Let's start with the paragon of all knowledge. Yeps, that would be Wikipedia. They define the term "morality" as:
"Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are "good" (or right) and those that are "bad" (or wrong). The philosophy of morality is ethics. A moral code is a system of morality (according to a particular philosophy, religion, culture, etc.) and a moral is any one practice or teaching within a moral code."
So a couple questions.
What is the basis of morality?
What are your moral boundaries?
Good questions, both. I would like to think that the basis of morality is man's environment and the necessities. At some point in time it would not have been immoral to cut a tree, today it is not only downright immoral but criminal. Most major traditions have some story of incest, including Hindu tradition which claimed to have developed the most strict moral code. It may perhaps be safe to say that morality is a product of necessity.
Similarly my own moral boundaries be most likely defined by the circumstances I find myself in. Though there have been people like Gandhi who maintained his moral boundaries even under most trying circumstances.
i was inclined to think that i believed anything consensual was moral.
however, some years ago i recall reading about a german cannibal who advertised in a newspaper that he was looking for some to kill and eat. from what i recall someone actually responded and this was carried out.
it seemed to be consensual, but somehow i dont think this is something i could really say was was ok. it crossed a boundary for me, but why I dont know for sure. If i were in power somewhere, i would likely legislate against this type of thing, but on what basis i dont think i could explain.
i could revert to my 'Theosophical beliefs' to support this, but i realise that these beliefs i hold are conditioned and not universal.
so, i for one, dont think i could lodge an intelligent answer to this question. Ones existing beliefs determine what you think is moral. but if you are 'awake' one may realise that individual beliefs and their attendant morals, are not universal.
pure 'consensuality' (consensus?) doesnt seem to work for me.
if one argues that what is moral must not harm anyone else, then who is to decide what 'harm' is. One might, for example find capitalism harmful if you are a poor exploited country.
that is what immediately came to my mind when i saw this thread.