The Ever-Evolving Morality Dilemma

I had a thought this afternoon that makes understanding and defining what is moral and immoral even more difficult: withinIMG_7064 society that which is considered moral and immoral is ever-evolving.  One thing considered immoral today may not be considered immoral in 10 years.  For instance, it was not long ago that it was considered immoral to have sex outside of the confines of marriage.  Now that isn’t even a discussion.  There was a time in America’s past when a white person spending time with someone of color was considered immoral.

I am trying to process the morality dilemma but I must admit it is throwing me for a loop.  Surely there is a definitive moral code to which humanity can refer?  I need a Hammurabi’s Code!!   Am I going to be left with “it’s ultimately the individual’s judgment?”

I am not sure that I am comfortable with leaving moral judgment in the hands of the individual as it would appear to leave the door wide open to abuse.

Help me out here people!!

Big Dreamer


25 thoughts on “The Ever-Evolving Morality Dilemma

    1. You’re correct. I’ve read several ancient texts and I found a lot of “acceptable situations” written in these texts which would be outrightly considered as immoral today. 🙂

  1. You are so right and it’s very sad because now so many things that just aren’t right or are okay are the social norms and doesn’t even warrant others to give a second thought or to protest against injustice and immorality.

      1. Is it possible that morality is living your life in a way that doesn’t harm another individual or limit their rights? It’s too simplistic to work I suppose, because then someone has to quantify rights and ‘harm’. This is quite a quandary!

      2. it is too complex for me to think about. the whole subject frustrated me yesterday to the point I shut everything down and watched Seinfeld! lol

  2. Personally, I believe that people need to live their lives in a manner that brings them fulfillment and contentment SO LONG AS IT BRINGS NO HARM TO ANOTHER. I think that is the only way for 7+ billion people to live cohesively on this earth of ours. ♡ Melanie

    1. In some regards personal freedom does play a part. It seems a little scary to give some freedom though! lol Trust me I know some people that I don’t want having to many liberties! lol

  3. Nietzsche writes about this funnily enough. He argues in ‘beyond good and evil’ that (paraphrasing) philosophers are the most dangerous people in the world because they determine what is right and what is wrong. I mean if you take his approach and be massively nihilistic (i think thats a term) then nothing is right and nothing is wrong it would be your own opinion.

    But this guy was just angry at everyone’s existence so…..

    1. The “nothing is right an nothing is wrong” is the problem I have with leaving morality to the individual. ultimately there has to be a definite code or morality becomes a free-for-all. I am not comfortable with that. simply because I do not trust humans.

      1. I think it has to come down to the individual, if you replace morality with truth then you can kinda come down to the same conclusion that truth and morality are ultimately down to your own opinion. Morality and truth are human concepts that do not exist outside of our conciousness and thus they must be explained and determined by humans.

        Outside of human existence, these things do not exist and so we must determine them ourselves

        I’m coming across a little like Nietzsche but trust me, I’m not ahah (Anarcho-syndicalist who is more humanistic than average) . He was just simply a man who gave up on everything as they had no purpose. Don’t let your morality and truth be dictated by ‘code’ because it is too rigid and cannot evolve with the times. Don’t let it be dictated by another person either. Would you consider yourself as spiritual person

        it is your opinion, you are entitled to to whatever you want to believe

      2. I think you are right. There seems to be no way around each individual determining their own morality. Outside of the core beliefs of murder, rape, arson, kidnapping, theft, etc. being immoral. Great comment.

      3. Whilst at the pub my friend discussed murder as being a moral choice as well as immoral dependant on its context, euthanasia, abortion, criminality etc so it is such a hard topic to find out the true answer for.

        Just be happy.

  4. Morality only came into existence to help shape human relationships, to help us get along with one another. If you were the only being in existence, there would be no need for morality. Morality, therefore, is what is best for the collective whole of humanity. Since humanity is an ever-evolving group of beings, it makes sense that morality is also ever-evolving. But I think you’re failing to see that there is a difference between collective morality and personal morality. Collective morality is what any group decides as a whole is moral. This differs by geographic location, culture, religion, government type, etc. This is the morality that seems to change very rapidly. Personal morality is what you alone have decided is moral. This is likely to never change, or to change very little over the course of your life. Those who have a relationship with you should be aware of your personal morality and should respect it, and you theirs. Collective morality is influenced by social change, which can be brought about by an individual, but more likely by a group. It’s exactly as you yourself have said often: be the change you want to see. Gandhi is a big influence on you for a reason; you know that one individual absolutely does have the power to change the world! Most of us just lack the will to do so. Just remember that collective morality is defined as being best for us all, so if the change you are pushing for fits that definition, then it has a good chance of taking hold. If not, then your attempts will be futile.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: