Do we know Morality, or do we learn, discovery, and also relearn from our own mistakes about Morality?

Many people this includes Atheist, say we know Morality but we really don't know. Every stage of civilizations that we know about have been improving in Morality. This makes me come to a conclusion that Morality is being discovered every day. However, we have never change the definition of Morality being of good and evil. We still believe life is good and death is bad. That has never changed. Well being has never change it's definition through out life. Living righteousness has never changed.

Mr. Interesting

Morality is whatever society agrees upon, in general. Yes, it is constantly changing to fit what a given society deems is correct at a given time. Religions are also constantly changing to keep up and not be left behind. They influence a constantly shrinking percentage of the population and are desperate to hold on to what they can. The "Golden Rule" seems to be the best compass for morality: "Do unto others as you would have done unto you" but it doesn't always fit or work. Righteousness and evil are religious terms while right and wrong are not. What we as a society consider to be wrong now may be considered right at a later date or may have been considered right at an earlier date. We must always reserve the right and ability to improve.

Chris Ancor

All of those.


Morality - the entire topic has so many analogies and definitions to as many a soul searching audience. Within the self there is the unique and individual higher being, the nicer part, then their is the dual role of emotional and intelligent level, then there is usually a basal nature of many differing types where anger rage trauma and emotional issues are composite. The body brain are chemical composites of varying degrees creating an emotional intellectual being of varying balances, causing a mindset disposition of character. Morality then is the persons need for resolving processing and expulsion of issues via the modes of social and sexual intercourse. The upper brain plays an authoritarian role in determining and appropriating sources of nutrition and positive chemicals to ensure optimum body brain function. Some have staid habits governed by standard emotional needs ruled by a conscientious brains ability to secure for itself sources of sustenance. Each individual theretofore, has an ingrained sensibility of purpose and propriety of what is permissible in its regenerative endeavour. The expectations of morality from people with issues, traumas, unresolved violation or abuse pain, manifest in their morality or absence thereof. Morality is a privilege of mindful minds and a luxury for those with a higher sense of sobriety and decorous behaviour. Therefore morality is simply based in the belief of causing no conflict internal or external, and sourcing ones supply of emotional and intellectual sustenance for the benefit of peace stability and happiness, from well considered sources, within the parameters of social cultural values, moral decency and mindfulness of others. Some societies are so liberated, so sentient, so beautifully mindful they live lives of free spiritedness and find the wealth of love within their own specific similarly spirited group. These hedonistic societies are few and if not well protected by virtue and shared moral values - I would create a space for my free spirits where their spirit runs free from the fear of aggression and intrusion by demons armed with a social right of inclusion. So we battle for a place where we can create a space where those we love, who love us and live in peaceful accord with us can be perfectly innately moral without it being a sufferance. Most religions seek to do this within their own groups, in al fairness. I would create a space where morality wasn't a question but a gentle respect and understanding for the space dignity and freedom of each spirit that dwelt within this space. My need for the creation of a safe space is borne of many reasons, mainly because there are cultures so hypocritically immoral as to not only be worshippers of the devil basal self, by our estimation, but with a right to subjugate those socially considered of a higher relative morality, and win a victory be presuming a hierarchal order by such means, thoroughly abhorrent to my mind. It is their culture and permissible, but not Im practise in proximity to me. The moral dilemma. Their moral dilemma. As one born and raised in London, with english moral values now in the process of being, evolved to a northern european inspired mindset, hampered these days by their affiliates who protect their own women but feel they have a right to prey upon others with impunity. It lives in sussex, a europeans and his indian partner, life as a continual torture by those who disagree with the sanctity and dignity of mankind, and live life submitting or subjugating, abhorrent to my mind.


Morality is a human construct and does not evolve over time. We are simply living in the same time period our ethics reside in, and our morals feel normal to us just like every time period's morals feel normal to them. That said, basic morals like not killing are probably genetic since its super rare to hear about children accidentally fighting to the death or something crazy like that.


Installed from Mom's usually from growth although dad's teach boys an appreciation.


