Morality.

[TheScornedReflex]

Morality. The concept of this is intriguing. It ties in with both justice and mercy. Wrong and right. Tis a very subjective thing. In different cultures it takes on different perspectives. Hitlers holocaust for example was an immoral atrocity. Yet to him, it (speculation time) would of appeared to be the rational, moral thing to do to better the world.

A scenario for you:
Say a convicted murderer has been released from jail. Well, you have managed to piss him off. He has made it clear that he is going to kill you and your family. He has cut the phone lines to your house and the cellphone networks are down for maintenance. Plus he has made it inside. How would you react? Now, this assumes you have the will power to do what you feel is needed to do. Would you attempt to subdue him and send someone to the neighbours to phone for the police. Or would you pull out your 9mm and put some lead to this fool?

For me. I will do what I think is the logical option. I would kill him. I follow the minimize, isolate or eliminate rule. If I have the ability to eliminate a danger to myself, I will. My views on morality are conflicted. Sometimes I feel they get in the way of what needs to be done. Whilst other times I view some things as immoral. Well, not right anyway. (Is 'right' moral?)

My questions to you are: What does morality mean to you ? How have morals effected your life ? And, is morality always right ?

 

[Cognisant]

Morality is contrived, I would confront him and if he doesn't immediately surrender I would kill him, and not for a moment would I consider myself justified in doing so, killing him is unequivocally the wrong thing to do, but given the context I want to and I can get away with it so I do.

As I see it morality is largely independent of context, for example if I had to shoot him to save someone else's life that's wrong, so would be not doing anything, it's just an unfortunate circumstance where every choice is immoral, but in any case it's really a matter of preference and consequence, do I want to save that other person, are there repercussions if I don't, is morality a factor I want to consider?

 

[Back2Basics]

morality is ever changing. I don't say this to sound superior, more just to point out that many individual circumstances (day to day events) can change our ideas of morality in a heartbeat, thus changing how we react. Morality seems like more of a material word to point fingers and claim someone is a barbarian and they have higher values.

 

[just george]

All of us are born with an innate spirit of discernment. We all know the difference between right and wrong. Absolute morality (paradoxically) hinges on us, relatively.

Oh and Id shoot him. Allowing someone to escape my power to stop so that he may do it to someone without that power is immoral. To me. Relatively. Absolutely. Yeah.

 

[Duxwing]

Morality. The concept of this is intriguing. It ties in with both justice and mercy. Wrong and right. Tis a very subjective thing. In different cultures it takes on different perspectives. Hitlers holocaust for example was an immoral atrocity. Yet to him, it (speculation time) would of appeared to be the rational, moral thing to do to better the world.

A scenario for you:
Say a convicted murderer has been released from jail. Well, you have managed to piss him off. He has made it clear that he is going to kill you and your family. He has cut the phone lines to your house and the cellphone networks are down for maintenance. Plus he has made it inside. How would you react? Now, this assumes you have the will power to do what you feel is needed to do. Would you attempt to subdue him and send someone to the neighbours to phone for the police. Or would you pull out your 9mm and put some lead to this fool?

For me. I will do what I think is the logical option. I would kill him. I follow the minimize, isolate or eliminate rule. If I have the ability to eliminate a danger to myself, I will. My views on morality are conflicted. Sometimes I feel they get in the way of what needs to be done. Whilst other times I view some things as immoral. Well, not right anyway. (Is 'right' moral?)

My questions to you are: What does morality mean to you ? How have morals effected your life ? And, is morality always right ?

I have the power to do whatever I want to the intruder? If so, then the solution to your problem is easy: I'd turn him into a pacifist and then tell him to leave.

Of course, to do so would be a cop-out to your question. I would subdue him with a minimum of harm, plasticuff him, and take him to the nearest police station for processing. By doing so, I get the satisfaction of not hurting anyone, the peace of mind that the rest will be handled by professionals, and the minimum amount of hassle in court.

Barring that, I'd put two nice little 9mm holes right in his center of mass and repeat as needed.

-Duxwing

 

[TheScornedReflex]

These are my views as well, to an extent. Morality is in the eyes of the beholder. Reminds me of a coin.

Hmmm. I just had a thought. Now bare with me on this. Could societies moral code stem from pack instincts? From when we were still a young species? As we have evolved. Grown in number, this instinct has too. The herd mentality. Maybe?

 

[Nezaros]

Personally, I don't even consider morality. I do what is necessary. Morality is for people who can't be trusted to make decisions on their own.

 

[just george]

These are my views as well, to an extent. Morality is in the eyes of the beholder. Reminds me of a coin.

Hmmm. I just had a thought. Now bare with me on this. Could societies moral code stem from pack instincts? From when we were still a young species? As we have evolved. Grown in number, this instinct has too. The herd mentality. Maybe?

