Morals

Imparcticle

I'm doing a persuasive speech on stem cell research for my English class. I am defending stem cell research; I'm for it.
But some people aren't, and of course, I have had to address that in my speech. But the main argument (against stem cell research) is that it is immoral.
It is not moral, many say. But what exactly is moral? The philosophical nature of moral is a great mystery to me; I am accustomed to the idea, it is a social role that I have grown to respect. But it bothers me that I cannot directly define it, in a philosophical way rather than the dictionary definition. The dictionary definitions for the record are as follows:

"Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.
Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.
Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects: a moral victory; moral support.
Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: a moral certainty.

n.
The lesson or principle contained in or taught by a fable, a story, or an event.
A concisely expressed precept or general truth; a maxim.
morals Rules or habits of conduct, especially of sexual conduct, with reference to standards of right and wrong: a person of loose morals; a decline in the public morals. "

-www.dictionary.com-

Can anyone lend a post?

one_raven

"Morals" is simply what the majority of people within a certain culture or subculture agree (to a great degree, if not unanimously) is the standard of behavior to judge others upon.

As a rule of thumb, if it is seen as positive for that particular community, it is morally "good", if it is seen as a negative thing it is "bad".

Personally I think it is all bull****.

I agree with Ayn Rand (paraphrased because I can't find the exact quote right now):
"Living life by anyone's morals but your own is living an immoral life."

Imparcticle

I agree with you in some ways. It was immoral to believe the earth was not the center of the universe, but now it is as normal an idea as the idea of morals is.

But in other ways, morals are important. In many cases, they can promote honor. Even then, they too need criticism. they are after all human creations, and human creations are not perfect. People act like you can't change morals just because.

None the less, morals are important to humans, socially.

one_raven

That falls into the same trap.
Who defines what honor is?

Rader

Morals are a set of rules to determine and govern the way we should treat other humans. In other words in this dualistic world, to decide what is good or evil. We humans make the rules. We also define what the rules mean to suite the moment. Our set of morals change over time. We as individuals and group set our own meanings to what morality is to us. There is no fixed set of rules in this dualistic world. Although it appears, at least to me, that we strive to move in the direction of making our moral decisions more good, it is only a perception of the individual or group. The human reason behind having morals, is that every human is equal and special in its own way, that life is sacred. There are 1,000 words we could attach to what morality is, and then we would have to explain them first, before we could even come close, to explaining what morality is. Its a difficult task if not impossible.

Dissident Dan

Why does morality only apply to our actions towards humans?

Kerrie

i think morals are more of an individual set of guidelines that one should set for themself, stem cell research has to do more with ethics...ethics i believe is more of what is "politically correct" within the social environment. a few years ago i took a class in college about the morals and ethics of medicine, and this gave me a good basis of the difference...

Imparcticle

So would you say stem cell research is politically correct? On what basis is something politically correct? After all, isn't politics heavily influenced by morals?

BTW, thanks for specifying the difference. It is a great embelishment to my knowledege (and I'm sure of others' as well).

Kerrie

when i put "politically correct" in quotes, i meant to infer that ethics is what is socially acceptable over what is an individual decision of what is correct...

Imparcticle

I strongly believe Dissident Dan has a good point here. You see Rader, the semantical error in your aforementioned statement arises when you say "...the way we treat other humans...". If that were the case, the idea of potching animals as being immoral would be non-existent. In fact, I do believe vegeterians are vegetarians on the basis that murdering animals for food is an immoral practice?

Rader

A human moral code contains many things that can be applied only to humans. How would you apply "thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife to a goat"? That is not to say that the hunmans should not have a moral code towards all things that are not human.

Rader

Kerrie, It might not be a bad idea to define the difference between morals and ethics. Sometimes they overlap. Since you have some good experience.
Your statement is highly debatable.

Rader

There is no semantical error, my post, was well thought out. Poaching animals is against the law. Its morally wrong only if it is part of your moral standards. The poacher does not think so, but he know its against the law. A vegetarian could use your reasoning as a basis for there decision or any number of others. For example maybe the vegetarian knows that his or her blood type is type A and meat is better for Type O than Type A for good health..

Can we get back to the subject: stem cell research

The reason why there is a hot debate on this, is becasue there is two groups of people, that have different opinions when a human is a human.

A= conception
B= whatever there moral standards dictate for the moment.

It comes down to the question, do we have morals to be morally more good? or just set them up for our own self interest for the moment?

Monique

That is not an argument, you should ask why is it immoral? You can in the same right say that nót developing stem cell research is immoral. Immoral just means something goes against your beliefs of what is right.

Is it immoral to sacrifice a few day old fertilized egg or is it immoral to not exploit a technical advancement that could have a major impact on medicine?

olde drunk

within the context of the original question: religious zealots will always claim that something is immoral, if they feel their beliefs threatened.

the scientists, who see the benefits, with a more liberal inclination will call it moral.

when does consciousness enter a body/fetus?

peace,

selfAdjoint

Hah! If you mean self-awareness, then around three years old. How far do YOUR memories go back?

Imparcticle

good question. I guess when there is some sort of nervous system, which I believe begins to develop say when the fetus is a few months old.

Stem cell research only takes stem cells from a zygote only a few days old, when its just a bunch of cells going through meiosis.