What does morality mean to you?

[Pyrrho]

...
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 disagree with your criteria.  You would be telling us that most drunk drivers are being moral, because at the time the decision is made, they believe they can drive themselves home.  There is generally no evil intent.

I would say that they should have known that driving while drunk is not safe and they should not do it.  I do not care if they believe at the time of their action that they are doing nothing wrong.

Also, people are often willfully ignorant, such that they try to avoid thinking about things and learning about them, and that affects what they believe (and as a consequence, what they do).


Regarding your earlier post:

I entirely agree it is subjective and relative.

My idea of morality is you judge a certain person by their own standards, and their own beliefs. So if someone is doing the best they can with what they know and are capable of, then they are being moral, even if the result is bad. If I did the same action as them, with far greater knowledge and skills, knowing what would happen (something bad), then I'd be immoral.

But to say "That would be immoral if I did it, so it's immoral for you to do it" seems pointless to me. The action is going to appear to different people all sorts of degrees of moral. But morality is meant to be a measure of how much a person is trying to do good, not how well they succeed by other people's standards. For one thing, this "standard" it's being held to is going to be the arbitrary one that happens to be held by whoever is making the judgement.

A super powered alien could turn up and declare the whole of humanity to be immoral because all our methods seem primitive to them and have caused unnecessary damage. Is that a fair assessment? I'd say no. We did the best with what we knew.

This is my take anyway To define morality any other way seems to defeat the whole point of it. We have plenty of other ways of measuring objective success.

I don't think it is useful to try to define "morality" as "someone doing what they believe is moral."  (If you need me to use actual quotes from your post, I can do that, but it will make the point harder to follow.)  Aside from the problem of using a concept to define itself (which makes it completely useless as a definition), I don't think morality is reducible to intentions alone.