The pack stems from the individual. Why use the term "pack instincts" rather than individual instincts? There is no logical reason to make that jump from the individual to the collective.

Also, societies all over the world that have had no contact with one another (eg amazonian uncontacted tribes, PNG islanders, Maoris etc) seem to share a common morality - killing is bad, protect your family, honour your parents etc. It would seem fair to say that humans have a common morality that manifested independently, which supports the idea that concepts of morality stem from the human organism. Also, since these ideas have been around forever, I also think it fair to say that morality may not necessarily have evolved at all.

(of course, someone is going to say that at some point in time all societies were connected and there was an ice age and who built the pyramids and if you turn a mayan indian sideways he looks like an egyptian and all that, but lets leave that one alone for a minute).

 

[TheScornedReflex]

The pack stems from the individual. Why use the term "pack instincts" rather than individual instincts? There is no logical reason to make that jump from the individual to the collective.

Because I theorize that the individual survival instincts would want to keep the pack strong. Say a trouble maker appears. He is a danger to the pack. What if he injures a member. Kills one. A weak pack means a weak chance at survival. Therefore the pack would kill or push out the trouble maker. If that trouble maker wants to survive in the pack he will have to conform to the packs standards.

Plus I said "societies moral code'. So go figure.

Also, societies all over the world that have had no contact with one another (eg amazonian uncontacted tribes, PNG islanders, Maoris etc) seem to share a common morality - killing is bad, protect your family, honour your parents etc. It would seem fair to say that humans have a common morality that manifested independently, which supports the idea that concepts of morality stem from the human organism. Also, since these ideas have been around forever, I also think it fair to say that morality may not necessarily have evolved at all.

Now as we evolved, our instincts formed the basis of societies rules. It makes sense that other societies that had never met would develop similar, if not the same rules. Remember the survival instinct?

(of course, someone is going to say that at some point in time all societies were connected and there was an ice age and who built the pyramids and if you turn a mayan indian sideways he looks like an egyptian and all that, but lets leave that one alone for a minute).

And all societies are connected, now. Well, mostly. I am ignoring the little remote villages. And in answer to the rest, I can't resist. Aliens. It was all aliens .

 

[SpaceYeti]

A scenario for you:
Say a convicted murderer has been released from jail. Well, you have managed to piss him off. He has made it clear that he is going to kill you and your family. He has cut the phone lines to your house and the cellphone networks are down for maintenance. Plus he has made it inside. How would you react? Now, this assumes you have the will power to do what you feel is needed to do. Would you attempt to subdue him and send someone to the neighbours to phone for the police. Or would you pull out your 9mm and put some lead to this fool?

That bitch is dead. Nobody fucks with my family.

My questions to you are: What does morality mean to you ? How have morals effected your life ? And, is morality always right ?

Morality is doing that which is best to ensure prosperity. Morals have affected my life by being what is done for goodness, which is something I try to do. Morality is always what's right, hence it's being morality, even though morality is, on it's basic level, subjective.

 

[Antediluvian]

That bitch is dead. Nobody fucks with my family.
Morality is doing that which is best to ensure prosperity. Morals have affected my life by being what is done for goodness, which is something I try to do. Morality is always what's right, hence it's being morality, even though morality is, on it's basic level, subjective.

I'd say that there are different ethical systems to abide by, such as deontological ethics, or utilitarianism.

Kant is interesting with his deontological ethics, his attempts to derive universal moral imperatives might seem outdated in this "shades of grey" new world, but I'm sure he still has his followers. Has a perfect ethical/moral system been created yet? I'm not aware of it, and the struggle for discerning what is the proper course of action seems to be equal to that of scrounging up the strength for proper action, at least for some.

 

[just george]

And all societies are connected, now. Well, mostly. I am ignoring the little remote villages. And in answer to the rest, I can't resist. Aliens. It was all aliens .

I object your honor! The defendant is using the "what came first, the chicken or the egg argument! And teasing me about aliens too!

"sustained"

 

[Double_V]

All of us are born with an innate spirit of discernment. We all know the difference between right and wrong. Absolute morality (paradoxically) hinges on us, relatively.

Oh and Id shoot him. Allowing someone to escape my power to stop so that he may do it to someone without that power is immoral. To me. Relatively. Absolutely. Yeah.

Hear, hear. That being said let me add this totally nonsensical thought. That's why I've always thought it best not to have a gun. If it's not there I'm not using it. Might save alot of trouble.

 

[SpaceYeti]

I'd say that there are different ethical systems to abide by, such as deontological ethics, or utilitarianism.

Sure. Different people have different values, and morality is objective only in where they intercept.

