What is right morality?

Morality is the just the way that the macro human organism (all civilization) maintains itself and it is subjective to that end in most cases. There is nothing inherently right or wrong in any action in and of itself from a universal, not a human, perspective. The reason that many things (violence or promiscuity for example) are deemed wrong is because these things are a detriment to the survival probability of the group. Other things (drugs, etc) are used as a means of control of the masses or, more often than not, are remnants of a religious tradition ingrained so deeply in humanity s core it is found in even the least ideological.

To the point of moral subjectivity: It is easy to see that morality varies greatly even among the members of the macro human organism. What may be morally and socially acceptable is absolutely based on time and place because society and the combined unconscious will of the Whole is inextricably tied to the what is right , which is to say, what is optimal for the Whole. To find and kill a witch was "morally right" in 1690, just sayin .

Morality is the just the way that the macro human organism (all civilization) maintains itself and it is subjective to that end in most cases. There is nothing inherently right or wrong in any action in and of itself from a universal, not a human, perspective. The reason that many things (violence or promiscuity for example) are deemed wrong is because these things are a detriment to the survival probability of the group. Other things (drugs, etc) are used as a means of control of the masses or, more often than not, are remnants of a religious tradition ingrained so deeply in humanity s core it is found in even the least ideological.

To the point of moral subjectivity: It is easy to see that morality varies greatly even among the members of the macro human organism. What may be morally and socially acceptable is absolutely based on time and place because society and the combined unconscious will of the Whole is inextricably tied to the what is right , which is to say, what is optimal for the Whole. To find and kill a witch was "morally right" in 1690, just sayin .

Of course there is a good, moral path to existence.

It's akin to asking if there is a right answer. Even if the answer is "There is no answer" it itself becomes the 'right' answer. The same is true for morality. However, its objective and subjective states exist in close relationship to one another. Think of something like walking on the grass. There are many good reasons why an individual or a vast majority of people might not want to walk on the grass in some instances and there are many good reasons why an individual or a vast majority of people should walk on that same area of grass in another. This is true even if we are unaware of what the correct answer is.

And morality is essentially the awareness that an action so taken brings about both an obvious benefit and a not so obvious benefit. Let's take something obvious like saving a child. The obvious benefit is that the child lives. The not-so-obvious benefit is that the child grows up and falls in love with someone else and that relationship exists, or is made possible, by the previous fact of that person's life being saved.

However, because of ignorance and other factors, the 'best' moral choice often isn't always so neat and clean. That's because poor choices affect even the positive choices that are made. Let's say you want to be President and run a campaign where you don't accept outside money. However, your opponent (who is less scrupulous) accepts outside money and increases their chance to defeat you. Your strict morality might tell you to run a no-outside-influence race and potentially lose. However, would the character and morality of your opponent make their potential win a more dangerous choice if you allowed them to lose? And if accepting outside money in order to give oneself a greater opportunity to win was the path to that greater morality, would the lesser morality be invalidated by such an action? It wouldn't (you still run the risk of being corrupted by outside influence by taking the money in the first place) but the victory would allow you to have a greater moral impact than if you had lost.

The biggest problem to discovering the correct moral choice is that no one is absolutely moral. Everyone is selfish, self-centered, and focused on individual gain over the public good and those impulses will always lead to immoral acts. Lets go back to walking on the grass. In the instance in which it is 'wrong' to walk on the grass, the individual's selfish desire to walk on the grass may not be readily apparent, since it is only one person acting as such. But because human beings are susceptible to social approval, one person walking on the grass when they shouldn't can very easily lead to others. And while that field of grass may be able to handle one person walking on it, a steady stream of people walking on it for selfish reasons can lead to negative consequences.

And just as with moral choices, immoral choices almost always have long-term negative benefits. An airplane that crashes because a certain part wasn't repaired or maintained correctly is an example of a short term immoral choice leading to a latter, even greater, immoral consequence.

Right Morality is based on human nature.

Mankind never would have survived a primitive Stone-Age life UNLESS they pulled together and worked for the benefit of all.

That is how mankind has evolved, and that is what our brain needs if we are going to be individually happy. And what our society needs if it is going to survive.

Modern psychological research finds that the more self-focused a person is, the unhappier and more-neurotic they will be.

And the more they care about and share with others the happier they are.

And THIS is what "right morality" is all about .. a good life. For everyone. With everyone making sure that all get access to a good life.

Because that is how we evolved.

I personally see good and evil as abstract constructs created as an extension of one's ability to feel empathy for one another and exists only within the human mind. Due to it being mainly influenced by empathy, it can be extremely subjective and easily biased based upon how much one individual is attached to others involved. There are some things that all, or vast majority of people will view as morally wrong when detached from the situation where they would feel empathy for a hypothetical person and are used to establish a culturally accepted principle that creates the feeling of morality even if you dislike the person you are interacting with

If morality is based on man and his wisdom then it subjective. For every nation and culture has their own value of right morality.

If we accept the idea that morality is above what man can determine and is not subjective. Indeed that morality exists before man discovered the definition of morality And that all men of every nation is judged with that same definition. That is the right morality.

The golden rule, or some variant of it, has been found in many cultures throughout the world. For purely pragmatic reasons, I believe that one can come to a reasonable set of ideas regarding ethical conduct.

We get into trouble when we start taking things that are clearly subjective, and act as though there is some absolute moral authority that either condemns or condones it. For example, attitudes toward gays and African-Americans, non-prescription drugs, to name a few, are often treated as moral issues that are supported by some moral authority, often religious in nature. This is dangerous.

It is equally irrational to insist without some supernatural "giver" of morality, that things like eating babies or raping women (examples a Christian gave me) would be OK, since there is no moral absolute to say they aren't. This feeble attempt at trying to provide the "need" for the existence of an absolute morality maker is a pathetic attempt to use fear to argue what "needs to be", ignoring what is

The liberals (non-thinkers) will tell you that "it all depends on how you feel." I've actually heard this. The truth is that morality most certainly DOES exist and you have to find out more and more about it. Look at the stupid comment left by "Karol" - it says "It is made up by humans to enslave themselves pretty much." That is truly and thoroughly stupid. No, morality was NOT "made up." It is quite depressing that there are so many people who "think" that way. You have some searching to do. The liberal responses you rec'd here are evidence for what I've been saying for years: That most people do not think. And when you go for a long enough time without thinking (just like when you go for a long enough time without exercising), you lose the ability. Look at what "Robyn" said: "There is nothing inherently right or wrong in any action in and of itself." WRONG. That is pure liberalism. Empty, superficial, useless. Life is deep. Liberals are not. A typical liberal says, "What's wrong for you may not be wrong for me!" WOW, what arrogance! What ego! Don't get caught up in liberalism. If you want to find out what life is all about, start searching now. Search deep, and search long, for many years. It's worth it. AND ... it's the right thing to do ...

What is right morality?

~~~ That is an oxymoron!

Morality is insanity!

Judging others is insane!

And that crap belongs on the religion site.

Those hypocritse judge everyone!

There's your 'morality'!

That is the ego's alternative to 'ethics', born of Love rather than ego/vanity!

ALL morality is subjective, all in the vain judgmental insane eye of the unique beholder!

What is right morality?

~~~ That is an oxymoron!

Morality is insanity!

Judging others is insane!

And that crap belongs on the religion site.

Those hypocritse judge everyone!

There's your 'morality'!

That is the ego's alternative to 'ethics', born of Love rather than ego/vanity!

ALL morality is subjective, all in the vain judgmental insane eye of the unique beholder!