What does morality mean to you?

[robvalue]

[Multiple edits!] Thanks for the input everyone

It has become clear that what I refer to as morality is not the same as what some other refer to. That is fine. I'm not sure what I would call these alternate versions, but at least you know what I mean when I say the word morality I'm not claiming mine to be the "correct" definition; simply the one that makes most sense to me regarding the point of the terminology. If you think ISIS sit around thinking, "Haha! We're so evil. We're objectively worse than the West. We're doing exactly what we think is the wrong thing" I think you may be being naive. In fact, what seem to us like crazy societies would probably like to "objectively condemn" the way we go about things just as much as we'd like to condemn them. Who is "right"? Objectively, no one is right, in my definition of morality.

Here is my new refined definition. Thanks to your ideas, I've expanded it beyond simply "intent":

---

The action of a person, to the best of their knowledge and according to their beliefs at the time the action is taken is:

A moral action: an attempt by them to do the right thing regarding other people/animals. This should include where possible careful consideration of the method used, enough reflection to recognize the need to consult others before acting and ownership of the results of the action, whether they were intended or not.

An immoral action: one which they think is wrong, and are unconcerned with the consequences for others.

A neutral action: one that is neither intended to be right nor wrong.

Calling an action moral from their perspective does not mean I think what they have done is necessarily actually in the best interest of others. It doesn't mean I think they should be allowed to do it and not be stopped or put in prison. The law and morality aren't the same thing. It simply means they honestly believed they were doing the right thing, nothing more. Also note that a greater understanding implies a greater responsibility to use that understanding in your decisions. Of course we can objectively say that someone has been harmed by an action, even if the person was intending to do the right thing. I see no need to plaster this obvious objective consequence over the top of morality as well; simply assuming everyone else understands and agrees with our own morality is pointless and godlike. To say "I wouldn't have done that" is accurate, but entirely self centred and not useful. Of course, you can explain to the person why you wouldn't have done it. That is the important part. Then maybe you can shift their morality in your direction through reason.

---

I was waiting for someone to bring up Hitler

I don't know what was in the mind of Hitler. I can't know whether he truly thought he was doing a good thing or not. He was almost certainly mentally "different" from other people, so his sense of right and wrong was probably unrecognisable to us.

So maybe, yes. From his point of view, if he genuinely thought he was doing a good thing, I would consider him moral from his perspective. It's perfectly possible he was simply manipulating situations to gain power and prestige, not thinking it was of any real benefit to other people. In that case, he was being immoral by his own standards. To me, morality isn't about agreeing with or condoning actions, it's about assessing intent.

Of course, by my standards, he was immoral. If I did what he did, it would be immoral for me. I know everyone wants to be able to objectively call Hitler immoral. It's just that such a phrase doesn't mean anything.

Objectively, he killed lots of people, yes. But we can only objectively "condemn" him if we put ourselves in the position of an ultimate moral authority. We're saying we know exactly how to best measure the wellbeing of life in general. Then someone else could condemn us, using a different standard. It's all relative. Being uncomfortable with morality being relative doesn't stop it being so.

If you're simply measuring the outcome of actions regardless of intent, then I don't think this is morality. It may be that Hitler simply didn't have any morality, he was a psychopath/sociopath. So from his point of view, his actions were amoral.

We condemn Hitler as a society, what he did does not fit with our norms. In another society, it may have fitted perfectly well. I think people mistake these norms for objective morality. Clearly they are not, because they change. To claim that we're somehow at the peak of morality now and know the "best morality" is ludicrous. In the future, people will look back at some things we did with the same disgust we look back at slavery with. So where's the objectivity? I personally condemn several things society says is OK, I try and stay ahead of the norms. Am I objectively more moral than most people in society? Of course, I feel I am more moral by my standards. But other people are doing what they think is moral (or at least not immoral) by their standards. So for me to simply announce I'm morally superior is pointless and incorrect. But again, this is all according to my definition of morality. If morality means something else to you, then you won't agree with my statements. But if you use another word for what I call morality, do you agree with my reasoning?

Examples of non-objective moral situations:

---

My baby example. Is it more moral to let my baby live until 10 and die, or give it a treatment which makes it live until 20 in pain? The answer: neither are objectively more moral than the other. Anyone disagree?

I open a door and it whacks my wife in the head. Ouch! Was that action objectively immoral? I caused her unnecessary harm. I'd say the action itself has no morality. It's the intent behind it that is important.

(A) I genuinely had no idea she was there. I thought she was downstairs, she went up without me realising it. It was a pure accident, and as such it was not immoral. It wasn't moral either, simply neutral. Of course, consequences still happen and I should take responsibility.

(B) I knew she was behind the door and opened it fully aware it would hurt her. This is immoral.

It's exactly the same action both times. So unless we include intent, how can we objectively rate the action? If we exlude intent, then accidents become immoral. This commits the mistake of assuming everyone always knows what the outcome of all their actions will be at all times. This is obviously false.

And now: I firmly believe some people are demons and need killing. I genuinely think I'm helping society. I have a mental disorder which makes some people appear as demons, and anyone trying to convince me otherwise I see as a demon. I kill as many as I can. I am being moral, from my perspective. If a mentally well person performed the same actions, it would be immoral from their perspective (probably). Again, it's not about condoning actions or consequences. It's about intent. If we simply measure the consequences, we again put ourselves as the ultimate authority of what a "good and mentally well person" should do.

---