More on Morals: Differentiating between Morals and Perceptions

I have been trying to write all these in the tag, but guess it's too lengthy...

haha ... daryl, don't worry bout the 'homework'.... no need for journals for this yet. The classes just have to ponder upon the issue, because it needs long and in-depth thinking. It's a good question that you have raised, and something that is very appropriate for further intellectual discussion. All the subsequent comments and queries from the others do convey the very differing views, and different levels of thought regarding the issue of morals. We shall utilise this for futher exploration in class. This is really a most interesting and profound issue to train reasoning and logic, esp for discursive and argumentative perspectives.

Anyway, some of my current thoughts:

First, there is a need to appreciate the difference between morals as intrinsic absolute values held universally, versus perceptions/acceptance level/attitude towards morals.

Regarding the anime philosophy mentioned (that 'there's no good or bad, only how you see things'), and that certain people might view certain 'morals' as wrong or 'not definitely right', there is confusion here over 'morals' and one's attitude/acceptance towards those morals. The views people have regarding certain morals are 'perspectives' and 'opinions', and are personal perceptions and acceptance levels of those morals. Yet, this does not change the absolute standing of morals as 'right'. Morals are not personal perceptions of right or wrong. They are not our own advocated ideas of 'right/wrong'. Morals are universally acknowledged intrinsic and fundamental standards. They are absolutes that we may not like or agree with, but we cannot deny that they are 'morals'. So, something that's morally wrong, even if some may thinks it's right, is still morally wrong. Ultimately, when a value is termed as 'morals', it has become a universal standard, and regardless of whether some might disagree with it, it is universally acknowledged as a basic right value.

Morals are 'right' values universally accepted as absolute; these are universal rights. Still, when we try to put them in execution and practice, we will always deliberate over the extent of leeways. That's where law and social conscience comes in. For example, killing is morally wrong (absolute), and we all acknowledge that. Yet, when we try to judge an act of killing, esp in humane or legal perspectives, there might be justifiable situations, such as in defence, in sympathy, in retribution. In these cases, when referred to a court of law, the judge will usually consider these mitigating factors, and give a lighter sentence. Hence, that act of killing in self-defence or whatsover is still considered morally wrong, but humanly understandable.

[OK ... to further confuse you a little, though this is necessary: you might wish to think about whether these moral absolutes have changed over time and through societal development in different civilisations. Interestingly, you will find that in certain societies and in certain periods past, certain acts that we deem immoral today were once deemed moral. Yet, of course, today, at this stage of development for most societies, we have come to an agreed set of absolute morals and values. Are these linked to the values propounded by the major religions and ideologies of the major civilisations in the world today? What about you from a personal perspective, are there certain morals that you would deem non-negotiable and absolute across cultures and periods?]

There is another query as to whether one is morally right to say another is morally wrong. Of course it is morally right to indicate that another person's view is morally wrong when that view is an absolute 'wrong' in universal moral terms. In fact, if one does not point out that the other person's view is morally wrong in this situation, one would also be morally wrong.
There is a difference between respecting another person's views, and having the moral courage and conscience to point out that some of the views are morally wrong.

On a personal note: this is a most intellectually fulfilling discussion, because I can discern the interest, passion and conviction in the different views given by you guys. This is really good.
P/S: What I have tried to do here is to 1) clarify the difference between 'morals' and 'perceptions', which many of you seemed to have treated the same, and 2) to throw more ideas for you guys to think about.

So there, this is a most interesting discussion!