Morals

[skeptik]

You can arrive at an understanding of a objective moral (fact) through observation.

No you can't. You can't arrive at something that doesn't exist. There is no objective moral anything and there is no moral fact, so arriving at them through any means is impossible. What you arrive at through observation is what morals you think are best, nothing more. There's nothing "objective" about this in the sense that you imply.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Moral views are personal values and opinions, and not objective facts. Not all human beings desire the same things anyway. There is no objective measure for wrong or right, as it's based solely upon our opinions of what is and is not acceptable, and it differs radically in different societies and between individuals.

Even if everyone agreed, it would be a sharing of opinions, and not any type of objective measure. There is no data or factual evidence to consider morals as anything more than personal views of what is wrong or right.

What you think is wrong. You can not "arrive at objective knowledge." The fact that it is agent-relative makes this completely impossible. That all agents in question reached the same conclusion is irrelevant. What would make it "more...than just collective opinion" would be if they actually existed somewhere in the world in the way that scientific laws do. An apple falls to the Earth because of the principles of gravity. We have no opinion about this. There is no judgment here. Stealing things is bad. We do have opinions about this. This is clearly a judgment. If everybody reached the same judgment, it would still be the product of a judgment. Under those circumstances it may act as though it was "universal" or "objective," but that doesn't mean that it is.

I'm going to try approaching this a different way to see if we can find some common ground here. Please evaluate each of the following statements for truthfulness:

1. There is overwhelming evidence to support the proposition that all humans wish to live their lives safe from harm and free to pursue their interests.

2. The human desire to live in freedom and safety as described above is common enough to consider it a basic characteristic of a human being, much as having two eyes or two arms.

3. Given the option to either grant this desired safety and freedom to as many humans as possible, or to consign all humans to inescapable suffering, there is no known basis for deciding between these options other than the fact that virtually all humans desire it.

4. Therefore, the only possible value in the above situation is to grant safety and freedom to as many humans as possible.

 

[genocide roach]

morals arent only relative, but fluid as well. maybe someone becomes born again and they completely change their views on what is moral and what isnt.

this is why the government (local, state, and federal) have no place creating morality laws.
~gR~

 

[Dak]

No you can't. You can't arrive at something that doesn't exist. There is no objective moral anything and there is no moral fact, so arriving at them through any means is impossible. What you arrive at through observation is what morals you think are best, nothing more. There's nothing "objective" about this in the sense that you imply.

Just because you believe it doesn't exist does not mean it doesn't exist. Read the article I linked, in lieu of me posting the entire thing.

Action/Re-action can be studied and a conclusion can be arrived at.

Vihris seams to be pretty much on the right track. I believe people like to argue for subjective morality because it allows them to do whatever they want with a "clean conscience". What it doesn't do though is negate the reactions.

 

[Zephyrus]

Rome was already on the decline prior to that point, Constantine attempted to use religion to "rally" the empire. Obviously it failed to maintain the empire, but on the flip side the religion itself was quite successful longterm, regardless of how un-ethical some of it's practices were. But then again it exercised the supposed backing of a diety, which we are excluding here.
Edit: Constantine most definitely still maintained the "military spirit". he just tried to give it "holy cause" instead of national.

Actually the inherent exclusivity of Christian dogmatism tore the empire apart through religious intolerance and theological squabbles within the religion itself.

Constantine didn't stabilize the empire through Christianity. Diocletian did and he was a fervent anti-Christian. What Constantine did was legalize a parasitic religion that distracted politics to the point that its host died away and it survived to be the dominant Western force in the Middle Ages.



It's obviously a very complex issue, and let's not further the debate here.

 

[waif]

Not getting involved in the discussion atm, but...

Interesting thread. My history class discusses this a lot for some reason.

To me morals are your concept of right and wrong. Each person has a separate code of right and wrong, but we all draw on a moral construct, an ideal morality, that each culture creates; there are often differences between cultural moralities, although more and more a sort of world moral construct is being created, based almost entirely on shared western morals. Anyhow. As I said earlier, each person has their own separate code of right and wrong, but they draw their morals from this social construct. Often people's individual morals deviate significantly from this (I know mine do). Almost everyone always feels justified to themselves, even though they don't seem justified to us; this is a result of moral differences as well as perspective.

