Write a response to this post:
In order to answer this question I thought it best to look up the definition of “morality”. According to Google dictionary morality is best defined as, principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. To me, this automatically implies an independent and collective interpretations. Meaning, that a person may have set of personal morals and cultural morals that he or she presents. When we discuss the concepts of good and bad or right or wrong we have to take into account these judgments have a strong social influence. In our culture we have decided it’s wrong to kill another human being, however if you’re protecting yourself against being attacked then killing another person may be an allowable act. Now, as to the discussion question I lean towards an act performed that has not harmed anyone who has consented to engage in the act neither, amoral nor moral. It is simply an agreed upon experience certain people have chosen to engage in. For example, homosexuality cannot be a question of morality because there is no harm to the self, to culture, or to the globe. Morality is human manufactured, most times it is beneficial, other times it’s repugnant. I think it’s unremarkable to use religion, history, or ignorance as a moral compass. These particular things fuel segregation. It’s better to use these constructs as a what we should never do to people metrics.