Is morality objective?
465975
Morality is very subjective.  It's something we learn, and something we develop.   There are somethings that MOST people with agree with, like murder is wrong.  But there are many issues where people differ on it.  \nMorality is not set in stone.  It's a belief system that stems from who we are, and the society we are a part of.
1063730
Morally, if we were to universally follow The Law given to Man by his Maker, then it is a resounding "YES!"\n\nHowever, our man-made laws have yet to acquiesce to being held accountable and liable to such a MORALITY clause...
114567
YES, Morals are your belief system. Ethics are our populas/public view of how things should be or are which ever the case.
151585
Morality is a value judgement.  I can't possibly answer your question accurately unless I understand just how you define the term "immoral."\n\nThat said, I think that our race has been pretty consistantly cruel to our fellow men (and especially our women).  Slavery, public burnings, political massacres, etc.  History is full of acts that most would consider immoral, even the Old Testement of the Bible is a virtual textbook of cruel and "immoral" behaviors, justified because the writers were "chosen by God".\n\nMy final answer?  "The world" wasn't moral in the first place, so it isn't really possible for it to become immoral.  Besides, planets don't behave immorally, people do.
713224
A teacher shouldn't be talking about morals in the first place.\n\nFirst question: definitive yes.\nSecond question: biased no, but more practically, yes.
450503
Ok, this is the thing. As far as morality is concerned there is no real right and wrong. That is totally determined by the person who is in the situation. Society has a grander scale on which they see things as right or wrong but then again society doesn't enter into this question.
275809
Morality is not taught as much as it used to be by the general public.(eg. prison populations) Teaching or having morals is an option we are given. Being the people God wants us to be is also an option. Regardless of what moral values a person has they can still become a child in God and God will do the rest. God will not hold the entire human race responsible for the actions of non-believers. Just the actions of each individual.
259863
In addition to various factual questions (such as how many people on both sides might have been killed in an invasion, or whether hostilities might have been ended without an invasion or the bombs), you'll want to define the terms.  Yes, moral/justified are two differet words, but they may or may not have different meanings in context; it depends on your values.  If morality is everying to you, than moral = justified.  If morality is not your highest value, then there must be some other values by which you measure what is justified.
543340
PRO: Sets a behavioral standard for society, in which all people are treated equal.\nCON: morality can be subjective, and what might be good for one culture may not necessarily carry the same weight with another (look at the US compared to Saudi Arabia)
265808
I don't think that this should determine or have any effect on the question of morality here.  The fact is that natural childbirth can cause tearing, sometimes very severe tearing.
243385
Yeah, but we're the richest and most powerful country in the world, so the rules don't REALLY apply when they're not convienent, do they?  We're not worried about being MORAL, just as long as we can wage unilateral war to make OTHERS moral.\n\nWe're America, we don't have to worry about being hypocrites.
308221
it's supposed to be ask A question, not two dozen of them, lol. are you a philosophy major? ;) (if not, you might consider it....)\n\npersonally i like to believe that people innately have a sense of right and wrong, that we naturally are inclined to assume the best in others rather than go around killing and maiming. not sure that's the case, though. is it our first instinct to step on a spider? or only after we've been stung or bitten or harmed?\n\npart of me thinks that being mean is taught by other people, so maybe these two would be child-like in their curiosity and interest and willingness to assume the best in one another. or, maybe they'd be so used to fending for themselves that the self-interest gene would kick into high gear. certainly they'd be leery of another person.\n\nif morality requires empathy, and empathy is the ability to imagine yourself in the situation of others, then before they meet they aren't immoral, exactly, but rather amoral -- there's no need to know right and wrong, since there are no other people to be affected by their actions. in fact, it's hard to imagine even having a concept of yourself until there's another person to see yourself as being distinct from.\n\nin reality human contact in the earliest weeks after birth seems to be essential for moral development. children with reactive attachment disorder (from neglect or abuse or lack of nurturing) as an infant are the ones who grow up to be sociopaths, with absolutely zero regard for other people.\n\nfun stuff!