Not feeling too eloquent today.

 

[cookiecutter]

Not to mention the fact that many nations became very successful by doing things that most people would find morally reprehensible.

For example the United States and Britain, which Dakryn thought had high moral character.

I'm going to try approaching this a different way to see if we can find some common ground here. Please evaluate each of the following statements for truthfulness:

1. There is overwhelming evidence to support the proposition that all humans wish to live their lives safe from harm and free to pursue their interests.

2. The human desire to live in freedom and safety as described above is common enough to consider it a basic characteristic of a human being, much as having two eyes or two arms.

3. Given the option to either grant this desired safety and freedom to as many humans as possible, or to consign all humans to inescapable suffering, there is no known basis for deciding between these options other than the fact that virtually all humans desire it.

4. Therefore, the only possible value in the above situation is to grant safety and freedom to as many humans as possible.

I think you're missing an important distinction here which Dodens has tried to explain. I'll see if I can do it. Force will equal mass times acceleration no matter what. Every human could be dead and it would be true. Everyone could disagree with it and it would be true. It was true before life began on Earth. Can you say the same thing about morality? No, it is just a consensus.

 

[Einherjar86]

There is no such thing as absolute morality. However, we have to accept that the installation of objective regulations is inevitable and most likely necessary for a society to succeed, and it is also likely that the majority of these laws/regulations will be decided upon through methods of moral reasoning. Therefore, taboos and accepted norms will inevitably arise.

However, it is important to understand and recognize the generally accepted moral compass that leads to these laws being created. Many people of the past few generations (our grandparents and even some of our parents) are unable to reconcile their own moral preconceptions with the steadily growing liberal attitude of today's society. This leads to intolerance of homosexuality, atheism, and other commonly eschewed acts such as drug use.

I've always been fascinated by the dichotomy of moral values and nihilism. I have sometimes considered myself a nihilist in the past, believing that there is no rational justification for any kind of system of morals, ethics or values whatsoever. In this sense, I can see no way that even a relative moral system can work. However, I do acknowledge the importance of an objective and communal system of values/laws, although I could never bring myself to acknowledge it as the one and only system. Nihilism has seemed so often to be the most individualistic, rational choice; and yet, it seems anathema to our culture(s), which is made up societal systems living together and cooperating. This discussion could follow multiple avenues, from the philosophical conceptions and ideas of morality to the political beliefs of welfarism versus libertarianism. I think it's a great subject to debate and I look forward to seeing where it goes.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Just from reading your first paragraph, you went into the whole assumption that morality = law, which isn't true and shouldn't be true.

 

[Einherjar86]

Why don't you read the rest of my post before coming to conclusions? I've clearly acknowledged a distinction between laws and morals.

 

[skeptik]

Just because you believe it doesn't exist does not mean it doesn't exist. Read the article I linked, in lieu of me posting the entire thing.

Action/Re-action can be studied and a conclusion can be arrived at.

Vihris seams to be pretty much on the right track. I believe people like to argue for subjective morality because it allows them to do whatever they want with a "clean conscience". What it doesn't do though is negate the reactions.

I'll read what you posted when I have more time. In the meantime, why don't you read something on the opposite side of the fence?

Your problem seems to be your assumption that the lack of an objective element in morality gives mankind free reign to behave and way they choose, if they knew that they had this free reign, and you're using this as your conclusion and working backward for the evidence to support it. On the contrary. I live my live by more rigorous moral guidelines than most likely every other person on this forum, and yet I'm very firm in my belief that there is no creator and there is no objective quality to morality. Like I already said, my conception of morality is based on pragmatism and equity. If I do something that I don't think is moral, you can rest assured that I do so with a degree of self-reprimand. There need not be any objective quality in order to ensure that a system of morals be carried out in an orderly manner.

