Can rules define morality?
599672
No, Morality is personal.  Rules are for everyone.\n\nRules can be set to try and set some kind of moral backing, but it is up to the person whether or not they want to follow the rules.
8920
Both are about values and right and wrong, but ethical usually is more related to professional behavior where morality is more personal.  Government, to me, should act ethically.  When government gets "moral", I feel like they are taking on more personal beliefs.  As a government, I think we need to be ethical about right and wrong, as long as those definitions are universals instead of those related to a scripture.
66636
In addition to the idea that there are universal morals (such as killing and stealing), just because morality is relative doesn't mean it doesn't exist.\n\nAttitudes towards sex are a great example of moral relativity.  Even in our own country we've become very accepting of pre-marital sex. This doesn't mean we still don't have a set of morals about sex, it just means they've changed over time.  Morality shifts, but still exists.
551548
ABSOLUTELY.  Christians do not have a monopoly on morals.  There are Christians with and without them.  There are Atheists with and without them.\n\nNon-Christians includes Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and well......everyone not Christian!  Absolutely every human is capable of morality.
283819
One definition is, "strong moral character or strength, and adherence to ethical principles." How it applies to anyone is a personal issue, some of us have it, some don't. Bureaucrats are no exception.
1032275
I think you make some interesting points - words definitely have limitations for the definer and the interpretter.  Its always a rhetoric game and only real thieves hide behind definitions to justify their actions.  As for morality - this is not a truth - it is a social norm - and each society determines what is or isn't moral based on their level of consciousness.  As long as we are trapped in words - we are limiting our consciousness.
1157797
character and decency
114567
YES, Morals are your belief system. Ethics are our populas/public view of how things should be or are which ever the case.
938505
Short answer: My brain.\n\nRight and wrong doesn't really have a source.  There's no spigot you can turn to pour right or wrong out.  It's not a substance.  It's not a form of energy.  Right and wrong are judgments.  Such judgments are formed by the brain.\n\nThat said, people tend to have common morals because of a common human experience.  This includes some genetic selection.  Many of our morals come from instincts that have worked for us as a species.\n\nAnother source of morality is society.  There have been countless societies with various moralities.  As societies have competed, some moralities have proven more effective at allowing people to live amongst each other in relative peace.\n\nThat, btw, is the purpose of morality, to allow people to live close to each other.\n\nWhen it gets down to it, though, the "source" of your morality is your brain.  My morality is influenced by my human genetics, the world I live in, my country, my state, my neighborhood, my culture, my friends, my family.  But ultimately, I decided, for myself, what my place is in society, what I want to do with my life, and how I think I should relate to other people.\n\nI can go on to explain how people with different morals come to common morality and how that translates into laws in society, but this post is already too long.
73668
Moral values guide your decisions about the most important decisions in life.  Life and Death, War and Peace, Wrath or Compassion.  \n\nIf you generally support war, punishment, agression, violence and killing of those you hate, then you are immoral.  If you lack compassion and your actions promote a lack of compassion then you may be considered immoral.\n\nMorality is also about personal choices you make which affect others, such as lying, cheating, or bearing false witness.\n\nMorality in my view is not about consentual sexuality, dress, language or decisions about drugs or alcohol.  Those are issues of preference and control (self control and control over others.)
1137343
Yes, especailly if morality is a human construct and thus subjective. In that case it's quite obvious that the emotions generated by cognition drive morality in humans.\n\nAs for an Objective Morality, take a look at this:\n\nDesire Utilitarianism:\n\nhttp://www.infidelguy.com/members/AlonzoFyfe/article_du.shtml\n\nPS: And If your REALLY interested in this moral system, Alonzo offers an entire online book on it.\n\nIf I recall correctly, he made his Doctorate Thesis on Desire Utilitarianism.\n\nhttp://www.infidelguy.com/members/AlonzoFyfe/desire_utilitarianism.shtml
1126716
Nah. The single rule to be good to others isn't specific enough because one person might consider something to be good while another doesn't, such as abortion. Even if everyone had the same understanding of what is good and what isn't, it still makes more sense to assume god doesn't exist.
594580
Downfall of mankind n moral decay. These r mere words. Different people make judgment on a particular situation using their own moral standards. Hugging n kissing openly is acceptable to some n abhorred by others. Polygamy is perfectly legal in some c'tries n illegal in others. In some c'tries, prostitution is a legal profession. Sometimes these laws n standards coexist esp in multi-racial, religious n cultural c'tries. Coming back to your question. What standards are u using when u posed this question?
383336
Whenever you answer a question about whether something is morally correct or right, you have to identify the criteria you have for making moral judgments.  If it is just one person's opinion versus another opinion, then there is no right or wrong answer.  If we all make up our own rules as to what is right and what is wrong, then who is to say that my rules aren't as good as your rules?  If rules only apply to the one who makes them up, well then that makes it easy to be perfect.  I'll just make up whatever rules I want that make me look perfect and you look bad.\n\nI believe that we don't have the moral right to make up our own rules about what is right and what is wrong.  You are free to make up your own rules, but you will still be wrong.  Do I have the moral right to make up rules for you?  No, I do not.  But God has the right to make up the rules, or reveal to us what the rules are.  It is the only real standard of truth.  The rest is wishful thinking.  If you say that you do not believe in God, does that change anything?  No, it does not.  God is there, or he is not there, no matter what you think, feel, or believe.\n\nSo, to answer your question, God said that homosexual behavior was wrong.  It doesn't matter whether you think that is a good judgment or not.  There is absolutely no reason for anyone to accept the rules you make up as being valid for anyone.  You have to go outside of yourself to find the true standard.\n\nYes, I've had many conversations with those who practice homosexuality.  I do not believe God made them homosexuals.  They may have had a same sex attraction, but that is not the same thing as choosing to engage in homosexual acts or thoughts.
883223
Unless morality is based on the Law of God, the definition of "morally right" simply becomes "whatever I think is morally right", and "morally wrong" becomes "whatever I think is morally wrong". Of course, that would only define my own personal subjective morality, since there would be no such thing as objective morality. Your definition of "morally right" would be "whatever YOU happen to think is right", which might be completely opposite to my definition of "morally right". If morality is completely subjective, why even speak in terms of morality? Morality would consist of "you do whatever you feel like doing, and I'll do whatever I feel like doing". I couldn't judge any action of yours to be immoral, nor could you judge any action of mine, or of terrorists, or of governments, to be immoral. "What's right for you may not be right for me" would be the foundation of morality, whether we werespeaking of murder, rape, child molestation, or any other act. All acts would be morally neutral, and would become "right" or "wrong" only in the minds of individuals. Morality is meaningful only when there is an objective standard against which to compare subjective ideas of morality. An act is objectively moral when it fits the objective standard of morality.
370920
"They are really more like guidelines..."  I heard that once.  Common wisdom is morality is a personal choice, and cannot be obtained by imposing laws.  Laws and penalties can influence behavior by incentive and pushishments.
998783
gravesendian said it perfectly as far as I'm concerned.  I agree 100%.  \n\nMorality is a purely human construct.  What is "moral" or lawful in one part of the world, can be immoral or illegal in another part.  Take prosititution...in some countries it is legal, in others not.  What makes the difference?  Difference in human perception...difference in what is considered an acceptable standard of behaviour.