What does it mean to say that something is immoral?

[aprilfloyd]

So cannibals are moral? They too evolved through natural selection. What brings moral out of natural selection?

Regardless point being I’m looking at a perspective non religious, does atheism fit that?

When we remove religion then we are the ultimate judge of morality, so what one deems moral can easily be immoral to another. Where’s the boundary?

I think cannibalism is wrong. Most societies legislate against it. And it definitely seems to be dying out as a lifestyle choice, probably due to a reluctance on the part of the victims/lunch.

Religion has played a part in the development of Morality, I don’t think there is any doubt about that. But we have innate morality whether we are religious or not. Religion is not a requirement for morality. If anything a lot of religions propose very immoral conduct e.g. slavery, racism, suicide bombers.

I don’t understand the question - *'What brings moral out of natural selection? * Could you be more explicit?

 

[Peter_Plato]

I think cannibalism is wrong. Most societies legislate against it. And it definitely seems to be dying out as a lifestyle choice, probably due to a reluctance on the part of the victims/lunch.

Religion has played a part in the development of Morality, I don’t think there is any doubt about that. But we have innate morality whether we are religious or not. Religion is not a requirement for morality. If anything a lot of religions propose very immoral conduct e.g. slavery, racism, suicide bombers.

I don’t understand the question - *'What brings moral out of natural selection? * Could you be more explicit?

You are attempting to make the claim that morality evolved. However, the existence of any behaviour merely as a consequence of natural causation/evolution is not enough reason to make it moral in character. The moral quality of an act is determined aside from its evolutionary origin. Many behaviours that we would judge to be immoral also evolved, so evolution cannot be the means by which morality itself arose.

Your claim is put to rest by both the genetic and naturalistic fallacies. How ideas arose does not serve to establish their truth value. Just because certain behaviours evolved does not make them, by that fact, moral behaviours.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I think cannibalism is wrong. Most societies legislate against it. And it definitely seems to be dying out as a lifestyle choice, probably due to a reluctance on the part of the victims/lunch.

Religion has played a part in the development of Morality, I don’t think there is any doubt about that. But we have innate morality whether we are religious or not. Religion is not a requirement for morality. If anything a lot of religions propose very immoral conduct e.g. slavery, racism, suicide bombers.

I don’t understand the question - *'What brings moral out of natural selection? * Could you be more explicit?

We are not talking here about “a lot” of religions. Show precisely where Catholic magisterial teaching promotes any immoral conduct.

Your lumping of all religions together is, by the way, another logical fallacy. Some men are liars, therefore all men are. Some religions promote immoral behaviours, therefore all religions are immoral.

I thought you only held verifed beliefs. Apparently that is not quite true either, is it?

 

[GaryTaylor]

So when we remove God from morality. Man makes himself the judge of morality. And when man does this we also know that man follows the strongest leader. And if he happens to deem being cannibal moral, eating people is moral. For man made it moral.

 

[fredystairs]

An act of adultery is always immoral? To whom? What paradigm?

usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-04-26-column26_ST_N.htm

I guess this depends on what the majority in fact deem to be moral and in what paradigm. As we see it may if fact be considered moral as many don’t want to be associated with the “puritan” paradigm.

An act of adultery is always immoral, according to God’s paradigm; His eternal law. “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” (Ex. 20:14) “Love your neighbor as yourself.” (Mark 12:31) What the majority thinks does not make a difference to the morality of the act, since we are to conform to God’s will. He does not conform to our will. If He did conform to our wills, then there would not have been a need for martyrs to witness to the truth, His truth. The martyrs in the Coliseum would have died in vain.

Talking about an act as being moral is different from whether the act is sinful. For an act to be sinful, one of the conditions is that the one committing the act must know that it is sinful. An act of adultery may not be sinful if one does not know that it is sinful. For example, there may be societies where adultery is the norm. No one has told them that it is wrong. That MIGHT make the act of adultery in that situation not a sin, since knowledge that it was sinful was missing.

Having said that, the act of adultery,even if it is not sinful, does not help the person morally. The example that I’ve heard used is when one is sick and goes to the medicine cabinet to get a headache remedy and takes a cough suppresent instead. There is no evil done there but the headache does not go away either.

 

[Stillness]

It would seem to me that most ideas of morality have a basis in our earlier natural development. Our desire to survive and create more generations, that is. And to live a more comfortable life, physically. So why do we see sacrifing our lives for a child as moral? It saves the life of the child, who will grow to create more children of its own. And we have developed emotional attachments to those around us in order to create a close community, which provides greater safety for all members.

Out of these different natural developments, we justified them and gave purpose to them with different philosophies, religious or otherwise. But can I say that something is actually moral or immoral? No, to do so would require a foundation for that judgment. So I find nothing to be more or less moral than anything else. Even if human emotion would tell me otherwise, I realize that it is simply biological instinct. Biological instinct does not change certain philosophical realities.

 

[aprilfloyd]

You are attempting to make the claim that morality evolved. However, the existence of any behaviour merely as a consequence of natural causation/evolution is not enough reason to make it moral in character. The moral quality of an act is determined aside from its evolutionary origin. Many behaviours that we would judge to be immoral also evolved, so evolution cannot be the means by which morality itself arose.

Your claim is put to rest by both the genetic and naturalistic fallacies. How ideas arose does not serve to establish their truth value. Just because certain behaviours evolved does not make them, by that fact, moral behaviours.