 

[Dak]

I'll read what you posted when I have more time. In the meantime, why don't you read something on the opposite side of the fence?

Your problem seems to be your assumption that the lack of an objective element in morality gives mankind free reign to behave and way they choose, if they knew that they had this free reign, and you're using this as your conclusion and working backward for the evidence to support it. On the contrary. I live my live by more rigorous moral guidelines than most likely every other person on this forum, and yet I'm very firm in my belief that there is no creator and there is no objective quality to morality. Like I already said, my conception of morality is based on pragmatism and equity. If I do something that I don't think is moral, you can rest assured that I do so with a degree of self-reprimand. There need not be any objective quality in order to ensure that a system of morals be carried out in an orderly manner.

This is a rediculous statement if morality is relative because then everyone would be able to say pretty much the same thing. No one is going to make a whole set of rules for themselves and then live in constant affront to their own relative beliefs.

You said you might do something that even goes against your own definition of morality. Why would you go against rules you have complete control of? You could just change the rule, then you aren't going against it.

Your problem seems to be your assumption that the lack of an objective element in morality gives mankind free reign to behave and way they choose

It does. You just admitted it, and to argue the opposite is rediculous. Obviously LAWS deter man from doing anything they want, but if we make the laws then why do we make them for any other reason than for the fact that without rules for interaction society can't function.Objective Morals, by a general definition imo, are rules for human interaction that are a constant for a successful society (success being determined by peace and freedom to pursue morally agreeable interests).

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Um, how the hell do morals inherently have anything to do with some kind of societal success or decay factor? Laws and morals AREN'T the same.

 

[Einherjar86]

I realize they aren't the same thing Andy, but morals usually shape and form the laws and their creation. Laws are founded on moral ideals and conceptions. They are the basis for interpreting values and ordering how people should cooperate with each other. They're closely related. I'm advocating in my post that we recognize the separation between laws and morals. So, essentially, I'm agreeing with you that morals and laws shouldn't be regarded as the same thing. However, many people in today's society do view laws as having a moral foundation, and some of them in fact do have a moral foundation (murder, for example). We need to recognize that oftentimes the conception of this foundation is a fallacy.

You need to read my whole post.

 

[Dak]

Another way to explain this:

Society and civilization are complex interaction systems. Law has been used as a regulator to keep the systems functioning. However, just because there is a framework of agreed upon laws does not mean it will work towards providing everyone peace and ability to pursue their interests.

Example: Forced slavery has been lawful in various cultures, usually forced along ethnic/racial lines. Forced slavery does not allow everyone peace and to pursue their interests. Therefore while it has been lawful and those who participated in it probably didn't consider it "immoral", it is.

While a civilization/individual can usually reap some benefits from forced labor, it is at the expense of the suffering of other humans. Immoral.

 

[Omni]

That's all well and good, but I have yet to see you concretely explain how morals aren't personal views and opinions of what is wrong or right. The fact that certain morals lend themselves well to successful society in some instances isn't proof of existence for any objective morals. There's nothing in anything that you've said or in the link you posted about objective morals that actually explains in any type of objective fashion how some morals are concrete and absolute.

So, how are morals not just views and opinions? What makes any moral beliefs objective? Provide objective, concrete evidence to support your claims that they aren't just popular opinions that sometimes work well.

 

[skeptik]

Are you really going to start being a complete idiot again? Everything you just said is just really stupid, and now it's just annoying.

This is a rediculous statement if morality is relative because then everyone would be able to say pretty much the same thing. No one is going to make a whole set of rules for themselves and then live in constant affront to their own relative beliefs.

It is pretty obvious that one person's moral standards can be more rigorous than another person's moral standards. If you don't see this, then you're just not qualified to be having this discussion.

