What does, "moral," mean?

[RCSaunders]

In all the discussion on morality I have not seen a single clear explanation of what is meant by the word moral. I've seen the words, "right," and, "wrong," "good," and, "bad," used, but those words are used for things all the time that are not described as, "moral." The meat has gone,"bad," that singer is really, "good," the package was delivered to the, "wrong," house, or, "that girl is the, "right," one for the part, do not mean the bad meat or wrong house are immoral, or that the good singer or right girl are morally good or right, do they?

So what kind of thing makes something, "morally," good, as opposed to just good because one likes it or, "morally," right as opposed to just right because it achieves some objective or purpose, and what makes something, "morally," bad, as opposed to just bad because one doesn't want or like it or, "morally," wrong as opposed to something that is just wrong because it fails to achieve some objective or purpose?

Whenever I see the word, "moral," used it always infers, implicitly, if not explicitly, a kind of judgement that doing what is morally bad or wrong makes one guilty of something while doing something morally good or right confers a kind of virtue. I do not know if everyone who uses the word moral includes that censorious or judgmental aspect of the word, but it is very commone.

I think any discussion of morality must make it perfectly clear what is meant by the word, "moral," and what differentiates, "moral," issues from all others, and the question answered, does one's behavior, from a moral perspective, determine one's guilt or virtue?

[Veritas Aequitas]

You were the most notorious culprit who insisted in not defining 'morality' and you have the guile to raise the point that you have not read of any clear definition of 'what is morality'.
Nevertheless, ultimately this is a critical and necessary question that must be determined.

Note my thread leading to the need of a proper definition for 'morality' and 'Ethics'.
Is There a Definitive Definition of Morality?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29737

I believe 'Morality' has to be defined within the following narratives;

Morality is the following;

• 1. It is an obvious fact, DNA/RNA wise, ALL humans are "programmed" to survive till the inevitable.
  
  2. One of the critical factor ensure 1 is to do good and avoid evil [bad and the likes].
  
  3. As such all humans are "programmed" to do good and avoid evil and this is an inherent function of morality which is represented by a neural algorithm within the brain/mind that is connected to the whole body.
  
  4. What is good with reference to morality is non-evil.
  
  5. What is evil [with reference to morality] are thoughts and acts that will impinge and hinder ultimately on 1, i.e. survival.
  
  6. The inherent function of morality are expressed in terms of actions of input, processes and consequences.
  
  7. The actions and processes are most effectively managed via a Framework and Regulatory Approach to Morality and Ethical Systems. [FRAMES]

An effective FRAMES must comprised of justified Principles and Practices as in PURE and APPLIED respectively.

To avoid confusion,
Morality refers to the PURE aspects -the principles, objectives, standards, i.e. the justified true moral facts to be used as GUIDES within FRAMES.
while
Ethics refers to APPLIED aspects - the practical and practices, e.g. Ethics with Medicine, business, Science, politics, etc.

[RCSaunders]

You were the most notorious culprit who insisted in not defining 'morality' and you have the guile to raise the point that you have not read of any clear definition of 'what is morality'.
Nevertheless, ultimately this is a critical and necessary question that must be determined.

Note my thread leading to the need of a proper definition for 'morality' and 'Ethics'.
Is There a Definitive Definition of Morality?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29737

I believe 'Morality' has to be defined within the following narratives;

Morality is the following;

• 1. It is an obvious fact, DNA/RNA wise, ALL humans are "programmed" to survive till the inevitable.
  
  2. One of the critical factor ensure 1 is to do good and avoid evil [bad and the likes].
  
  3. As such all humans are "programmed" to do good and avoid evil and this is an inherent function of morality which is represented by a neural algorithm within the brain/mind that is connected to the whole body.
  
  4. What is good with reference to morality is non-evil.
  
  5. What is evil [with reference to morality] are thoughts and acts that will impinge and hinder ultimately on 1, i.e. survival.
  
  6. The inherent function of morality are expressed in terms of actions of input, processes and consequences.
  
  7. The actions and processes are most effectively managed via a Framework and Regulatory Approach to Morality and Ethical Systems. [FRAMES]

An effective FRAMES must comprised of justified Principles and Practices as in PURE and APPLIED respectively.

To avoid confusion,
Morality refers to the PURE aspects -the principles, objectives, standards, i.e. the justified true moral facts to be used as GUIDES within FRAMES.
while
Ethics refers to APPLIED aspects - the practical and practices, e.g. Ethics with Medicine, business, Science, politics, etc.

You do not understand the question. I'm not asking how you define some particular moral view but what you mean by the word, "moral," itself. I assume those who use the term are referring to some things they believe are right or wrong or good or bad, but also that there is something special about the kind of right, wrong, good, or bad they call, "moral," as opposed to practical, or preferable, or financial, or some other kind of values.

