If someone uses this word or you come across this word, what do you think it means?
I will post something along this line later.
Doing the right thing, having a good conscience, and so on.
Only if Instagram had a dislike button, morality would’ve been so easy to figure by looking at the ratio of likes vs dislikes for a story.
In essence you are right. Good start.
This is one of the simple definitions of “Morality”.
Please define **"good **and explain it further because above definition used this word two times.
As a rhetoric, I enjoyed this answer. Fine. 
But I am sorry as a fact or serious answer, not really correct.
I hope I do not have to explain my second sentence. 
How about defining morality with statistics! Anything that brings down the cost of living, raises health indicators, brings down crime, and so on in a society is moral. If any action can statistically be shown to go against those goals, then it is immoral. For example, hoarding N95 masks is immoral because it raises cost of living for rest of people in the affected area, and it can be statistically proven.
2 Likes
Interesting. Nice stimulating answer. :k:
I am not sure about it. But still interesting. I think when you said brings down crime then it’s good. Still I would ask what does crime means?
Please look in to the question in broader aspect and globally.
What constitute good for a group of people may not be good for human beings in other areas.
Similarly, what is considered crime in one area may not be crime in other area. Diverse group of people and variety of definitions for it as well.
Lastly, the morality is mostly to do with character and actions of a person or society at large.
But it is NOT and should NOT be defined on statistical basis.
One person likes to spend large money on expensive meal out of his or her pocket and other person does not. This does not mean the person who wears expensive clothes or spends a lot of money on lunch or dinner is “immoral”.
N95 should not be forced for ALL people and has not been. How did you arrive to the conclusion that “hoarding N95 will increase the costs to others?”
Even so, your example of using N95 is not good.
If an individual thinks N95 is something he needs to protect himself/herself than it does not make this person immoral.
So please look in to it a little more and find a good definition of Morality with explanation of each and every word used.
@diwana **Bhai Sahib am I the only one who NOTICED 
to talk about Morality 
and “WINK” at Every One…
In Most Cultures Bhai Sahib “Winking” is IMMORAL to say the Least!..
You NOT **Serious right?..
And That too in the Holy Month of Ramadan!..
well morality has two types, universal and relative. Speaking lies is considered bad everywhere irrespective of the place or culture and the concept of free speech is very much relative. Relative morality is difficult to define since it varies with time n place but the main idea behind all the definitions of relative morality is to attain goodness which in my opinion can be defined as "peace and satisfaction". Don't know if i am making sense but yes as i said its difficult to define!
2 Likes
Let’s say crime is something that is illegal according to laws which people in a certain land came up with through voting, or whatever. Sure, different lands have different laws and their morality will also be different.
Let’s assume hoarding the N95 masks by certain businesses in a certain city did increase the cost and it can be proven, then only hoarding N95 masks will be immoral in that city according to this framework. But if in another city, no such price hike can be proven then hoarding the masks will not be immoral.
Indeed this framework of morality will be different in different places and has it’s weaknesses but surely is one way of going about it.
Indeed. I’m being the devil’s advocate here in order to share various frameworks of morality I’ve heard about.
Right back at you Janab!..
“We don’t see things as they are; we see things as we are!”
Hope you get the idea.
If not then;
It is a NEUTRAL thread and with no claim or disclaimer.
You interpreted it the way you wanted…I mean the Winky Avatar. 
This thread is all about asking the definition of Morality.
In the beginning. I said more will come.
This thread should be taken as if talking about Morality means the person automatically thinks that person is claiming to be great or otherwise to talk about it.
I don’t know why I have to explain it. It should have been very clear that thread is about asking question and no claim was made.
On a lighter note, Leave my Avatar alone.
Owner/Director/Moderators have already removed my avatar from smiley list for no logical reason and interestingly enough refused to answer further when I asked.
Check out the thread on it by me a while ago.
I love my avatar. Regardless anyone else does or not.
Poor Avatar is blinking the Right Eye. Not the Left Eye.
In my opinion and only in my opinion admittedly, I think blinking RIGHT EYE should be conceded acceptable for being positively hideous and naughty.
During Ramadan?
Yes, A lot can be done and still be acceptable in Ramadan.
There is no proof that people cannot interact in funny way during Ramadan.
Lastly,
Our co-member RV was the only one up until now who had problem with my Avatar.
You just joined her club. 
Now if please:
Can you define Morality. Forget what I said above for a while janab.
[quote=““Pakistani Prince””]
well morality has two types, universal and relative.
[/quote]
Great answer.
OK. And agreed. In some places we may find the definition of morality in actions as combination of two.
[quote=““Pakistani Prince””]
Speaking lies is considered bad everywhere irrespective of the place or culture
[/quote]
No sir. Sorry. Think a little more.
[quote=““Pakistani Prince””]
and the concept of free speech is very much** relative.**
[/quote]
Well, there is no such thing as free speech in my opinion.
It is just a showcase or gimmick word and it is abused and also appropriately restricted whenever it is suitable.
But let’s just say you are right, then what is absolute free speech? As opposed to relative free speech?
Maybe it’s another topic to discuss.
[quote=““Pakistani Prince””]
Relative morality is difficult to define since it varies with time n place but the main idea behind all the definitions of relative morality is to attain goodness which in my opinion can be defined as “peace and satisfaction”.
[/quote]
Goodness? What is that?
Peace and satisfaction of who?
These terms need explanation.
[quote=““Pakistani Prince””]
Don’t know if i am making sense but yes as i said its difficult to define!