Here's a completely obvious example. One person drinks copious amounts of alcohol because he sees nothing wrong with it. Another person abstains from drinking alcohol altogether because he finds a problem with drinking alcohol and putting such things in your body. Do you really think saying that the latter has a more rigorous moral standard is ridiculous? By the way, it's spelled RIDICULOUS, not REDICULOUS. There is not one single 'e' in the entire word. Your finger shouldn't touch that key. People would obviously not say the same thing. Some people believe that moral standards are not rigorous, so why would they say that they have rigorous moral standards? If somebody believes that it's okay to punch babies in the face if they throw up on them, do you think this person believes that he has rigorous moral standards in comparison to other people?

Based on my observations of the way that people behave in their personal lives from what they post on this forum, I think it's safe for me to conclude that I have more rigorous moral standards for myself than the majority of people here, and I'm pretty sure most other posters here have acknowledged this by mocking my personally conservative standards. Now try again to explain how this is a 'rediculous' thing to say if morality is relative. I'll address your last sentence below.

You said you might do something that even goes against your own definition of morality. Why would you go against rules you have complete control of?

Everybody does this at some point in their lives. Well, a lot of people anyway. Everybody has lapses and does things that they regret and wish they hadn't done. Everybody does things that they feel are wrong despite feeling that they're wrong. To claim otherwise is ridiculous. You would have to assume that people are perfect in order to see some cognitive dissonance between believing that something is wrong and not always being able to hold yourself to your own standards. God, I can't believe I'm even explaining this. This is so intuitively obvious that I feel annoyed that I have to lay this out for you.

Do you really not get this? You may have complete control of what you believe is right and wrong, but that does not mean at all that you have complete control over whether you will ever do something that you think is wrong. Somebody who believes that smoking weed is wrong could have a moment of weakness in a state of depression at some point in their lives and someone could come along at the opportune time and offer them pot, and they take it, knowing that it's 'wrong.' This may be the only time he ever does it, and he still did it and he still thought it was wrong to do it. Or he could become addicted to it and his body could become dependent on it and he couldn't stop himself from doing something that he believes is wrong for the rest of his life. This doesn't mean he suddenly thinks it's right now that he does it, or that it was temporarily right the one time that he did do it.

You could just change the rule, then you aren't going against it.

Then it wouldn't be a rule.

Of course you can change your outlook on things, but if you change your belief that smoking pot is wrong in order to smoke pot instead of because you actually no longer believe that smoking pot is wrong, then you're not really changing your belief, you're just deceiving yourself.

It does. You just admitted it, and to argue the opposite is rediculous.

You're taking my statement out of context like a stupid jackass, as usual. If you actually read my entire sentence, you would see that I was not denying the natural 'free reign' that relative morality grants us. In fact, I was saying that in order to support what I was saying after it, so you're being completely ridiculous.

if we make the laws then why do we make them for any other reason than for the fact that without rules for interaction society can't function

We're not talking about laws. We're talking about morality. Yes, some laws are based on morality, but to insinuate that because a sense of morality sometimes shapes laws that that morality which shaped that law must be objective is assinine. The reason for making laws has nothing to do with what we're discussing.

Objective Morals, by a general definition imo, are rules for human interaction that are a constant for a successful society (success being determined by peace and freedom to pursue morally agreeable interests).

As far as having an opinion ("imo") about "Objective Morals," I hope you can see for yourself how stupid that is. You don't really get to have an opinion about what something objectively means. If something is objective, then it can be determined to be such through observation in such a way that no other conclusion could possibly make sense given the data. That 2 + 3 = 5 is objectively deduced, given the data. If you have two, and you have 3, and you add two to three, you can't have anything other than five. On the other hand, you can arrive at several different conclusions regarding moral decisions.

Now, onward and upward.

There are two problems with your "opinion" about what "Objective Morals" is. The first one is that you assume that morality should be determined by the success of a society. There is nothing intuitive in the assumption that morality's role should be toward the furtherance of society (that is, if it was objective). The second problem with your "opinion" is that you must assume that there is an objective standard for determining success in a society. There quite obviously isn't. For some people, allowing homosexuals to marry and women to have an abortion is an egregious blow to the moral fabric of society. To others, the opposite is as ardently suggested. So which one determines "success?" Can we tell objectively which one is successful? Can we objectively determine what constitutes, definitively, success?

