"Furthermore, the mere fact that 2 societies disagree on morality, it doesn't follow that both are equally right on the issue. If two people argue that the world is flat, it doesn't follow that both are equally correct, it's either one or the other... of course that's assuming that morality is something objective. "

Yes, absolutely, but morality is not objective. "the world is flat" and "murder is wrong" are on two entirely different levels. I suppose you could make the argument that if there is only one criteria determining morality, it is an objective value. Interesting take. I disagree though, for one reason.

Society by nature is a subjective thing. Different people view it differently. A subjective input does not translate to an objective output.

I don't think I stated my opinion well enough: yes morality is determined by the consequences of the act and by personal convictions, etc. , but the consequences of the act are determined by society. Personal convictions that disagree with laws and morals come from your upbringing, environment, genetics, etc. All determined by society. So. Society doesn't directly determine morality but all factors determining it can be traced back to it. I think you misunderstood what I meant by society. I wasn't referring to the objective portions of it (laws, rules) I was referring to the larger, subjective portions (mores, folkways) as well as the even more subjective factors such as environments, experiences, and the like.

Just because society determines your morality doesn't mean you agree with everything about it.


*looks up at the previous 20 lines.* Well, that was a lot of gibberish, but I'm too tired to edit it now. I'll come back tomorrow and argue some more. :)

• sleep really is an underrated pleasure - tenacious - January 19, 2001 - 20:39 UTC
  • Allow me to clarify :) - stormcrow - January 20, 2001 - 01:50 UTC
    • I can dig it - tenacious - January 22, 2001 - 23:52 UTC