* How do you determine what is right or wrong?
I, like all of us, determine some of this through common-societal beliefs. Ideas like "it is wrong to murder" are passed through us to socialization. The interesting part is when we are passed morality through socialization that
isn't verifiable with some other method like the golden rule. For example, masturbation is not by any stretch of the imagination
morally wrong (it is 100% victimless), yet societies were taught time and time again that it was.
Also, some of my ideas on morality are determined through thought and consideration. As I mentioned above, the golden rule, or the categorical imperative, are fairly strong indicators of this. The golden rule being, would I like this action if it were done to me? The categorical imperative (not strictly speaking, but it's close enough that it's a convenient name), being, if this action were generalized to universal law, would the universe be a better place?
These are good rules to use because they allow for no special casing, the downfall of all morality. A moral system that includes a high degree of special-casing is less inherently strong than a moral system that includes a low degree. For an extreme example, a system that says "Never murder...except if the person looks at you funny, or his name is Ted, or he is a Russian, or he is about to kill another person" is by my definition weaker than a system that says "Never murder...except if the person is about to kill another person". The golden rule and categorical imperative, though
not 100% foolproof act, as instruments of generality, to help you eliminate special-casing in your personal moral system.
* Do you always do the right thing?
No. My actions do not always follow my moral system though they do so much more often than they do not.
* Why? Do you believe that doing the right thing even though nobody cares and nobody is looking will benefit to your life?
This is a leading question. If nobody cares if I do the right thing or not, then by definition the point of consideration is so minute that it wouldn't really matter which course of action I chose, and so it's not a big deal at all to go against my morality. A case in point here might be waking up late. Suppose I have a moral system that says, it is moral to be up at 8am. I sleep in to 10am. Nobody cares. Nobody is looking. Did I break my moral code? Yep. Is this a
significant break? Of course not.
Perhaps in posing the question you were thinking of a situation where you find a wallet in an abandoned alleyway. Nobody is looking. But people care, that is, your choice of stealing the cash and leaving it, or returning the wallet to its owner intact, is one that he will strongly care about. This is not a case of "out-of-sight, out-of-mind" - if an action is a significant moral transgression, this is because by definition it affects people [i.e. they care].
Anyway, why do I break my moral code? Because it does not directly motivate me. Granted, my motivations are closely tied to it, but in the cases where they're not, it must be that I don't totally agree with the morality I have chosen, or I have chosen the way of
utility over the way of
morality. An explanation. Everyone acts in the way that they feel satisfies them the most. True altruism is a myth. Even if I give up my life for you, I do so because at that moment I think the consequences of living having
not given up my life for yours, will be worse than death
having done so. As a saner example, why do I help an old woman load her groceries into her car? Not just to be a good person, at the basest level: it's because the satisfaction I get from having done so is perceived by me to outweigh the costs of doing it.
And that is why I transgress my morality - when I decide the satisfaction or happiness I will get from transgressing my moral boundaries
outweighs the dissatisfaction or unhappiness I will get from staying within their bounds, a moral transgression occurs. It doesn't matter that my choice might make me UN-happy - all that matters is my feeling at the time. I don't know if this is a novel idea for some people here, but it's the best explanation I know of for why we act as we do, and why we feel regret afterwards.
* Do you ever do the wrong thing?
Yes. See above.
* Why? If you believe it's wrong, but do it anyway, do you therefore consider yourself an immoral person? An "evil" person?
What is your definition of an "immoral person"? Is a person who commits an act contrary to their morality automatically an immoral person forever? For a limited time? Only if the moral transgression is sever enough? These terms must be defined for me to answer the question. 'Evil' is a word I'd prefer to avoid, with its religious connotations that bring baggage into the discussion I'd prefer weren't here.
* A serial killer could be considered evil because he kills people. If there is no absolute, universal system of morals, how can we say that killing is wrong? What if his system of morals is different from ours, and his system happens to be correct, and we are the ones guilty of immorality from restricting his killing?
There is no absolute system of morals in the sense that there is an absolute system of mathematics. However, there are absolute principles a moral system must be founded on to be non-self-nihilistic. I'll get to that later. Anyway, you're bringing up the question of moral epistemology - can we ever rank two moralities? I say yes. They are ranked with two criteria that are closely linked. The first criteria is the golden rule and categorical imperative. Would I like it if it were done to me (if I was killed), and would he like it if it were done to him? Would it be a good thing if everyone killed? The second criteria is special-casing (as I said, they are tied intimately). Do I make exceptions for people, for groups (like blacks, or whites, or women?), or family members, or
myself? These things are essential to prevent as much hypocrisy as possible (hypocritical moral beliefs are necessarily less valid than consistent ones) Now to the question of foundational principles. We must take as foundation that humans must not be caused unnecessary pain. We choose this because everyone dislikes unnecessary pain (contrast this to pain while lifting, pain you know is a pain that will lead to benefits, and please remember it is perfectly morally acceptable to cause
yourself pain or to cause a
willing participant pain) - and we define as mentally unbalanced the people who desire pain. This is because pain (both physical and emotional), all other things being equal, is the strongest deterrent. This is as close to an absolute morality as we get - the treatment of humans as ends in themselves. Built upon this, you can conclude that killing is wrong, that harming is wrong, that many things are wrong. Feel free to question the principle of unnecessary pain, all you'll come to is that a man who sincerely desires physical pain and causes it in others is not violating his
own moral system. For obvious reasons we collect the common areas our moral systems together and codify them in laws - he is clearly breaking these and thus needs to be punished. From a nihilistic point of view, a moral system that allows you to kill others is unintelligible.
One last point. I realize there are religions that try to tell us what morality is, but philosophy is much better suited to the task. People who mindlessly trust dogma are dangerous folke, even if the dogma is the most harmless belief system in the world -
what if it weren't? For that reason I find it instructive to question what people tell me, and evaluate its truth, its rightness, and its wrongness for myself.
In particular I like to think I find no idea too sacred to analyze critically, and no symbol too revered to attack if need be. For this reason I am not patriotic - I prefer to analyze my country's actions critically, and judge it on their merits, rather than be a mindless chest-pounding hanger-on. There is nothing anyone could ask me to discuss at which I'd be offended - no book, no religion, no question, and I think this is how ALL people should aspire to be, in this regard. If you refuse to question, to think about, or to discuss, certain aspects of thought, like some morality, you are but someone's drone. Changing one's mind is different from discussing advantages and disadvantages and coming to a rational conclusion. Closely tied to this is the idea of pride. I refuse, even if I actually start feeling it, to feel pride in actions that I have not personally accomplished a significant portion of. Thus I strive not to feel pride at the US taking out the Taliban, or the Gulf War. I feel pride about the gains I have made lifting, and the software I've written. I strive not to feel pride about my favorite sports teams (when I still followed sports). Etc. Holy fuck I have digressed...I'm not even drunk.
In conclusion I would like to end with this quote from
Demian by Herman Hesse - an
excellent (and short) book.
...each of us has to find out for himself what is permitted and what is forbidden - forbidden for him. It is possible for one never to transgress a single law and still be a bastard. And vice versa. Actually it's only a question of convenience. Those who are too lazy and comfortable to think for themselves and be their own judges obey the laws. Others sense their own laws within them; things are forbidden to them that every honorable man will do any day in the year and other things are allowed to them that are generally despised. Each person must stand on his own feet.
A dangerous state of affairs, yes...but more dangerous than the alternative...?
Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