It is interesting that you appear to be trying to separate humans from their evolution/creation.

I disagree. Humans determine what is moral and the moral landscape changes. Morality is innate in humans and has evolved that way.

 

[aprilfloyd]

We are not talking here about “a lot” of religions. Show precisely where Catholic magisterial teaching promotes any immoral conduct.

Your lumping of all religions together is, by the way, another logical fallacy. Some men are liars, therefore all men are. Some religions promote immoral behaviours, therefore all religions are immoral.

I thought you only held verifed beliefs. Apparently that is not quite true either, is it?

The Catholic church acts immorally in my opinion in areas including

Denying equal rights to gays and lesbians

Sexual health in particular relation to protection and decreased risk due to the use of contraception.

Opposing emergency contraception

Opposing abortion even when it may prevent death to the women

Opposing condom use even in a marriage, even if a partner has HIV

Stifling Stem Cell Research

Promoting Catholic Doctrine to the young and in countries where illiteracy is high

Denying women equal rights as men.

 

[tonyrey]

An intention or decision is evil if it prevents or diminishes physical, intellectual, social, or spiritual development and fulfilment. It is the antithesis of divine love…

Without God evil wouldn’t exist because nothing would have a rational foundation. Existence would be valueless, purposeless and meaningless.*
*

 

[GaryTaylor]

The Catholic church acts immorally in my opinion in areas including

Denying equal rights to gays and lesbians

Sexual health in particular relation to protection and decreased risk due to the use of contraception.

Opposing emergency contraception

Opposing abortion even when it may prevent death to the women

Opposing condom use even in a marriage, even if a partner has HIV

Stifling Stem Cell Research

Promoting Catholic Doctrine to the young and in countries where illiteracy is high

Denying women equal rights as men.

Your our human morality artist now? No cannibals right? How do we know you won’t change your mind? You’ll write up a legal document to assure us? :bowdown:

 

[GaryTaylor]

Humans determine what is moral and the moral landscape changes

The whole issue in the nutshell.

 

[tonyrey]

It is interesting that you appear to be trying to separate humans from their evolution/creation.

I disagree. Humans determine what is moral and the moral landscape changes. Morality is innate in humans and has evolved that way.

The inhumanity of humanity demonstrates to what extent we determine what is moral…

 

[Peter_Plato]

The Catholic church acts immorally in my opinion in areas including

Denying equal rights to gays and lesbians

Sexual health in particular relation to protection and decreased risk due to the use of contraception.

Opposing emergency contraception

Opposing abortion even when it may prevent death to the women

Opposing condom use even in a marriage, even if a partner has HIV

Stifling Stem Cell Research

Promoting Catholic Doctrine to the young and in countries where illiteracy is high

Denying women equal rights as men.

The Catholic position is morally defensible on all of these issues. You are disagreeing with the Church’s position. That, in itself, does not show that the Church’s position is immoral, but merely that you think it is. The moral justification that the Church provides on every point above, far exceeds anything you have supplied (at least on these forums) for your position.

Basically, the above points amount to no more than an argument that a thief might make in condemning laws against stealing as infringements of his right to take things as he wills. Sure, the thief might cite these laws as offensive to his view of liberty, that he cannot do as he wills because of those laws, but that does not make the laws immoral just because the thief has a rather idiosyncratic view of property that favors his freedom above the rights of others. Every point you made, likewise, favors a particular group and labels the more universal and just view of the Church as immoral because you feel the Church doesn’t side with a particular vested group who stand to profit in some way from a loosened moral position.

Each of your points could make a thread on its own and I would be quite willing to take apart each one separately, but, I suspect, it would not change your mind on any of them because no matter how reasonable the position of the Church is, you have strong vested motives for retaining your view. Motives will always override reason where emotion has supreme power and reason holds purely a titular position.

 

[rtechie]

Searching for definitions from all quarters.

As a moral skeptic, I define “immoral” as “I don’t like that”.

 

[rtechie]

…you have strong vested motives for retaining your view. Motives will always override reason where emotion has supreme power and reason holds purely a titular position.

Are you seriously claiming that Catholic morality is based on “reason”?

 

[OxygenMan]

Are you seriously claiming that Catholic morality is based on “reason”?

It is.

 

[Auntie_A]

An immoral act is often very selfish, knowingly or unknowingly inflicting pain on others in order to get what one immediately wants; it is a short-sighted act that might be immediately pleasurable but in the long term can create harm to oneself, one’s loved ones, one’s community and generations to come. Following the 10 commandments would be the opposite of this definition of immoral. The long range effects of such morality (Ten Commandments) can only produce a society that grows and thrives in a more peaceful way than that of an immoral society that avoids adhering to a sound, consistent, time-tested moral code.

 

[Peter_Plato]

As a moral skeptic, I define “immoral” as “I don’t like that”.

So when you happen to change your feelings about anything it becomes moral or immoral for everyone else?

Interesting. I wouldn’t call you a moral skeptic, from your assertion you are more likely an arational narcissist.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Are you seriously claiming that Catholic morality is based on “reason”?

It certainly isn’t based upon your emotional state.

 

[abucs]

From the Didache :

There are two ways, one of life and one of death; but a great difference between the two ways.

I’d say morality is the fundamental underlying reality of existence of which we can choose or reject. The more moral, the closer to God, life and the underlying reality. The more immoral, the more you’re heading in the direction of non existence and away from fundamental reality.