Kant is interesting with his deontological ethics, his attempts to derive universal moral imperatives might seem outdated in this "shades of grey" new world, but I'm sure he still has his followers. Has a perfect ethical/moral system been created yet? I'm not aware of it, and the struggle for discerning what is the proper course of action seems to be equal to that of scrounging up the strength for proper action, at least for some.

Kant is a dick. I had a Phil Prof who was obsessed with him. You can pretty much destroy Kant by pointing out that it's not immoral to prop open a window with a hammer just because that's not what the hammer was made for.

 

[TheScornedReflex]

I object your honor! The defendant is using the "what came first, the chicken or the egg argument! And teasing me about aliens too!

"sustained"

Neither. You cannot have one without the other. They appeared at the same time.

*looks hopefully to the judge. The judge just shakes his head.*

My thoughts made so much more sense in my head. *crosses arms defiantly*

 

[Etheri]

Imma enjoy this one. I realise that following thoughts are far from practical, but what did you expect?

I think it is impossible to define good and bad on an absolute level, and therefor it is also impossible to define morality on an individual level. Morality is, at all times, linked to the society which has constructed it. Societies can judge people, they cannot judge eachother, and people from diffrent societies cannot judge eachother in any 'proper' way. What is good and what is bad is no more than a choice, after all.

This means that morality is unconditionally linked to space, time and your own belief system. Things I do could be moral in one place and immoral in another, due to the 'general opinion' of the people in these places being diffrent. What is good and what is bad is decided by your environment, and there is no way of saying which environment is 'right'.

Societies and their moral code could, in themselves, be seen as organisms. They interact with eachother and evolve. We could impose some form of darwinism onto them... A society survives as long as it has members / followers. The better a society is in keeping it's followers, the more adapt to survive. Kapitalism is better at rewarding it's followers, and therefor better at keeping them than communism. Yet both seemed more appealing than feudalism, slavery and other ancient societal forms, yet all of these were established for long periods throughout history. Were people immoral back then?

These are my views as well, to an extent. Morality is in the eyes of the beholder. Reminds me of a coin.

This is true, how could we judge diffrent views, however? Our view is correct, because we are many? Our view is correct because we are stronger? When we have diffrent opinions, how is one chosen over another? Both are just opinions, after all.

Hmmm. I just had a thought. Now bare with me on this. Could societies moral code stem from pack instincts? From when we were still a young species? As we have evolved. Grown in number, this instinct has too. The herd mentality. Maybe?

Morality evolving biologically within us, because the 'more moral' pack had higher chances of survival? Perhaps.

Also, societies all over the world that have had no contact with one another (eg amazonian uncontacted tribes, PNG islanders, Maoris etc) seem to share a common morality - killing is bad, protect your family, honour your parents etc. It would seem fair to say that humans have a common morality that manifested independently, which supports the idea that concepts of morality stem from the human organism. Also, since these ideas have been around forever, I also think it fair to say that morality may not necessarily have evolved at all.

I don't think so. Killing wasn't bad in every society, not by a long shot. The romans enjoyed watching men slaughter eachother, or shall I say be slaughtered by eachother... Being able to produce a good show of men killing eachother was in fact a sign of status. Can we state this was immoral and bad? Not honouring your parents has been the core of many anticultures. Considering these elements, I think your entire argument just faded.

Kant is interesting with his deontological ethics, his attempts to derive universal moral imperatives might seem outdated in this "shades of grey" new world, but I'm sure he still has his followers. Has a perfect ethical/moral system been created yet? I'm not aware of it, and the struggle for discerning what is the proper course of action seems to be equal to that of scrounging up the strength for proper action, at least for some.

I like kants idea of everyone being it's own moral agent. However, I believe kant's categorical imperative is an empty set, due to the rules he himself set on this set. (Universality etc). Considering there are no absolute rules, there's not much left to be 'your own moral agent' from, so this idea fades aswell.

 

[snafupants]

Say a convicted murderer has been released from jail. Well, you have managed to piss him off. He has made it clear that he is going to kill you and your family. He has cut the phone lines to your house and the cellphone networks are down for maintenance. Plus he has made it inside. How would you react?

I'm getting hard already. Is this like a Rob Zombie picture though?

 

[just george]

Neither. You cannot have one without the other. They appeared at the same time.

*looks hopefully to the judge. The judge just shakes his head.*

My thoughts made so much more sense in my head. *crosses arms defiantly*

they did not. At some point, in one instant, the precurser of the chicken (not a chicken) laid an egg that became the chicken. The egg itself may have manifested a genetic error that allowed a non chicken embryo to become a chicken ie the chicken was a mistake. ALternatively, the organism that was not a chicken created an egg that was programmed to become a chicken ie the egg was the mistake.

