Morality is the sum total of human behaviors with society and it may be good and this is what most people try to be or may be bad and this is what most of us are trying to stay away from

I advise you to read the following article

The Relationship of Morality and Technology

https://www.scu.edu/ethics/all-about-ethics/the-relationship-of-morality-and-technology/

We have studied moral in health care. The new technology to keep people alive or to decide not to keep them alive is accompanied with many moral issues. Here is an example:

Michael Uebel

Does this mean in simple words to subject oneself to the 10 commandments?

Dear Prof. Michael Uebel ,

Thank you very much for your kind comment. Apart from the definitions provided by other philosopher's, Foucault's definition of ethics was really interesting. In your opinion, what is the role of ethics and moral values in dealing with today's technological and industrial advancements? Would you mind sharing your personal opinion on their role in smoothing the path towards having a more sustainable community, industry, and lifestyle?

Dear Dr. s. Béatrice Marianne Ewalds-Kvist ,

Thank you for sharing your interesting work with us. But, here comes a few more general and critical questions: How can we deal with new technologies like AI? Do you think that they are going to change the whole game? As you know these technologies can change the taste of their users and the people who somehow have an interaction with them at work, at the shopping center, in the street, in their family, etc. So, how vast do you think these changes be in different environments (industries, families, societies, ...)? And, finally, which role do ethics an moral values play in this new game?

Milad Kolagar

As always, there are people who abuse and there are people who use technology in an ethical way. Some of us thought like Anne Frank in her last line of her diary, before transported to a concentration camp, that the human being is basically good but temporarily able of doing evil things. After the holocaust we need to revise our ideas and see that tha human being is basically bad and temporally able to repent and turn around and do what is good.

Thank you for your comment Dr. s. Béatrice Marianne Ewalds-Kvist . Today, as we look at the past and present status of nations, we can better understand the disappearance of values. It is as if there is a wound in the souls for which a cure must be found.

At the beginning of modern history, human's hope and desire was that science and technology can establish a unified and balanced world. It has now become clear that the path between science and technology is far from dreaming of a paradise on the one hand, and on the other hand widespread hardships, mental problems, wars, and violence are everywhere. So, the connections between human beings and science and technology must be transformed and a new relationship must emerge.

In my opinion, it is not possible to create a new relationship without the mediation of ethics and moral values in all aspects of human endeavor. But the key point here is that this moral force does not necessarily arise by repetition of famous moral terms and expressions. So, the complex question here is: where should we start and how should we start to step towards having a moral world with all these technologies? And that is for sure what we all are trying to find out!

Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal. Morality may also be specifically synonymous with "goodness" or "rightness".

Are moral praksis can be viewed as what we do (or do not do) right and wrong, good and evil. Most of the time it is not concious. We do what we are used to doing. I do not reflect every time I go into a shop if I should steal or pay for the item I want. The challenge begins when we have to interact with the people around us. I cannot do what ever I like without it having some consequences. Our moral praksis is sentral in making human interaction function well. As soon as we start refecting over our moral praksis we are into the field of ethics. Ethics is about asking ourselves and each other: What will benifit me and others? How can we act and interact in ways that will benifit, long term, human life. It is not easy to develope practical wisdom, but through dialogue and reflection and sharing how we think, feel and do, in regards to do right and good. In a modern technological world this is no less important. Mashines and technology is for the purpose of human flourishment. If not it seems meaningless.

The objective of morality is the genesis as well as the evolution of a subjective code of conduct, while following a code of conduct becomes a moral event preserving the life of the group. The terms “code of conduct,” “code of ethics,” “moral code,” and “social norms,” are often used to describe the foundation of a civil society.

Knowing that we are a product of the physical laws of nature, I feel the key in the above statement is “evolution” from both a moral and technological perspective applying ethical reasoning through the prism of the physical constructal law, the law of evolution:

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19420889.2016.1172159

Mapping the constructal law to life’s unalienable rights:

https://www.academia.edu/37021128/Scientific_Proof_of_Our_Unalienable_Rights

Dear Prof. Maged Gumaan Bin-Saad ,

Thank you for sharing the useful link with us.

Dear Dr. Hassan Izzeddin Sarsak ,

Thank you for your comment and providing this useful definition.