[Impenitent]

moral...

reminds me of an acquaintance I had several years ago... his name was Ron - he had a son named Ron Jr

Ron had explained to his son that he was a reflection or an extension of his father ...

they introduced themselves as Ron and more Ron...

-Imp

[henry quirk]

I'm not asking how you define some particular moral view but what you mean by the word, "moral," itself.

as I use it means...

morality is all about the rightness or wrongness of a man's intent, his choices, his actions and conduct, as he interacts with, or impinges on, another

however, without referencin' a specific moral fact, that doesn't tell you much

[Veritas Aequitas]

You do not understand the question. I'm not asking how you define some particular moral view but what you mean by the word, "moral," itself. I assume those who use the term are referring to some things they believe are right or wrong or good or bad, but also that there is something special about the kind of right, wrong, good, or bad they call, "moral," as opposed to practical, or preferable, or financial, or some other kind of values.

It is obvious no matter how you interpret a concept, one will always have to fall back on first principles or at least some basic grounds, in this case the definition of what one mean by 'moral'.

If someone say X is morally right and Y is morally wrong, so all ought to do X and ought-not to do Y.
It is only rational to ask 'WHY'? WHY'? WHY'?
That is one of the basic attitude in doing philosophy.

Instead of toying with the word 'moral' I anticipate the above and thus provided the groundings of 'what is moral'.

You don't have to accept it if you cannot see the point of it.

[RCSaunders]

You do not understand the question. I'm not asking how you define some particular moral view but what you mean by the word, "moral," itself. I assume those who use the term are referring to some things they believe are right or wrong or good or bad, but also that there is something special about the kind of right, wrong, good, or bad they call, "moral," as opposed to practical, or preferable, or financial, or some other kind of values.

It is obvious no matter how you interpret a concept, one will always have to fall back on first principles or at least some basic grounds, in this case the definition of what one mean by 'moral'.

If someone say X is morally right and Y is morally wrong, so all ought to do X and ought-not to do Y.
It is only rational to ask 'WHY'? WHY'? WHY'?
That is one of the basic attitude in doing philosophy.

Instead of toying with the word 'moral' I anticipate the above and thus provided the groundings of 'what is moral'.

You don't have to accept it if you cannot see the point of it.

In a way, you have answered my question. You said, "If someone say X is morally right and Y is morally wrong, so all ought to do X and ought-not to do Y," so I assume you mean by, "moral," that which one, "ought to do."

My question is not why any particular thing is moral or immoral, but what the difference between an, "ought," that is called moral, and any other kind of, "ought," like, "if one does not want to be dehydrated they ought to drink water." If every ought is not a moral ought, what is the difference between plain old everyday oughts and moral oughts?

[RCSaunders]

I'm not asking how you define some particular moral view but what you mean by the word, "moral," itself.

as I use it means...

morality is all about the rightness or wrongness of a man's intent, his choices, his actions and conduct, as he interacts with, or impinges on, another

however, without referencin' a specific moral fact, that doesn't tell you much

Actually it tells a lot.

Certainly there are right and wrong intentions, choices, actions, and behavior for human beings. If that is all you mean by, "moral," your view is unique, and one I would have no quibble with. I believe there are principles that human beings must live by if they are to be truly human and live successfully as human beings, but I would not call them moral principles. As far a I am concerned, adding the word, "moral," always confuses objectively right behavior with some form of mystic obligation or duty imposed by something other than reason, like God, or the good of society, or evolution.

In your own case, you seem to equate, "moral," with how one relates to others, e.g. how one "interacts with, or impinges on, another." My own view of right behavior only pertains to the individual's behavior for his own sake, because if he gets his own life right he will have no problems with his relationships to others, but if he screws up his own life, he'll never be able to relate to others in anything but negative ways.

[Belinda]

You do not understand the question. I'm not asking how you define some particular moral view but what you mean by the word, "moral," itself. I assume those who use the term are referring to some things they believe are right or wrong or good or bad, but also that there is something special about the kind of right, wrong, good, or bad they call, "moral," as opposed to practical, or preferable, or financial, or some other kind of values.

It is obvious no matter how you interpret a concept, one will always have to fall back on first principles or at least some basic grounds, in this case the definition of what one mean by 'moral'.

If someone say X is morally right and Y is morally wrong, so all ought to do X and ought-not to do Y.
It is only rational to ask 'WHY'? WHY'? WHY'?
That is one of the basic attitude in doing philosophy.

Instead of toying with the word 'moral' I anticipate the above and thus provided the groundings of 'what is moral'.

You don't have to accept it if you cannot see the point of it.

In a way, you have answered my question. You said, "If someone say X is morally right and Y is morally wrong, so all ought to do X and ought-not to do Y," so I assume you mean by, "moral," that which one, "ought to do."

