I'm going to say no. Reason being that I am the one who makes the decision for my actions.
I am responsible for what happens as a result.

Then I would say we mostly agree and add the following:

Society should also endeavor to determine a set of moral guidlines that the vast mmajority can agree are just and right. We basically already have this, it's called the law. It's not morality but, it helps us think about what might be right or wrong and resolve conflicts between two people who may not agree 100%.

I agree to some extent. In order to get along with others in your surroundings you do conform a little to the moral standards of the society you live in. But it is everyone that sociery that sets the baseline standard together and not just one person, and it is eventually up to you to conform to or break that standard. The consequences are then your responsibility.

(June 8, 2009 at 5:29 am)moleque Wrote: I'm going to say no. Reason being that I am the one who makes the decision for my actions. I am responsible for what happens as a result.

Morality is a system of ethics, ethics are social and therefore meaningless to individuals EXCEPT as part of a social grouping so my answer is yes ... a given society MUST dictate the morality against which our actions are evaluated.

I think you are confusing morality (social) with conscience (individual).

Kyu

---

(June 8, 2009 at 5:42 am)Demonaura Wrote: We basically already have this, it's called the law. It's not morality but, it helps us think about what might be right or wrong and resolve conflicts between two people who may not agree 100%.

Actually I would say that in a "rights-based" society such as moist westernised countries the law very much tends to reflect social morality.

Kyu

No I'm with you there Kyuu, it does reflect it I just think it's an important distinction that the law is not the same thing as morality. For example a bylaw that states that roofs may be ho steeper than X desgrees has nothing to do with morality but, is still a part of our system. Or court procedures, not based on morality so much as respect and help us settle disputes.

The core laws, the ones everyone is expected to know is definately based on moral, mutual understanding of each other but, we have expanded it to be so much more. Of course that is not to say it's perfect but, we're giving it our best shot every day.

Do we need others to determine our morals for us?

I know I sure the fuck do.

Morality is a system of ethics, ethics are social and therefore meaningless to individuals EXCEPT as part of a social grouping so my answer is yes ... a given society MUST dictate the morality against which our actions are evaluated.

Agreed.

A moral relativist and egoist,my morality is based on self interest and pragmatism,not a transcendent moral authority.

Although many of my actions are dictated by society (such as not hitting people who annoy me with my walking stick) .I decide my actions based on the outcome and/or level of desire. I may undertake actions society considers immoral,even criminal IF: I consider the reward is proportionate to the risk or that I can avoid unpleasant consequences entirely.OR am prepared to accept the consequences for my actions. Sadly,any seriously criminal impulses are restricted by the unfortunate vestiges of a really inconvenient Catholic conscience.

A life observation is that ethical/moral principles are guiding ideals for most people. Few human beings are capable of being consistently ethical and moral.(according to their own definitions).As a species, We are far more skilled and practised in rationalising immoral acts than actually acting in a consistently moral way,no what our belief system.


@moleque;

This link gives a good outline of what I mean by " egoist" (not to be confused with "egotist" although of course a person may be both)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egoism