Morals: What is right?

The way I see it, right and wrong, good and evil, only exist in the human mind. They are just concepts created by humans through our thought process as a means of determining which course of action to take. We probably evolved as a species that way so we would be able to win the approval of our peers and to not get beaten up by our fellow cavemen. Therefore, morals exist only as long as humans exist to perceive them. Essentially, there was no good or evil before humankind existed. Therefore, whatever may be considered right is not an empirical constant. You can't conduct a scientific experiment to see which course of action is right and which is wrong. So in theory, we have the power to decide what is right and wrong, just so long as the majority of humankind sees it how we do. Of course, there are a lot of humans who deliberately ignore their fellow humans' creation of good and evil and do what we see as evil. Damn, it's complicated thinking about this. Plus, there's the existence of religion, that's another motivation for the creation of morals.

I feel that morality is a human creation, but one necessary for humanity to go on without destroying itself. To call something wrong and something right is a very arrogant thing, and could only have been conducted by man. Picking over the world and labeling it was a way for people to make sense of their existence. And once such labels were established, they were passed on. People need to have something that's bad and something that's not bad, or good. They seek stability, and color the world in such ways to have something to work off of.

As a human myself, I feel that "right" is simply a lack of error and injustice, and at times, the opposite of injustice. To me, stealing money is wrong and giving money is right. I'm sure there are specific scenarios, it could very well be the opposite, like Robin Hood. But, I feel it's good general rule to go by. A right action lacks intended error. I say this because people will often have the right intention in doing something, but the result will be ultimately wrong. Like, a kid hears his brother asking for money so the boy steals some from his mom's purse. The kid took the money because he wanted to help his brother, not to do something wrong, but taking something that isn't yours is wrong. To be right, and to be noble, has to start with true intention to be noble. For me, that's all you need.

In response to the plane question, I agree with Ira in that right and wrong vary between people. And, in the question of choosing between your best friend and the 100 people, you are put in a position where you must act, you didn't choose to have anyone's life in danger, but because you have the chance to save someone, not choosing would be the action that, in my opinion, is the wrongest. That aside, I would choose to save the hundred people. Either decision will lead to death, but I feel that to be given the chance to save lives is a sort of power, and that power must be handled responsibly. To let a thousand people die for the sake of one can't be responsible. To condemn an ally, especially one as important to me as my best friend, would be terribly difficult. But, I would also think that my best friend would know me well enough to know how I would respond.

Oh, right-- the airplane. Well, 100 people is a lot of people. To me the right thing to do would be to save the 100 people. It would still totally suck about the friend dying. So maybe I see saving the 100 people not exactly as the right thing to do, but the lesser of two tragedies.

Ira wrote:

Oh, right-- the airplane. Well, 100 people is a lot of people. To me the right thing to do would be to save the 100 people. It would still totally suck about the friend dying. So maybe I see saving the 100 people not exactly as the right thing to do, but the lesser of two tragedies.

Hmmm, it makes me wonder if the concept of "right" started out as just trying to do the least damage?

Well, because I percieve morality as, in essence "whatever you feel is best for you."
That's a gross simplification, but do people want humanity to suceed because it makes the all smiley inside? We invented morality as a means of extracting good works and deeds from others by doing them ourselves (Obviously this is just my opinion, but I like to pretend its a fact.) And human nature must suceed so that all the comforts that come with it can continue to be there for us.
Even those who do good works do them based on their morale lense, what they feel is best for morality. Which is so subjective, and has such a room for dispute and err, that it could be argued that they are doing simply what they "feel" is right without an inkling of objectification: in my mind, nothing is undeniably right.
As for the plane with 100 people on it and the friend with a car: I would choose the friend, hands down, since that decision is In tandem with my definition of morality.
Unless it's a plan full of mensa members carrying the cure for cancer, they are probably not going to directly affect my reality. (Even then, I don't have cancer or know anyone who does.)
In conclusion, what is right is whatever is right for you, except for the people to whom right is whatever they think is best for their vision of the world, which is too subjective and based on a case-by-case method to even define completely as good or not.
In my opinion, there are no general or universal rules that one can default on-- the world is full of too much uncertainty for that.

If you believe in God there obviously must be a universal system of morals which while some exact points may not be clear at least the basic ideas are from which any reasonable intelligent person can extrapolate to behave one way or the another in a given situation.

Erwin Rommel wrote:

If you believe in God there obviously must be a universal system of morals which while some exact points may not be clear at least the basic ideas are from which any reasonable intelligent person can extrapolate to behave one way or the another in a given situation.

I don't think you necessarily have to believe in God to have the system of morals. Plenty of Atheists and Agnostics do right things and wrong things pretty regularly, unless you're implying that morals come from the belief in God or some divine thing that calls the shots

komalram wrote:

Erwin Rommel wrote:

If you believe in God there obviously must be a universal system of morals which while some exact points may not be clear at least the basic ideas are from which any reasonable intelligent person can extrapolate to behave one way or the another in a given situation.

I don't think you necessarily have to believe in God to have the system of morals. Plenty of Atheists and Agnostics do right things and wrong things pretty regularly, unless you're implying that morals come from the belief in God or some divine thing that calls the shots

That's true. Some areas of morality are inherent but it isn't necessrily absolute and unchangeable.

@casey I disagree, I think there are areas that don't change, like personal things that you always hold onto