I believe morality is an absolute, objective thing in this universe. Everything is. There are no subjective things, at least nothing worth talking about. Nothing subjective that isnt completely unimpactful on society. Take physics. Take logic. Take mathematics. Take science in general. Uncertainty might exist about the truth of some things, but that is not to be conflated with subjectivity in the reality of things. None of the aforementioned topics are subjective. Nothing in reality is truly subjective, if you think about it. Why should morality be the one sole exception to the rule? Especially considering how very significant it is to society and human living; it certainly extends well beyond the individual and is more than just "personal taste". Personal taste explains ice cream flavor, or color of clothing. Its arbitrary. It has no significance to society at large and is an entirely internal phenomenon. Morality, is an external phenomenon, and you cannot name me one communally shared phenomenon that is truly subjective. In fact, even subjective notions of taste can be understood from an absolutist perspective when you phrase the statement properly. We have different degrees of knowledge about things. Different certainties about things. But the external world - that which effects all of us concurrently - is not and cannot be devoid of a singular truth. Whether or not we may know it. You may have recognized that morality is abstract; it doesnt exist in a tangible sense. That is true. But you know what else doesnt? Mathematics. Mathematics is abstract *and* man-made. But despite that, no one disputes it is absolute. No one disputes that reality must abide by it. Both morality and mathematics have tangible effect. I dont pretend to know what all of the moral truths are, but I wont sit here and pretend like its the one thing in existence that isnt absolute. Either morality exists absolutely or else it simply doesnt exist whatsoever. It doesnt get to be an exception to the rule. If I am to concern myself whatsoever about being moral in my life, I MUST necessarily assume that morality is an absolute. Else I run the risk of rationalizing immorality. It doesnt take a genius to recognize that there does not exist a single moral subjectivist that acknowledges his own evil. None will cop to being evil or sinful, not even by their own moral rules. No, if you havent noticed, they always have an excuse. Some rationalization, typically involving "unique" and "unforeseeable" circumstances. They fail to recognize that morality, as a construct, wherever it comes from, *has* to be oppressive, has to be infringing. That is the point of it. It isnt there to liberally justify behavior you would do anyway. Its there to stop you from doing the bad things you are already tempted to do. Yet many people reject morality, or religion, solely on the basis that it is too restrictive for their tastes. Well, I say thats quite possibly the definition of evil. I frequently argue that religion is a good thing. Thats not to say everyone needs to be religious, just that society at large needs that authority. The nice thing about religion is that it doesnt waver, it doesnt change arbitrarily with the times or cultures. They offer pillars that are permanent. Unchanging. They testify to a standard of conduct - good or bad - that all or most of society ought to agree on. When society rejects religion there is nothing left to stand on. Some will derive their morality from law. Of course laws change with the society, with the culture, and without religion societies standards will change all the faster. Law is downstream of culture. And people will dance the line of legality anyway, if not cross it. Some will derive their morality from society. Of course societies standards change sometimes arbitrarily, sometimes in the wrong direction, and again this propagates out of control without religion as a backdrop. And what happens when youre in a niche group, a family or neighborhood, an echo chamber of behaviors; your society then can be absolutely anything. There are few moral absolutists outside of religion. I fancy myself one of them. But even rational philosophers who derive their morality from reason typically have inconsistent and hypocritical beliefs. I attempt to construct morality from a logical framework. Religion provides absolutism, the same as logic ought to, and it was perfect for ancient peoples who were not well versed in logic. Without religion in the ancient world there would have been social chaos, and laws would have been viewed as subjective, arbitrary, and potentially oppressive, and societies would have collapsed. But in todays world, perhaps religion is right, perhaps it isnt. Perhaps logic and religion are consistent, or perhaps inconsistent. But we can make an attempt in logic and see where it takes us. So without further adieu this is what Ive come up with so far. Stage one. In keeping with the fundamental law of non-contradiction, I am forced to recognize that all philosophies, all moralities, all religions, that lead one to an irreconcilable contradiction, must be fundamentally flawed. Logicians do this all the time. We reject any line of reasoning that leads to a false conclusion and conclude the negative of our assumption. Stage two. So let me ask you, what is a double standard? What is a hypocrisy? Are such things not contradictions in the implementation of the rules of conduct governed by an individuals personal philosophy? I conclude then that hypocrisy and double standard are logically wrong, and anyone who demonstrates these characteristics have an incorrect personal philosophy - not necessarily what they espouse but what they practice. Stage three. Are sins and evils and wrongdoings not in themselves hypocrisies and double standards? A thief may rationalize thievery, but I assure you he doesnt want to be stolen from. A rapist may rationalize rape, but I assure you he doesnt want to be raped. A murderer may rationalize murder - as all good moral subjectivists do - but I assure you he doesnt want to be murdered. Moral subjectivity leads inextricably to sociopathy, at one level or another, because the subjectivist will always come into conflict with others in society. I can only conclude then that morality is in fact a logically necessary and logically self-consistent result stemming from the intersection of non-contradiction and desire, and that all sins, evils and moral codes can be in some way or another be constructed or understood from a logical framework of non-contradiction and non-hypocrisy.


