Should there be a LOGICAL test for morality?

If there is NONE, then everyone does their own thing;

If there is one, then at least there is a common logical point of reference. Example the one below.


1: Was the action (s), or omission, done by mature, mentally sane human?

Yes. Go to # 2

No. Go to # 9

2: Would the action (s) be comparable to vile disgusting animal behavior such as: defecating in public, puking in public, and the like

Yes. Go to # 8

No. Go to #3

3. Was the action (s), or omission, driven by greed / selfishness?

Yes. Go to # 8

No. Go to # 4

4. Would the action (s) or omission violate JUST law(s), or Rule(s) of conduct ?

Yes. Go to # 8

No. Go to # 5

5. Would the action harm those innocent, or vulnerable?

Yes. Go to # 8

No. Go to # 6

6. Would the action / omission set a, disgusting, harmful, precedent if tolerated

Yes. Go to # 8

No. Go to # 7

7. Would the action(s), omission, benefit another while NOT harming others?

Yes. Go to # 10

No. Go back to #1. Review the action, or omission.

8: Immoral- behavior that is bad, disgusting, harmful to others

9: Amoral – Action, or omission, is neither right or wrong.

10: Moral – behavior is good, acceptable, commendable, aligns with the golden



9 Answers

  • 1 year ago


  • 1 year ago

    Everybody does their own thing, regardless. For some, that means doing what they, or others, consider moral; for others, it means doing as they wish with no concern for what is considered moral. A flowchart isn't going to solve that problem.

    I personally don't think we should concern ourselves with the morality of others. Laws, rather than morals, should be the common point of reference. We should just have laws for the demonstable benefit of society as a whole, and for the protection of liberty and justice for all. We shouldn't shy away from making and enforcing a law just because it doesn't conform to some individual's moral code. Every adult, within a given society, should be held to the same legal standards. They should be judged by their actions according to the law.

    Regarding your flow chart:

    If someone doesn't understand the difference between legal and illegal, and the evidence shows, beyond reasonable doubt, that they are guilty of a crime, they should, for their first violation, still suffer the minimum penalty, and be educated as to what the law is, why it is in place, and how they violated it. If someone violates a law, and is incapable of understanding the difference between legal and illegal, their ability to violate that law should be neutralized. I personally don't think insanity should excuse anyone.

    Things that are disgusting are not necessarily immoral. Neither are things that are driven by greed.

    Your flow chart is not the answer. Even a well-designed chart would fall short. There are too many variables. Decisions about what is, and isn't moral require thought. The best we can do is try to get people thinking. Morality should be something that we discuss, not something that is dictated by some supposed authority. People need to use their brains to make judgements about morality, not refer to a chart, and they need to use communication if any consensus is to be reached, not make self-righteous demands.

  • 1 year ago

    Good thought track. The dilemma is this: If there IS objective morality, then shame on all of us when we violate it. Ewww. If not, then we have to abandon something valuable - acknowledgment of morality and preferred behaviors, the very basis for law, but, like the absence of law, it "frees" us to behave however we like. So that's really what's behind people's reluctance to acknowledge morality which, is turns out, is indeed universal, consistent, and uncompromising.

  • Athena
    Lv 7
    1 year ago

    Your basic premise is wrong.

    With that your argument falls apart.

    The idea of morality is not based on a logic test.

  • What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
  • Perhaps, but your test for morality is deeply flawed. For example, you judge any action by an insane person as amoral. That's just silly. However, a decision tree is helpful for any subjective concept such as the moral standards of a culture. Doesn't mean that morality is objective, but it does provide a guide to someone outside of that culture.

  • 1 year ago

    That is impossible. Morality and logic do not mix. What is moral is a matter of opinion and the opinion of your society. There can be no absolute right or wrong.

  • Morality is just a name we gave to this thing we called ‘morality’. We did this to scare people from applying their critical faculties to this thing and to prevent them finding better things which serve the purpose better because we feared the logical.

    There is a function to be served which ‘morality’ was the candidate. People one day felt they were missing something and they called that something ‘morality’. It is an absence in our lives which we sought to fill. And then we applied various ideas to the task.

    And these ideas are scrutinised for other needs of our psyche. Such as rationality. And aesthetics.

  • 1 year ago

    Yes, I agree. That's why court decisions many times mentions that the offense was 'highly immoral'. That logic, while needing improvement, could be the start.

  • 1 year ago

    sure.... right after you produce the wiring diagram for consciousness.....

Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.