Here is where we differ. I largely agree with your view on morality. My conception of morality, loosely stated, is a set of standards which best contribute to the greater well-being and equity of people as much as is reasonably possible. But this is not objective. Does it being subjective cause it somehow to magically lose its validity? Of course not. The best idea should be implemented; that idea does not have to have some kind of magical authority, it just needs to make sense.

 

[Dak]

It is pretty obvious that one person's moral standards can be more rigorous than another person's moral standards. If you don't see this, then you're just not qualified to be having this discussion.

You missed my point, or maybe I didn't explain it well enough. You claim to have a relativily rigorous moral standard based off of your experience with other people. But since it is relative, that really doesn't mean anything. I might look at what you consider a rigorous moral standard and think you are completely immoral based off of my morals.

If morals are relative then we are both right and wrong at the same time which is completely retarded.

Here's a completely obvious example. One person drinks copious amounts of alcohol because he sees nothing wrong with it. Another person abstains from drinking alcohol altogether because he finds a problem with drinking alcohol and putting such things in your body. Do you really think saying that the latter has a more rigorous moral standard is ridiculous?

I personally don't see the choice to consum/not consume a moral issue, unless it is at the expense of others. But I would assume by this statement part of what you consider rigorous morals is abstaining from drinking alchohol, at least in large quantities.

By the way, it's spelled RIDICULOUS, not REDICULOUS.

Oops. Thanks.

People would obviously not say the same thing. Some people believe that moral standards are not rigorous, so why would they say that they have rigorous moral standards? If somebody believes that it's okay to punch babies in the face if they throw up on them, do you think this person believes that he has rigorous moral standards in comparison to other people?

Poor argument. You can look at tons of worse atrocities commited in history by people who thought they were being very morally upright. Anyone remember the inquisition?

Based on my observations of the way that people behave in their personal lives from what they post on this forum, I think it's safe for me to conclude that I have more rigorous moral standards for myself than the majority of people here, and I'm pretty sure most other posters here have acknowledged this by mocking my personally conservative standards.

TBH I have never seen this mentioned, except maybe regarding "digital piracy", which has been more debate oriented than mocking.

Everybody does this at some point in their lives. Well, a lot of people anyway. Everybody has lapses and does things that they regret and wish they hadn't done. Everybody does things that they feel are wrong despite feeling that they're wrong.
To claim otherwise is ridiculous. You would have to assume that people are perfect in order to see some cognitive dissonance between believing that something is wrong and not always being able to hold yourself to your own standards. God, I can't believe I'm even explaining this. This is so intuitively obvious that I feel annoyed that I have to lay this out for you.

I am not arguing with this. My point is that if these feelings are all purely relative, then technically nothing anyone does should ever be considered actually immoral, because basically your idea of morals doesn't even count.

Do you really not get this? You may have complete control of what you believe is right and wrong, but that does not mean at all that you have complete control over whether you will ever do something that you think is wrong.

Right, but my point is if you really believe that it is purely relative than there is no reason to have it at all. You are merely making stupid rules for yourself to follow. Just go do whatever you want.

You're taking my statement out of context like a stupid jackass, as usual. If you actually read my entire sentence, you would see that I was not denying the natural 'free reign' that relative morality grants us. In fact, I was saying that in order to support what I was saying after it, so you're being completely ridiculous.

My point was you can't have it both ways.

We're not talking about laws. We're talking about morality. Yes, some laws are based on morality, but to insinuate that because a sense of morality sometimes shapes laws that that morality which shaped that law must be objective is assinine. The reason for making laws has nothing to do with what we're discussing.

It really does. Einherjar has already gone into this to some degree.

As far as having an opinion ("imo") about "Objective Morals," I hope you can see for yourself how stupid that is. You don't really get to have an opinion about what something objectively means. If something is objective, then it can be determined to be such through observation in such a way that no other conclusion could possibly make sense given the data. That 2 + 3 = 5 is objectively deduced, given the data. If you have two, and you have 3, and you add two to three, you can't have anything other than five. On the other hand, you can arrive at several different conclusions regarding moral decisions.

