The Morality of Action - Page 2

I would like to thank both Teen & Gopher for their response.
As my question may seem out of context with the thread, to me the common factor is the moral responsability of the people relating to the actions of or part of their governing body. After the post I thought more about it, I even looked in the dictionary for its definition of moral, morality, etc. Afterward I found I still ill at ease, I still was looking for an answer. Morality is it an absolute or is it something which is dependent upon the circumstance?

I believe in moral relativism, the idea that morality is dependent upon person and background. Check out the "Morality" section of my website. http://www.ctintin.tk

I did and found it to be nice site. But I did want to point out for general information that in a real sense. I had never thought to much about it till I read this thread, I tend to see a true moral value as something more of an absolute. It would seem to form a double standard otherwise?
To Christians, they has an absolute moral authority in Jesus. The Morallity question has been answered by (in) the Life of Christ. Jesus never stumbled, falling from grace therefore He never committed an unmoral nor immoral act.

Exploding : from what I gather from the site, you believe that morality has no absolute and that morality varies from culture to culture?

Cultural morals in my opinion are not true morals, the only true moral act (which can also be cultural at the same time) is any unselfish act.

Jesus' life would be exemplary of a truly moral life. He did as many unselfish acts as he could.

quote:

---

Cultural morals in my opinion are not true morals

---

Then what are true morals? The morals both you and cturtle have given me are based on religion, a piece of culture.

And speaking of Christ...

Not everyone believes in his teachings or his messianic qualities. In addition, not everybody interprets his teachings the same way, as evidenced by the huge number of Christian faiths. So not even concrete teachings by Christ are necessarily indicative of a universal moral standard. He lived by a Jewish moral standard, and put his own teachings along with his religion.

Christ cannot possibly answer the morality question because he still doesn't provide a standard that is, or ever can be measured objectively.

Finally...

DumbTeen, you say that "the only true moral act (which can also be cultural at the same time) is any unselfish act." So serving yourself is inherantly immoral and doing something outside yourself is inherantly moral? If I kill someone as a service to someone else (unselfishly), did I just commit a moral act? Furthermore, if by serving myself first I can actually enhance my ability to help others, am I truly being immoral in helping myself. For instance, by working for a charity, I could benefit myself because I would be satisfied with the knowledge I helped someone while possibly recieving compensation. I'm still in it for self-interest, but aren't my actions still moral?

My "true morals" are unselfish acts. Anything you do to help others and especially if you have to sacrifice something to do so.
Its true many religions call this moral, but to me this is pure moral action.
Regardless of the consequences of your action, so long as you believe you are doing it to help others and so if it costs you something, then we cannot call you evil.

"Not everyone believes in his teachings or his messianic qualities."
I don't believe in him either, but regardless, his life is exemplary of a moral one.

" So serving yourself is inherantly immoral and doing something outside yourself is inherantly moral?"
That's not what I said I defined morality : helping another at your own cost is moral.
If you want immorality : helping yourself at the cost of others is immoral.

" If I kill someone as a service to someone else (unselfishly), did I just commit a moral act?"
Most likely not, it mostly depends on whether or not you consider the person you killed a human being or not. If so, then you are not only helping others, you are hurting one, and therefore is not moral.

"Furthermore, if by serving myself first I can actually enhance my ability to help others, am I truly being immoral in helping myself."
I never said helping oneself was immoral, only when it was at the cost of others. In this case, the long term goal is more important then short term goals, you are moral, as you intend to help more people by this action.

"For instance, by working for a charity, I could benefit myself because I would be satisfied with the knowledge I helped someone while possibly recieving compensation."
It is a good action if the satisfaction is a byproduct of helping people. It is a neutral action if helping people is only a means to aquire satisfaction.

Nicely said Teen! Ho.
http://www.captaincynic.com/thread.php3/frmid=17-u-thrdid=17882-u-page=1
#18948

Gotta give it to ya, that was a great response. Exactly the kind of thing that's good for this type of discussion.

So people who haven't replied to this course we're currently on...morals:absolute or relative? I believe heavily in the relativity of morality, but not that moral relativism is necessarily a good thing. I just believe that it exists.

We see constant conflict in the world because of these differences in morality. Look at Israel and Palestine. The cultural differences ultimately boil down to a difference in what is believed moral and immoral, and a constant conflict has been fanned by relativism.

World affairs would probably be easier with a standard of morality. Unfortunately, because that doesn't exist, enforcing one standard over another would only cause more conflict. Thus, the failure of the Crusades and similar wars.

What does everybody else think?

Yes I am with you so far 'statement' to define the nature of the problems examined . .