[/quote]
I think you did great. Thanks for pondering on it. :k:
Yes. Now you are talking…
Again, you are making it a hypothetical question second time and answering it yourself. N95 is not enforced by any business and any city or country.
OK. Let’s say your scenario is actual and fact based.
Then so what?
That will still not be immoral regardless of how much it costs.
The business or the N95 bearers just want to make sure they or others get the best protection possible regardless how much it costs.
Where did immorality come form in this scenario?
Hospitals started checking temperatures on ALL people coming in to the facility and asked everyone to wear masks and everyone to use sanitizers strictly after coming out of patient rooms and using hood and head covers and suction pumps and gowns and gloves and shoe covers for every Covid suspect, let alone Covid positive patient.
Cost escalated phenomenally high.
I fail to see “Immorality” there.
Not surely.
Maybe the example you gave needs to be changed,
It’s the finances based on need that should be considered in definition of Morality in my humble opinion.
:k:
Being devil’s advocate is immoral… 
Just kidding,… just kidding janab. 
Please carry on.
Sorry, but cost is always important. Wearing N95 masks is certainly not mandatory for the general population. However, for many healthcare workers it is an essential protection. If hoarding of the masks by a certain business raises the prices, then the healthcare workers will have to pay higher prices, who will then have to pass on those higher expenses to their patients. That according to this framework is wrong. Because the prices did not go up due to real shortage but due to hoarding. More so, even if a common person wants to protect themself then they should still not be paying higher prices. Here Here is an example of price hike due to hoarding of N95. There is 3 year jail term for hoarding N95 masks. For you it may not be a moral question and that is ok, but for many it is.
Anyway, you can disagree with the answers derived from this ethical framework. Yet there is no question regarding material decision-making that cannot be answered with this framework. Or can you come up with any such question?
:k:
Yes. Cost is always important. As a general rule.
And yes for certain Healthcare workers as first line of contact, N95 are good but still not essential.
N95 masks are not required for general population but if they feel like they can pay higher price. How high?.. is a matter of debate.
Cost is based on supply and demand in general.
Hoarding and price gouging essential dietary items like wheat/rice and vegetables, medicines, oil and gas etc. is definitely immoral. Hence I asked you to change your example.
False advertisement of a product is immoral.
Deliberately making product to last only for short time is immoral, especially if the cost of making the product and price of making better product is not going to be huge.
(Apple and the case of BatteryGate)
But no one has to have new cellphone everytime it comes out in the market. If so, they have to pay high price.
Now,
“Fruit chaat” (Fruit Salad) is not essential in Ramadan but fruit prices go up during this month because people want to buy fruit as a tradition and they don’t do that so much as rest of 11 months.
Hence, consumers also have the responsibility.
I think we have wandered around the cost topic enough.
[quote=““Pakistani Prince””]
well morality has two types, universal and relative. Speaking lies is considered bad everywhere irrespective of the place or culture and the concept of free speech is very much relative. Relative morality is difficult to define since it varies with time n place but the main idea behind all the definitions of relative morality is to attain goodness which in my opinion can be defined as “peace and satisfaction”. Don’t know if i am making sense but yes as i said its difficult to define!
[/quote]
This is a very good answer.
There are 2 kinds of human action. Those that involve the use of force and those that are consensual.
Universal morality applies to the use of force. It is considered universally self evident that initiation of force against another person (i.e. aggression) is immoral. Depriving a person of their life, liberty or property by aggression is unconditionally immoral. Hence, killing , injuring, kidnapping and stealing etc. are universally considered immoral. Only justified use of force is to defend oneself from aggression or reverse the results of a previous aggression. Fraud is also a kind of aggression since it deprives a person of their property without their consent. This universal morality is self-evident from our basic experience as human beings who have free will.
The universal morality establishes our right to exercise our free will. But, what do we do with our free will? This is the relative morality that applies to all consensual acts. This is the domain of all religions, moral philosophies and cultural traditions. All of them have their own view on what is the ultimate goal of human life and how it can be achieved through human action. This question can only be answered from within one of the traditions and not universally.
In the Islamic tradition the answer would be that goal of human life is to return to God through submission to His will as manifested in this world through His revelation. Within Islam there are many schools of thought on how to determine God’s will. My preference is the rational-mystic school of Ibn-Arabi according to which we submit to the will of God by choosing to assume His Immanent Attributes (mercy, forgiveness, compassion, truth, justice etc.) as they are manifested in ourselves and in our interactions with others in the world and acknowledging his Transcendent Attributes through practicing humility before Him.
You brought God/Religion in to the discussion.
I said I will add something to it later and did not want to say it, but you invoked God/Religion in to it already. A bit early since we have to talk about what is Morality first.
By the way, aggression, mercy, forgiveness, compassion, truth are not absolutely moral or immoral, regardless if God concept or religion is added or not.
**Can you think that OPPOSITES of all these attributes in specific circumstances still be considered acceptable?
If so, and you agree, then these attributes cannot be qualified universally moral or immoral.**
Sorry, I did not realize that God/religion was out of bounds in this discussion.
Notice that I made a distinction between universal morality which is absolute and religious/traditional/ideological morality that is relative.
Non-aggression (in all its forms) was the only universal moral value I claimed. I stand by that. Can you give me a counter example where aggression would be moral?
As for the morality that applies to consensual acts, that is relative to one’s worldview. One has to define what is the ultimate aim of one’s life and acts that promote that aim are moral and acts that undermine that aim are immoral. I don’t think there can be a universal definition of such an aim. It can only be defined from within a tradition.
The further examples I gave were from within a tradition and I didn’t claim universality for them.