If I hunted you down and killed you to watch you die or take your stuff, in what world would you or any other sane person consider this moral?

My opinion had to do with trying to create the actual definition of morality. If we can't agree on a definiton of what we are talking about we can't get anywhere. If I mean one thing by a word and you mean something else zero progress is going to get made.

Now, onward and upward.

There are two problems with your "opinion" about what "Objective Morals" is. The first one is that you assume that morality should be determined by the success of a society. There is nothing intuitive in the assumption that morality's role should be toward the furtherance of society (that is, if it was objective).

Actually it isn't really in the furtherance of the society so much in the success (as I attempted to define pretty much the same as vihris) of all individuals, which by proxy creates a successful society. Morality and success of all individuals is linked. I don't see how you can argue that it is not.

The second problem with your "opinion" is that you must assume that there is an objective standard for determining success in a society. There quite obviously isn't. For some people, allowing homosexuals to marry and women to have an abortion is an egregious blow to the moral fabric of society. To others, the opposite is as ardently suggested. So which one determines "success?" Can we tell objectively which one is successful? Can we objectively determine what constitutes, definitively, success?

I would love for there to be a nation that is nothing but homosexuals. Absolutely no heterosexual sex and no invitro fertilization btw. Would be a fun experiment.

Here is where we differ. I largely agree with your view on morality. My conception of morality, loosely stated, is a set of standards which best contribute to the greater well-being and equity of people as much as is reasonably possible. But this is not objective. Does it being subjective cause it somehow to magically lose its validity? Of course not. The best idea should be implemented; that idea does not have to have some kind of magical authority, it just needs to make sense.

In what way is it valid though? If the only basis for validity is "Dodens says so" or even "A lot of people say so" it really has no validity at all.

We aren't talking about "magical authority". Things like "don't murder/steal/rape" make sense for a reason. Because they are a requirement for successful human interaction.

 

[MasterOLightning]

An argument based on arbitrary constructs like freedom, security, success, etc., fails before it gets started. There is no standard of measurement for them. What is security? Is every human entitled to wear bulletproof vests and live in a germ-free bubble? What are the limits of freedom? It's quite clear that people can't agree on definitions of these things or how to measure them. It's not even possible. I could argue that no society has been even remotely successful or free or safe.

 

[skeptik]

You missed my point, or maybe I didn't explain it well enough. You claim to have a relativily rigorous moral standard based off of your experience with other people. But since it is relative, that really doesn't mean anything. I might look at what you consider a rigorous moral standard and think you are completely immoral based off of my morals.

If morals are relative then we are both right and wrong at the same time which is completely retarded.

Anything that is relative will have opposing views on a given issue. That's common sense. Whether or not it seems "completely retarded" to you makes no difference to the fact that it's "completely right." There is no fact about the way that the world operates that says "killing people is wrong." There is no ethereal moral law floating about in the stratosphere that states this. We do not live by moral standards because they are objectively right. We live by moral standards because we believe they are right. I listen to the music that I listen to because I believe it's good, not because it's objectively good. I think Kant's conception of "subjective universality" applies well here. A subjectively universal claim is a claim that says that everyone ought to behave with respect to this claim. For example, I believe that abortions should be legal. I believe that this should hold true and I can't believe that anyone would think otherwise. I believe that this claim should apply universally. Another person believes that abortions should be illegal. He believes that this should hold true and he can't believe that anyone would think otherwise. He believes that this claim should apply universally. It's impossible for both to have objective validity, and yet both exist.

Poor argument. You can look at tons of worse atrocities commited in history by people who thought they were being very morally upright. Anyone remember the inquisition?

How does the inquisition make the fact that some people believe that morality should be less rigorous than others any less true?

TBH I have never seen this mentioned, except maybe regarding "digital piracy", which has been more debate oriented than mocking.

This aspect is all fairly irrelevant. My own morality was just a passing example, so let's just drop it.