My question is not why any particular thing is moral or immoral, but what the difference between an, "ought," that is called moral, and any other kind of, "ought," like, "if one does not want to be dehydrated they ought to drink water." If every ought is not a moral ought, what is the difference between plain old everyday oughts and moral oughts?

Ought means owe it to. So you owe it to yourself and others to drink water to stay hydrated.
And also you owe it to others to refrain from killing . Also I owe it to God to do as He has instructed.

I owe you £1 is the same as I ought to give you £1.

[henry quirk]

Actually it tells a lot.

not really

this...

morality is all about the rightness or wrongness of a man's intent, his choices, his actions and conduct, as he interacts with, or impinges on, another

...provides context (morality is for men) but no substance (a moral fact as foundation of what is right and wrong, good and evil, etc)

[RCSaunders]

My question is not why any particular thing is moral or immoral, but what the difference between an, "ought," that is called moral, and any other kind of, "ought," like, "if one does not want to be dehydrated they ought to drink water." If every ought is not a moral ought, what is the difference between plain old everyday oughts and moral oughts?

Ought means owe it to. So you owe it to yourself and others to drink water to stay hydrated.
And also you owe it to others to refrain from killing . Also I owe it to God to do as He has instructed.

I owe you £1 is the same as I ought to give you £1.

I have no idea how that is supposed to answer my question, but appreciate the response.

[Luxin]

deleted 459

[KLewchuk]

In all the discussion on morality I have not seen a single clear explanation of what is meant by the word moral. I've seen the words, "right," and, "wrong," "good," and, "bad," used, but those words are used for things all the time that are not described as, "moral." The meat has gone,"bad," that singer is really, "good," the package was delivered to the, "wrong," house, or, "that girl is the, "right," one for the part, do not mean the bad meat or wrong house are immoral, or that the good singer or right girl are morally good or right, do they?

So what kind of thing makes something, "morally," good, as opposed to just good because one likes it or, "morally," right as opposed to just right because it achieves some objective or purpose, and what makes something, "morally," bad, as opposed to just bad because one doesn't want or like it or, "morally," wrong as opposed to something that is just wrong because it fails to achieve some objective or purpose?

Whenever I see the word, "moral," used it always infers, implicitly, if not explicitly, a kind of judgement that doing what is morally bad or wrong makes one guilty of something while doing something morally good or right confers a kind of virtue. I do not know if everyone who uses the word moral includes that censorious or judgmental aspect of the word, but it is very commone.

I think any discussion of morality must make it perfectly clear what is meant by the word, "moral," and what differentiates, "moral," issues from all others, and the question answered, does one's behavior, from a moral perspective, determine one's guilt or virtue?

Think of the worst possible suffering for all sentient beings for the longest possible time. Now, think about the greatest sense of well being for all sentient beings for the longest possible time. Morality is about moving from situation A to situation B.

[FlashDangerpants]

Think of the worst possible suffering for all sentient beings for the longest possible time. Now, think about the greatest sense of well being for all sentient beings for the longest possible time. Morality is about moving from situation A to situation B.

That has a couple of serious problems. For one, you cannot know what was the right or wrong choice without waiting for the final tally at some sort of judgment day at the end of an infinite number of possible universes. This limits the usefulness of the whole thing rather significantly.

But it also can make the most self evidently evil action appear to be good. Let us consider the case of Saint Slaughterboy The Child Killer...

In the days before Slaughterboy was a saint, he lived next door to Jane, a 5 year old child who like to help her dad do the gardening. Unbeknownst to all, Jane was the most evil person in history by far because she happened to be digging a hole above a portal to Hell, which would unleash a wave of evil demons who would torture every man, woman dog and cat for eternity. Luckily Saint Slaughterboy was a serial killer who murdered children, using their tender flesh to make sandwiches and their soft skin to make hats. Thus Jane was brutally murdered, eaten and worn as a trophy cap, before she could finish the fatal hole. A fitting end for the most evil being in history.

[Belinda]

My question is not why any particular thing is moral or immoral, but what the difference between an, "ought," that is called moral, and any other kind of, "ought," like, "if one does not want to be dehydrated they ought to drink water." If every ought is not a moral ought, what is the difference between plain old everyday oughts and moral oughts?

Ought means owe it to. So you owe it to yourself and others to drink water to stay hydrated.
And also you owe it to others to refrain from killing . Also I owe it to God to do as He has instructed.

I owe you £1 is the same as I ought to give you £1.

I have no idea how that is supposed to answer my question, but appreciate the response.

My answer is like , there is no difference between efficiently right and morally right. Both efficiently right and morally right depend on criteria.

The criterion for efficiently right is usually a scientific or technological explanation or what your respected medic,or lawyer or the manufacturer said . The criterion for what is morally right may be what some important politician such as Muhammad , The Pope, or Moses said or is sometimes a sociological or biological explanation.