609095
Why wouldn't it be?\nUsing contemporary moral standards:\nSeems that most people have no moral qualms about eating animals.  Vegans and vegetarians are a very, very small minority.\nSaving a human life is generally agreed to be a high moral good.\nTherefore, killing a pig to take its heart valve and transplant it into a human being who otherwise would die, appears to have a higher moral good than killing a pig so that people can eat cheeseburgers with bacon.\n\nOf course, if one wants to use other assumptions the results would be different.  If one assumes that all life is equally precious, whether human or a pig, one would find killing the pig for either reason to be wrong.\n\nIn short, like most questions of morality, it depends on your starting assumptions.
16507
Wow, what a great question.  Let's first see if we can 'agree' on what morality means.  The traditional definition is that morality means a system or set of beliefs that define what is good or bad.\n\nTo that end, religion and religious traditions, whether Eastern or Wester, certainly due provide a system of beliefs in what is right or wrong - or morality.\n\nThe real question, is this . . . which religious tradition (i.e., Judeo-Christian, Hindu, Islamic, etc.,) provides the "best" system for morality? To answer that question ones must become familiar with the sacred writing and teachings of a given relgious tradition.\n\nMust morality depnd on religion exclusively?  Not necessarily, but it is hard to think of one signficant moral tradition or belief (e.g., don't steal, don't kill) that is not rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition.\n\nI believe the statement that morality is relative is simply ridiculous.  Moral traditions created by man are relative; but the Judeo-Christian view is that God gave the Law and thus Judeo-Christian morality is based on the character and nature of God, which is anything but relative.  God is absolute, and the final authroity on what is true, good or not.
612826
hmm interesting I honestly wudn't know abt that. From what I've heard about nihilism (looked it up ) they reject morality and religion, they believe that life is pointless and that nothing is worthwhile. They believe that all established authority is corrupt and must be destroyed in order to rebuild  a just society (Sounds like pessimism to me). The only thing that I agree w/ them on is that there is no objective basis for the truth. W/c is true. There is no such thing as an absolute truth, because we all do not know what this absolute truth is. Therefore whatever basis that we have, may or may not be the truth, we just don't know. We only put our faith in it believing that it is the truth. Therefore to answer ur question, i think it's pointless to satisfy a Nihilist w/ a solid answer. I mean what's the point if he won't accept it anyway right? All i know is that in the end it's NOT Religion that will save us, but Faith.
620822
Good Afternoon!\n \nMorals are objective, and subjective.  That is, genocide is always wrong.  Rape?  Wrong.  This morally so.  But person's intention has to be taken into account.  Take for existence a man putting a knife into another man's heart, and the second man dies.  Was the first man action morally wrong?  If his intention was to kill or harm the other man, yes, his action is morally wrong.  It is never right to intend harm on another.  But maybe he was surgurn performing emergency surgery on a patient, and the patient died despite the doctor's attempt to keep him alive.  So his action is not wrong, becuase the intention to save a life.\n\nThat is there a many actions that are morally wrong.  When Deciding if the person is cupable fo a wrong act one most consider three things: 1 whether the person knows the act is wrong.  2 whether the person has considered what they are doing and 3 whether or not they choose to do it freely, with out coersion.  \n\nThere are morally wrong and right acts.  If someone steals from you something they do not need, you will know that is wrong, no matter where you are.  But the act must be veiwed with the intention included.  Maybe it was someone who did not the object was yours, and thinking it belonged to some one they knew, would borrow and return it.  However, in this case it is not stealing, and is simply a mistake. \n\nLastly, one can never choose a moral wrong intentionally for the sake of another good.  That is always wrong, no matter what the more distant intention is, becuase the immediate intention is wrong.\n\nPeace be with you.\n\nsorry about typographical errors, I'm in a hurry.
93923
Well...  What religion does is make morality an objective idea instead of a subjective one; people obey the tenets that a certain religion sets forth.  Morality without religion is subjective; it is every individual's own perception of right and wrong -- which often differs.  Very similar is the difference between Christianity and humanism; one sets God as the absolute of all reality, and the other sets humankind as the absolute of all reality.  \nSo, do people need "god" to be morally "responsible" to their own concept of morality?  No.  Whether their idea of morality is correct, on the other hand -- take Hitler's morality for instance; he may very well have been responsible to his idea of morality -- is a totally different question.