Who's Good? Who's bad?

TheNorfolkMafia wrote:

Once again you are confusing legality and morality by implying simply because a culture finds something acceptable, it is therefore morally justified. Certain cultures have values within them which are deemed to be ” acceptable ” and legal but this doesn’t make them acceptable if we are using any sensible moral compass. You state “morality is made from the culture we live in ” which is inaccurate … lets use an eg in modern day Britain for something which is legal and fits within the laws of a certain “culture”. In the Uk it is legal for a 75 year old man to marry and impregnate a consenting 16 year old- because it’s legal would you view that as “morally acceptable”? Most would use common sense and realise it represents a fairly revolting act of seediness and immorality yet it is still legal. Decades ago Savile indecently touched numerous underage girls but in that era although not truly accepted , it was deemed the way it was and no one acted upon it despite high ranking people knowing about his sordid activities. Does it suddenly become less acceptable/moral in 2017 because we have new laws , a new culture so therefore more morally viable ? Less than a hundred years ago , black people weren’t allowed to sit next to white people on public transport, this was approved and considered “moral behaviour ” from all sorts of so called upstanding citizens from police to various dignitaries in respected professions. Morality and culture are linked but not to the extent where one defines the other to the extent you believe – simply because the majority of one culture accept something as morally acceptable doesn’t make it so but then it leads to the question of what is ” acceptable”. I have my own moral compass which isn’t influenced by law or society but keep within laws like anyone else purely for self preservation. There is a road near my property which has been 30 MPH for years, I regularly drove down it at 40 MPH as I deemed it safe to do so . Many would start whining about the “law” , yet the speed limit is now 40 MPH so am I now morally right to do 40 but the day before the limit changed immoral and “dangerous”? On the same road, if it was winter I may do less than 30 so rather than quoting laws, cultures and what the masses of non thinking sheep do, use your own moral compass to define a perception of what is moral/immoral. As we are all different, there is no absolute answer and the original thread title is rendered unanswerable.

Norfolk,

my apologies for not replying to this sooner. I hope you’re still interested enough to continue.

I felt that you misunderstood my post. I wasn’t saying that morality is only tied to culture, or that morality is the same as legality.. I don’t believe it is. I think we have a natural sense of morality, common to us all as human beings, and that our society can distort and warp, even destroy this sense of morality.

The point I was making followed on from my belief that if there is no God, then anything and everything is allowed. You are even allowed to be good, and have a conscience.

I was posing two alternatives. Either, we have a natural sense of morality written into our DNA by someone/some force (a Creator, God) – or our morality is written by society. In Inca Peru, the morality of society was based on the sacrifice of people to placate the gods. In our society, morality allows official killing by armies, but imposes all sorts of rules to stop us hurting others. You  are allowed to be good, and law can express this good.

I believe that morality is written into us, but I can’t prove it. maybe we don’t have any sense of good or bad beyond the rules of our society.

Whichever you believe, the alternative is as above – there is a strong sense of good and bad written into us (by something), or anything is allowed.