Creation is known in Arabic, of course, because it has been appreciated by its owner, and in another saying, religion and virility, the scholar Ibn Faris said: (Kha, Lam and Qaf Aslan: one appreciating the thing, and the other touching the thing). The self, which produces many actions in an easy and accessible, without the need to deliberate or think, it is possible to issue this body acts reprehensible or commendable.

Dear Prof. Kjartan Skogly Kversøy ,

Thank you very much for sharing your valuable and interesting insights with us. In my opinion, new technologies provide us with opportunities that raise new ethical questions. Depending on whether we see these new opportunities morally positive or negative, we may or may not do something. In fact, our moral values and ethical considerations affect the use or non-use of certain technologies.

Another implication is that ethical considerations are not limited to emerging technologies but also to the process of their creation and construction; by enacting, for example, laws or regulations for prohibiting certain activities while building a technology.

In this regard and in confirming your point of view, I also believe that ethics and technology cannot be regarded as two separate and distinct entities. But, there are bridges between them that, if identified and paved, will surely give communities more peace of mind. The complex problems here are how to anticipate the consequences of these technologies and how to find a way to better govern them.

Thank you very much for your kind comment and useful links dear Michael T Takac .

A-rational, ir-rational, non-rational, rational (ainr) private species creative consideration (in demotic usage ‘morality’); ainr social species creative consideration (in demotic usage ‘ethics’) = outward directedness in private-contractual/social contractual Obligationright (pc-OR/sc-OR). [Hereinafter ‘creative’ is invariably accompanied by ‘species’.]

All acts to which unique, private, individual (upi) Homo sapiens (H.s.) commit as private/social species creative consideration are rational. Those that are ain are of interest to HH.ss. who ex post facto consider them worthy of being found having been performed in/with private/social species creative consideration. [i]

Creativity is an act judged to be creative. It excludes any teleological purpose whether judged pre- or post the creativity. Thus participation in developing the atomic bomb was a creative act. It’s use was not. Developing the gas used specifically for Dachau was not creative. Its development was not.

Each H.s. deserves respect (not 'equal respect', which has no sense) in so far as it practices creative consideration - which does not require 'reason' - for its existence may be established ex post facto. Neither is it a 'principle'.

Social creative consideration is required by/for sc-ORs (pc-ORs to a lesser extent) because ALL relationality in-propinquity is social, requiring ainr agreement whether explicit, implied or tacit.

'A posteriori' is inadequate to Describe social creative consideration because choice may be ain intuitive and (recent) past.

Each relationality is unique. Social creative consideration is not (logically) necessary since continuing creativity {Note: The phusis[ii] condition of being. Choosing acts of creative uncertainty is a self-sufficient process.[iii] [It is creative uncertainty which is the summon bonum without which (‘creativity for creativity’s sake’) continuing creativity, not just a civilization, will be negatively impacted.] It is the ineffable generating force of/for life. Continuing creativity is not an aim to which HH.ss. direct themselves. It is entailed - not by the existence of an H.s., but by the continuing existence of the species Homo sapiens and is a contingent - an if...then; but for existence, it is.

Both considerations are improvements on the categorical (non-) imperative (or Calvin’s ‘divine imperative’[iv]) since: (1) neither is noumenal but empirical; (2) neither is ‘causal’; (3) both are ainr, i.e. not exclusively rational; (4) each Describes what is meant by 'duty', which is neither ‘obligationright’ nor metaphysical and (5) both would have considered Moore to be committing a fallacy in arguing against a 'naturalist error’; (6) neither is subject to expediency since both practice consideration (are considerate in their result); (7) neither is dependent upon the ‘cardinal moral virtues’ [(i) courage, (ii) justice, (iii) temperance, (iv) wisdom].

If the result of practicing either creative consideration (private - morality; or social - ethics) may stand the Definition and be Expressed or Explained in terms of any of the virtues (and liberality, magnanimity and honesty), that is an end Defined, not the result that necessarily ought to be sought.

