the ones who break the rules face being ostracized and even death.

Answer 10

Morals are defined by personal opinion (which is often influenced by society). There is not one universal, objective standard of goodness. If there was, it would be one set of right and wrong things. Yet some people see things as right while others see them as wrong.

There are murderers and rapists who seem to have no conscience or morals. If someone doesn't think its wrong to steal, they wont have any guilt when doing so. If morals were a universal truth how is this possible?