Again, what society considers moral doesn't mean it is moral all the time. Others and myself have already provided examples proving this.
No, BadSheep isn't "speaking gibberish", and this isn't an argument. His question is relevant to the main argument you've been making in this thread, as you claim that morality is subjective just because people have different beliefs regarding it. Believing something doesn't automatically make it true, and this applies to beliefs relating to what is moral and immoral.
A moral is a standard for defining what is right and wrong, morality being how well one keeps to those standards. As we all have different standards for what we consider right or wrong (although naturally there is overlap), that is to say different morals, there is no way for morality itself, which is defined by these standards, not to be subjective.
If you say that morality is a universal thing, you're projecting your own beliefs onto the rest of the population which just breeds fallacies and misunderstanding.
No. My position is right (in the context of your argument only) because it is consistent and yours is wrong because it is inconsistent. Logically, if my position is consistent, it can only be wrong if yours is also consistent.
This would be all well and good if
morality was consistent. It isn't though. You're also just deciding things for yourself here. If you tell me an electron can only be in one spot at the same time and never falter you're being much more consistent than me telling you it can simultaneously be where I'm standing and where you are. You're still wrong in that instance though and this is the same.
Being consistent doesn't make you correct, it makes you consistently wrong (in this case). Applying your own personal, or the West's, moral standards universally might be consistent but when you consistently apply something subjective that's, again, just you projecting what you believe onto the rest of society.
Been a while since I posted, but I felt I should respond to this.
Both BlackSheep, and especially Philosophizer are correct with their views. It is wise not to kill another, because doing so have consequences. Not only might you create your own killer, but you also will either become rigid, (hard, unbendable), or will regret what you have done. Same with stealing and the like. To say that a human who is trained to kill is somehow free of these consequences, because their society says so, is to ignore what being a human means.
One who advocates killing, after examination, is not a wise person, regardless of their society and it's laws.
Being moral and being wise are not the same thing. Refusing to divorce an abusive spouse is unwise, but a great number of heavily religious people would consider that the moral thing to do for example.
The first point is incorrect. It is a rigid concept. Being human, one who looks closely at their actions and thoughts will know what rules to follow and what not to follow. Killing can bring temporary benefits, but the heart knows it is not right, and these benefits don't last.
Morality as a concept is only rigid in the sense that everyone has morals. That's about where it stops because we all have differing sets of morals. More often than not, the differences in our morality are going to be very slight - that's why those within a single culture typically have near identical morality -but morals can also vary greatly between people.
You want a really modern and relevant example? Many people today believe that smoking marijuana recreationally is immoral (for some reason) but more and more people are coming to have no real problems with the practice at all. That's two completely different schools of morality right there. However, the latter group is gradually becoming the majority and the law (in the US and a few other places) is also gradually changing to reflect that.
In your murder example, you're right that most people agree that killing another person regardless of those benefits is wrong. There's always going to be those among us though that will think there are times murder is justified or who might never feel remorse for taking another human life. There's more subjective morality for you. What you're doing right now is the same thing that BadSheep and Philosophizer are prone to, you're projecting your own moral values onto the entirety of humanity.
Correct, their laws according to them are correct. This, however, does not define morality.
I never said that the law defines morality. It's the other way around. Morality defines the law.
Correct again, laws are what the society defines. What Philosophizer is saying is that simply because a society makes laws, it does not make it morally ok for one to follow them. If a law, for example, were inacted in the USA, saying to kill people who sneeze, I simply would not follow that law. Regardless of whatever tortures were put upon me, my family, or any associates to kill that person, I would refuse. It might be the law, but morals trump that for me. My heart knows it's wrong.
That would be one of those rare cases where the law was unjust, because it does not fit the overall morals held my the majority of the people it binds. However, your "heart" is irrelevant. Why? Because if the majority of society thinks that's okay, then that law is just in the eyes of the majority's morals.
"the chances of there being any truly unjust laws in a democratic nation are infinitesimal anyway." What the hell is this? This looks like a total joke, are you serious? Slavery in the USA, for example, is an unjust law. How can you say that is is infinitesimal (re. impossible)?
Slavery was indeed an unjust law! Because it did not fit the prevailing morality of the majority of the people in the country (slaves were also people in that country and there were plenty of white people who also didn't agree). It's certainly unjust and immoral by today's standards too. But standards and beliefs change because of morality's subjectivity. There may well have been a time and a place when slavery was considered completely okay, even by slaves. Even in the US, there were black slaves who did not see the wrong in slavery as a concept.
Wrong. I do not agree to said laws simply by existing, that is a complete fallacy, and is quite a foolish statement to be honest. I would in fact have a right to complain, such as many people who have complained in places where killing is/was OK.
Not by existing, but that's not what I said. You implicitly agree to those laws by remaining where they are in effect. If you, as an adult, are living somewhere with laws you don't agree with, you can try to see those laws changed, you can suck it up and follow them silently or you can move to somewhere those laws are not in effect. You can't just freely choose not to follow those laws because you don't want to, because they don't fit your personal morals. If that was the case there'd be a lot of murderers currently in prison who wouldn't be because they personally see nothing wrong with killing someone who pisses you off.