Creative consideration (whether private or social) ought to be sought for creativity is the only good, creative uncertainty the summum bonum. Thereafter those may follow, but, as intimated, that is for the pulpit.[v]

Some say that X’s actions may not interfere with those of Z, etc. Kant says of equality:

“My external (lawful) freedom is rather to be explained in this way: it is the right through which I require not to obey any external laws except those to which I could have given my consent. In exactly the same way, external (legal) equality in a state [Note: condition] is that relation of the subjects in consequence of which no individual can legally bind or oblige another to anything, without at the same time submitting himself to the law which ensures that he can, in his tum, be bound and obliged in like manner by this other.” Kant, I (1795, 2010) n4 57-8.

Private creative consideration allows for a relationality for the actor to decide on outward directedness that is creative while exercising consideration. Kant is forced to make an act moral on motive because there is no way to Understand what is moral because it is not the actor X’s decision on outcome that is determinant, but Z’s.

The freedom of X is the freedom of X because it is not the freedom of Z (multiplied to ∞), an empty tautology, under colour of morality and impossible to determine because no one aware what Z considers being moral is. Kant is looking at Z, which remains a mystery so he has to make X’s motive determinant of what is moral, which contradicts his point that X is moral to the extent that it will allow Z to insist what X must do.

Creativity subject to consideration = the basis of morality/ethics.

[i] 1. “How we come by these ideas of deserving and not deserving punishment, will appear, perhaps, in the sequel; but I think there is no doubt that this distinction lies at the bottom of the notions of right and wrong; that we call any conduct wrong, or employ, instead, some other term of dislike or disparagement, according as we think that the person ought, or ought not, to be punished for it; and we say, it would be right to do so and so, or merely that it would be desirable or laudable, according as we would wish to see the person whom it concerns, compelled, or only persuaded and exhorted, to act in that manner. This, therefore, being the characteristic difference which marks off, not justice, but morality in general …” Mill, JS (1861, 1962) 304. 1.1 ‘Utility’ to Mill; ‘creativity’ to The Theories. 1.1.1 What has utility is an ex post facto enquiry with AENFs subject to dissection of propinquity generic AC, a common denominator against which AENF’s are to be measured and tested, a very ‘Click-Drug-Age’ computed, quantified, gauge, contrary to creativity, which does not exclude the computed, quantified, gauge. But does not hold it up as the test for/of ‘morality’. Creativity is the good. The greatest good (summum bonum) is found in uncertain creativity extra-propinquity. 2. ‘Utility’ is a what (in every respect, even only being in-propinquity). ‘Creativity’ is the ultimate how. Hence the sine qua non. Such that all consideration given to νομος, the ‘One’, the ‘Giant Should’ may be taken as creativity without which there is nothing.

[ii] In the sense of Anaximander. Kahn, C H (1960,1985).

[iii] Our attempt, as H.s., is not to find a via media between transcendental ιδεα and sense. It is to create. Hence in the former, ainr (most decidedly not reason alone) acts occur of such elevated creativity that the vast majority of HH.ss. in-propinquity will never Understand them. Hence freedom [creative uncertainty (extra propinquity)], found extra-propinquity can never countenance an imperative of any Description. Any imperative extra-propinquity is anathema to creative uncertainty, and at best constricting in practical creativity (in-propinquity) when aimed at utilitarian creativity. To juxtapose ‘free’ with ‘imperative’ shows no logical appreciation of the continued existence of the species. ‘Reason’ need not even make consistent sense for it to be used indiscriminately. No such limitation exists for ‘creativity’. It has meaning and sense even in rude ain garb and is not transcendental.

[iv] Barker, E (1930) 46.

[v] 1. As Machiavelli says, that would be ‘laudabilissima’ in his unique Latin/Italian. Machiavelli, N (1513, 1986) XV 68. Nothing wrong with those sentiments. They may be lauded by Ciceronian/Stoic ‘reason’ but exactly what reason? The one that says ‘be truthful’ and return the knife to the mad owner because it is his and he demands it back (an example here loaned - not from Machiavelli - but from Aristotle)? 2. ‘There is no necessary connection with the cardinal and princely virtues.’ Skinner, Q (1981) 61. That applies to the prince. 2.1 It applies in The Theories too. Connection with the virtues depends on whether the results of the choice made comports with two aspects: creativity and consideration in all matters concerned private and social creative consideration. The Theories depart from Machiavelli. Do not what is ‘necessary’ (as Kant’s CI does too!), but what is both creative and considerate. It may be that at most times some of the virtues will be descried having occurred. But that is an ex post facto game played by the virtue signaller.