I am not arguing with this. My point is that if these feelings are all purely relative, then technically nothing anyone does should ever be considered actually immoral, because basically your idea of morals doesn't even count.

"Technically" nothing anyone ever does is right or wrong in some ethereal objective sense. But this is not the way that we live our day to day lives to begin with. Even if something was objectively true, does that automatically make it a good idea? If killing at random is a good thing was objectively true, would you think that everyone should do this? It would be moral since it's objective.

You're just completely hung up on the concept of validity. Validity doesn't need to come magically. Validity rests in the power of its logic. A good moral code is logical and not just based on what somebody said is objectively true. This is like the America showing their imperial might around the world because they had a "manifest destiny" to do so. We are mature, rational people. We do not require magical authority in order for us to follow something. And that's a good thing too, since there is no such authority.

The concept of morals is in part arbitrary in that it is man made and based on the observations of what is conducive to 'goodness.' This is a practice based on observation of how people function. It's not the discovery of some objective fact, it's just what some people have decided is the best moral code given the circumstances. It's possible that there's a better moral code out there that is not implemented.

Right, but my point is if you really believe that it is purely relative than there is no reason to have it at all. You are merely making stupid rules for yourself to follow. Just go do whatever you want.

Of course there is a reason. If you don't think it's a good thing to fucking stab your mother to death, then that's a pretty good reason not to do it. You don't need God to tell you that something is objective in order to have an intelligent idea regarding it. Whether or not the rules you follow are stupid is determined by the individual. Maybe if you put some thought into what your morals are, they wouldn't be stupid. But apparently, unless it's divinely inspired, it's stupid.

My point was you can't have it both ways.

I don't even know what you're trying to say here? You can't have what both ways? You can't have morality be non-objective and still have morality? That's fucking absurd.

It really does. Einherjar has already gone into this to some degree.

The law has nothing at all whatsoever to do with whether or not morality is objective, which is what we've been discussing. This is pretty obvious given that "morality" supposedly existed before laws were passed.

If I hunted you down and killed you to watch you die or take your stuff, in what world would you or any other sane person consider this moral?

Only sane people have a system of morality?

My opinion had to do with trying to create the actual definition of morality. If we can't agree on a definiton of what we are talking about we can't get anywhere. If I mean one thing by a word and you mean something else zero progress is going to get made.

Sorry if the fact of the matter at hand is not what you want it to be, but I can't change that. We can't agree on a definition of what is moral any than we can agree on a definition of what is good music. We probably cannot come to a universal consensus on anything unless it is objective and can be shown to be so empirically, like mathematical equations.

Actually it isn't really in the furtherance of the society so much in the success (as I attempted to define pretty much the same as vihris) of all individuals, which by proxy creates a successful society. Morality and success of all individuals is linked. I don't see how you can argue that it is not.

Success is not furtherance of society? And again, you're not reading what I'm saying. I said that there's no reason to believe that there is an objective basis for morality and that that basis is to guide a successful society. I didn't say that morality and success of all individuals is not linked at all. It's pretty obvious that it is. But saying that morals exist in order to contribute to a successful society in no way contradicts that. It's just a by-product of the way that was communicate that morality has an impact on our "success."

In what way is it valid though? If the only basis for validity is "Dodens says so" or even "A lot of people say so" it really has no validity at all.

We aren't talking about "magical authority". Things like "don't murder/steal/rape" make sense for a reason. Because they are a requirement for successful human interaction.

It's valid because we give it validity. Nothing else beyond that is required. You are talking about magical authority, and you're doing it over and over again. You say that morality does not exist in any real sense unless morality is objective. This is an appeal to a magical authority, like manifest destiny. There is no objective truth that says that it's a requirement not to rape, kill, and steal for successful human interaction. First of all, in order to make this claim, you also have to assume that there is also an objective quality to determine success, which also doesn't exist. Or, rather, which is also relative. For somebody who is looking to steal a loaf of bread from a black jew, stealing a loaf of bread from a black jew is a successful human interaction.