How Does One Prove Morality Correct?

I decided to split this question off from the thread Sex In Religion.

How does one prove morality, any claim of morality, correct?

How does one prove any claim of morality being correct?

Long winded, very detailed, or eloquent arguments?

An argument is just an argument and doesn't really prove anything other than a person is a skilled wordsmith or a very tricky person, like Modred.

Logic and reason? The biggest flaw with logic and reason is that it can be used to support any claims. And intelligent/creative people can use any words they want to in any manner they wish to.

Scientific means? How would laboratory testing be able to prove a claim of morality is correct? morality doesn't really leave any kind of observable or testifiable/measurable phenomena.

So how does one prove morality correct?

 

Morality can be tested in the lab, Sam Harris makes a wonderful argument in favor of such a moral basis.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTKf5cCm-9g"]Sam Harris: The Moral Landscape - YouTube[/ame]

 

Morality is subjective so one can never prove morality.

 

I think Mr. Harris is confusing science with philosophy.

 

You can prove a moral position correct by nodding your head. Conversely, you can prove it wrong by shaking your head.

 

Morality is an aspect of consent..... If an action is performed on someone without their consent, than it proves itself to be morally wrong.

If someone willingly and of sound mind consents to an action that is even detrimental/negative to their physical or psychological well being....
It is still moral in the example that it provides an arena for gaining the knowledge that this particular individual might lack.

We can become a model of superior reasoning towards the negative aspect of ones consent within an act; but where freedom is concerned, we cannot become an authoritarian to it.

Most deviant behaviors are born from trying to protect an individual from exposure to the behavior; the reality is that every individual must be able to grasp the knowledge for themselves, what is actually beneficial or detrimental about the act...... The reality is that society does a very poor job of providing this knowledge; this is why the deviant behaviors remain.

Nurture a mind in it's own discovery of true desire in expression, it will never look away!

 

I agree with RStones. Morality is subjective, and so to say it can be "correct" or "true" is difficult. However, morality deals with ones individual subjective values and goals. Within that construct of values and goals, one can arrive at objective deductions as to what actions are moral and immoral according to whether or not they align with the aforementioned subjective values and goals.

 

And all the above ladies and gentlemen is the reason for what is going on in this country as we post.

Give yourselves a big pat on the back liberal educators.

 

This is put in a wrong way. I do not have to ask the next person in a doorway for his or her consent for me to hold the door open for that person, lest it automatically deems my action immoral. It is the individuals that actions are done to that evaluate the morality of those actions, not the actions themselves. An action never proves itself morally wrong or right.

 

Care to share your understanding of morality?

 

Cool to think that a Danish citizen posting on the Internet is part of the reason for what is going on in America.

Thanks for the confidence in me.

 

What country are you residing in Freeware?

 

This is ridiculous as an argument......
If you hold a door open for someone, it is both pleasing to the individual who opens the door in gesture and the one who is offered such a gesture.....
Simple morality differs drastically from a kind gesture, even when both have an offering of positivity.
Like I have explained, if someone understands the positive feeling to be had from holding the door for someone behind you, it proves itself as an act to be a positive gesture...... Regardless of this offering in behavior, is this really an example (holding a door open for another) of moral or immoral behavior?

 

Denmark.

_____________

 

It's not the issue whether an action pleases or displeases someone. The issue is your statement that an action proves itself morally wrong under a certain condition. It doesn't. I don't know which kind of capacity you think actions are equipped with in order to prove themselves morally wrong. Under any condition.

 

Yes.... Consent as stated..... This applies to real issues of moral or immoral behavior, not simplistic gestures!
Why don't we get our hands dirty and declare a truly immoral act and apply it to consent in order to test it!

 

Ahh, so slavery, rape, genocide. Gotchya.

 

Morality does not necessarily = consent. If you value consent and your goal is to not act upon others against or without their consent (to reasonable and practical application), then whether or not consent has been given determines the morality of the action made.

 

Omigosh, our educational system is european. We are definitely scruud.

 

Because that has nothing do to with my objection to your statement. Sheesh.

Nevermind, revol. I don't think you get it.

 

seeing as you're not familiar with the bible, this doesn't bother me too much.

 

Nah, only some of you.

 

Then with you not living within America, you don't really know what is going on in this country, do you? You are dependent upon what is rumored through the various news media and internet gossip forums. Got it.

 

Your objection took this outside of the realm of moral and immoral behavior, to an argument of gesture.... You can't simply create an argument that doesn't apply itself to the discussion so that you can object to it and then expect that I'm going to play along.