If you'd like a less extreme example. Here on this forum we have a rule against spamming. You agree to follow this rule simply by being a member on this forum. If you decide that you think spamming is actually okay and go and put up sixty threads containing images of peanut butter and nothing else in the RPT, I'm going to ban your ass whether you think spam is okay or not. Because you personally thinking spam is fine is irrelevant when the majority of the people here can't stand it - which is what shapes the rules, wanting to create a space in which the majority of the occupants can all be safe and happy. In other words, the rules are shaped according to the morals of the people they bind.
A person wronged also depends on how you define it. Some people, for example, feel wronged by what others say without actually being harmed in anyway.
Look! People with different morals!!
A law is a problem once it infringes on morality, which would be acting in a way that harms another human, and even another living being.
The problem here being that we all have different morals, as you yourself have even demonstrated now. Which is why we have to go with the morality of the majority - the bits that match. Which means that even if you think your arrest for selling heroin is unjust if the majority of society thinks it is just, then your opinion is worth nothing.
Philosophizer has reasoned that not following this does not infringe on morality, and so, if you're willing to accept the consequences, you don't have to wear a seatbeat. You are also free to march into your court house and demand that this rule for your city be changed.
Yup! Of course if the majority think you need to sit down and shut up, that rule won't change. The morals of the majority trump yours.
But it is a universal thing. Morality is a truth, not some kind of subjective thing that simply changes based on what a society thinks. That is law not morality.
Law is fluid because morality is, because the law is defined by what society considers moral. Morality isn't a truth it's a part of a belief system, a belief system that can vary dramatically between cultures, states and even individual people. That's why the law is different in different places. Because different groups value different things. Your set of morals is not the only one.
Philosophizer and Badsheep will inevitably now try and repeat that ones beliefs about morality are what changes and not morality itself but this is just completely wrong. Your morals are the standards by which you personally define right and wrong. They are a part of your own personal system of belief and that is precisely why morality itself is subjective. If you try and say that there's some universal truth to morality then you're projecting. Simple as that.
It's like gender fluidity. There is no such thing, as genders are defined. They are not something that can just be changed because society wants it to be. There is male. There is female. There is the case of a person born with male and female genitalia. There is nothing outside of this.
If you want to make comparisons I'd recommend you draw parallels with things you understand better. Psychology recognises that your physical sex is not the same thing as your psychological gender for example. My own thoughts on the unrelated issue aside, no point going into something on that further here, it's off-topic. for the sake of integrity though, I'd prefer you didn't use examples that are debatable themselves to try and make a point.
It is the same with morality. A society does not get to define what morality is, the human heart knows what is right and wrong. A murderer who reflects on what he has done does not in his heart regret any less the killing of another being, because his society says it was good, or the right thing to do. He knows it was not right, and he will have to live with that consequence regardless of whether his society condones it, or even praises people who murder.
You really need to stop projecting. What you and the person next to you believe is morally correct is not going to be the same in its entirety as what the person three doors down believes is morally correct. In fact, between you and your hypothetical neighbour there will be differences too. You're living under the illusion that your personal values are a universal truth which is just arrogance and conceitedness.
Society doesn't determine morality but the morality of a society is determined by the individual morals of those within it. The vast majority of our society believes that killing another human being in almost any circumstance is wrong and we have been raised in that society and taught this societies values. So we believe the same thing. Maybe you would still take issue with taking a life in a different society, but chances are that if you were raised in a society where murder was deemed a hobby by the general populace that is how you would think of it. Maybe you would later deconstruct this and consider the unfairness and later change your own views, but it wouldn't matter in the eyes of society because you would have different morals to that society. You couldn't stop it unless you made that society believe it was wrong to take lives for sport. Then after that some would probably question why it was okay then, to hunt animals and so forth. Moral standards are the opposite of fixed and universal and people who think otherwise are kidding themselves to be frank.
To say that this is somehow otherwise, or to say that the law defines morality is to completely ignore the human heart/mind. (I use heart, but I interchange between heart and mind, as in when I say heart it is = to mind.)
Once again, I never claimed that the law defines morality. Morality defines the law. That has always been the case. It always
will be the case. The very reason that the law changes is because it is adjusted to fit the beliefs of those who are bound by it. That's how you avert things like civil wars (which is just another way society changes the law to fit their morals).
You are confusing law with morality, or you are simply ignoring the human heart.
I'm not confusing the two. I'm stating that the common morals held by society are what influences and determines the rules that become law or cease to be law. I'm not "ignoring the human heart" I'm telling you that not every "human heart" believes the same things. I'm telling you that if the majority of hearts feel the same thing - that is the majority of a society hold a common moral value - that value will be what influences what becomes law. This isn't a case of me ignoring "the human heart" it's about you, or Badsheep or Philosophizer choosing to listen only to your own and then claiming what you feel is moral is a universal truth when the fact of the matter is that all morality is, is a belief system. One that changes by culture and by person.
