Most people are outraged when they hear of someone being raped or killed. A person is praised for being generous and courageous. Why is this? It seems most people have a built in sense of what is right and wrong. The problem is that once we try to define exactly what makes something morally right or wrong, everything becomes pretty subjective. Here are three definitions I have heard given for defining morality.

• Human Flourishing. This is the way a lot of humanists would define what is morally right and wrong. According to this line of thinking, things that contributed to human flourishing would be morally right and things that did not would be wrong. Consequently, killing someone, unless for a very good reason (e.g. they were a mass murderer), would be wrong. Conversely, giving money to charities would be right. Killing an animal would be neutral. By this definition, doing things that are unhealthy to yourself, others, or the environment could be classified as wrong. Limiting people’s rights, except for specific cases, would also be a no-no.
• The Bible. I am not listing all the different holy books, even though there are many people that believe the holy book of their particular religion is the final arbiter of what is morally right and wrong. For now, since most of my readers are Christians, I will just focus on the Bible. Now, the Bible is a very diverse book and there are thousands of interpretations of its various commands. However, actions can be placed into a general category of definitely wrong, possibly wrong, or definitely not wrong according to the Bible. Killing another person (except in unique cases) would be definitely wrong, something that is not contested. Eating pork and not tithing would be possibly wrong, as these are debated among Christians. Things that are not wrong according to the Bible would be topics the Bible doesn’t even reference in general or things the Bible specifically commands or infers are acceptable.
• Logic and reasoning. Atheists will sometimes argue that most religion is wrong because it makes a virtue out of believing things without evidence and favoring presuppositionalism over logic in discovering truth. This definition condemns any action or belief as wrong if it does not lead to empirical truth but is mystical in nature.

With this much confusion and lack of consensus on what constitutes morality, I believe this word is better avoided. Instead of asking if something is moral, just choose one of the above definitions (or another one you like) and ask “Will this contribute to human flourishing?” “Does the Bible state this is definitely (or possibly) wrong?” “Does this contradict logic?”

I believe if we asked these questions instead of asking “Is this moral?” or “Is this right?” we would be able to understand people with different ideas of morality better and have meaningful discussions about these important topics. As for me, I tend to value each of these pursuits (human flourishing, the Bible, and logic) equally, but I realize they are distinct concepts. I am ultimately interested in finding the intersection between the pursuit of happiness, and the pursuit of truth.