A human being is a computer without any operating system. You have to feed everything since childhood. All knowledge, intelligence, skills, emotions, feelings, interests and everything are spirits or invisible elements. While you feed, these elements join or possess the person one by one. Human beings are just robots made of flesh and bones and toys of the spirits for their games. The soft-wares for these robots are spirits or invisible elements. These robots are programmed by different people by oral talks, writings and actions too. During this process the spirits possess a human being according to the programs. Further these robots can program themselves when they wish. Whatever it is they are all just spirits. A human being during his/her lifetime is living with many spirits which have joined one by one since birth. They are knowledge, skills, feelings, emotions, interests and everything. Even thoughts are not these robots' own. One after another they think and these robots either choose or reject the ideas which they transmit to their minds through brains in the form of thoughts. Brain is a media to connect the spirits to your mind. Your mind is just a computer's mind. After the destruction of a computer completely you will not get it's mind. The same is the case with the human beings. A soul is nothing but an energy needed for the functionality of a body. It is not a spirit or anything else. A human being doesn't have a spiritual body. Memories are different spirits. Spirits determine the destiny of a human being from his/her daily activities, talks and thoughts too. On death these spirits leave the body and go to different places. No one lives in any form after death.


It's innate in us, from the intellect we evolved through the animal kingdom, and that morality is mostly based on survival. To know that directly, we have to unlearn what we know and we've been conditioned with from society. Eating animals kinda blinds us to what we know.


Teach Christian Morality Whatever the first-century practices involving stealing, adultery, and robbing temples that Paul was alluding to, let us not miss the thrust of his comments. He asked: “Do you, however, the one teaching someone else, not teach yourself?” It is noteworthy that the examples that Paul raised had to do with morality. The apostle did not here focus on Bible doctrines or history. The teaching of oneself and of others to which Paul referred had to do with Christian morality. 11 For us to apply the lesson of Romans 2:21-23 means learning Christian morality from God’s Word, acting in line with what we learn, and then instructing others to do the same. Accordingly, as you study the Bible, be alert for indications of Jehovah’s standards, from which true Christian morality is derived. Meditate on the counsel and the lessons that you find in the Bible. Then bravely apply what you learn. And doing so does take courage combined with determination. It is easy for imperfect humans to develop excuses, reasons why a situation allows for or even requires disregarding Christian morality in a particular case. Perhaps the Jews whom Paul mentioned were experienced in such subtle reasoning intended to rationalize or to mislead others. Paul’s words show, though, that Christian morality is not to be minimized or ignored at personal discretion. Morality based on Bible teachings includes honesty and integrity. Yet, cheating, corruption, and fraud are widespread. Bible-based morality also includes faithfulness in marriage, which is meant to be a permanent relationship. But an increasing number of couples end up in divorce court. Jehovah God sets the standard of morality for humans. For instance, he decrees that marriage is a permanent union between a man and a woman. (Mt 19:4-6, 9) He condemns all types of sexual immorality. (1Co 6:9, 10) He even provides principles regarding dress and grooming that set his people apart.—De 22:5; 1Ti 2:9, 10. In today’s world, many people reject Jehovah’s standards. (Ro 1:18-32) They allow popular opinion to influence their dress and grooming and their conduct. Many flaunt their gross wrongdoing and criticize those who live by a different standard.—1Pe 4:3, 4. It is so important that to uphold Jehovah’s moral standard because Christ Jesus will soon destroy the nations and all wickedness. (Eze 9:4-7) Only those who are doing the will of God will remain. (1Jo 2:15-17)


If we do not become numb to it through disobedience, we are all capable of discerning right from wrong. We call this ability to know what is good and true our conscience. It is the spirit of truth that enlightens our minds or "the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world." John 1:9 We can pretend to think that immorality is ok. We can even rationalize it. But deep down, we know better. I believe this is why those who fight against doing what is right (such as some political issues) become so angry and even riot. The truth cuts them to the core.

♜Ⓢⓚⓨ ❍ Ⓓⓞⓥⓔ ♜

I think the freedom to diverge from others and the allowance of divergence of those other from you and each other is the proper way people should act toward each other.