Therefore, the answer to the question "which came first, the chicken or the egg" is not chicken or egg, but merely "the mistake that came first".

 

[TheScornedReflex]

they did not. At some point, in one instant, the precurser of the chicken (not a chicken) laid an egg that became the chicken. The egg itself may have manifested a genetic error that allowed a non chicken embryo to become a chicken ie the chicken was a mistake. ALternatively, the organism that was not a chicken created an egg that was programmed to become a chicken ie the egg was the mistake.

Therefore, the answer to the question "which came first, the chicken or the egg" is not chicken or egg, but merely "the mistake that came first".

Oh yeah? Well... No you!! Wait. That doesn't work. Okay then. What came first. The chicken or the egg? The Primodial ooze did. Or the big bang.

 

[TheScornedReflex]

@Etheri

I will respond after work. I can answer this though.

Imma enjoy this one. I realise that following thoughts are far from practical, but what did you expect?

Well I kinda expected them to jump from my brain to the page. Then realized if I wrote down all my thoughts, it would take to long. And I am really lazy.

 

[TheScornedReflex]

I'm getting hard already. Is this like a Rob Zombie picture though?

Hahaha. No my neighbour...

 

[Antediluvian]

Sure. Different people have different values, and morality is objective only in where they intercept.



Kant is a dick. I had a Phil Prof who was obsessed with him. You can pretty much destroy Kant by pointing out that it's not immoral to prop open a window with a hammer just because that's not what the hammer was made for.

Well, was a dick

But yeah, his moral system seems far too rigid, and not able to handle the complex, random dynamics that occur in everyday life. And as you implied (or I think you implied), one set of moral rules shouldn't be judged by their isolated natures, but how they interact with the environment.

I also wonder if Wittgenstein's critique of how certain philosophers tend to analyze language could also apply here. In short, at one point in his career he believed that philosophers can unnecessarily compound language issues due to removing a word from how it is typically used, and generalizing that word. The same could be claimed of how certain philosophers tend to generalize moral principles.

 

[BigApplePi]

TheScornedReflex.

Morality. The concept of this is intriguing. It ties in with both justice and mercy. Wrong and right. Tis a very subjective thing. In different cultures it takes on different perspectives. Hitlers holocaust for example was an immoral atrocity. Yet to him, it (speculation time) would of appeared to be the rational, moral thing to do to better the world.

A scenario for you:
Say a convicted murderer has been released from jail. Well, you have managed to piss him off. He has made it clear that he is going to kill you and your family. He has cut the phone lines to your house and the cellphone networks are down for maintenance. Plus he has made it inside. How would you react? Now, this assumes you have the will power to do what you feel is needed to do. Would you attempt to subdue him and send someone to the neighbours to phone for the police. Or would you pull out your 9mm and put some lead to this fool?

For me. I will do what I think is the logical option. I would kill him. I follow the minimize, isolate or eliminate rule. If I have the ability to eliminate a danger to myself, I will. My views on morality are conflicted. Sometimes I feel they get in the way of what needs to be done. Whilst other times I view some things as immoral. Well, not right anyway. (Is 'right' moral?)

My questions to you are: What does morality mean to you ? How have morals effected your life ? And, is morality always right ?

Okay. You framed the scenario. My answer is morality or the right and wrong of the thing is like this: What is the most constructive act?

You said, "Now, this assumes you have the will power to do what you feel is needed to do." I'll go with that. One thing is I could go with my emotions. He has threatened me and terrified my family. If I'm enraged and outraged I could kill him and get temporary satisfaction. The consequences of this is the cops or the law will ask if that was necessary. If I shoot him, not in self-defense, but as revenge, isn't that murder? Then I have to go to court to plead my case and possibly lie saying it was self-defense.

A rational alternative is to go along Duxwing's lines. Tie him up and let the cops take care of it. I run the risk he will be set free and return, but the odds are low especially if he sees my firearms.

 

[Etheri]

I will respond after work. I can answer this though.



Well I kinda expected them to jump from my brain to the page. Then realized if I wrote down all my thoughts, it would take to long. And I am really lazy.

@TheScornedReflex Let me guess, you're an INTP? <:
No need to hurry, but i'm certainly bumping this. Exams are over, need something good to think over.

 

[TheScornedReflex]

TheScornedReflex.Okay. You framed the scenario. My answer is morality or the right and wrong of the thing is like this: What is the most constructive act?

You said, "Now, this assumes you have the will power to do what you feel is needed to do." I'll go with that. One thing is I could go with my emotions. He has threatened me and terrified my family. If I'm enraged and outraged I could kill him and get temporary satisfaction. The consequences of this is the cops or the law will ask if that was necessary. If I shoot him, not in self-defense, but as revenge, isn't that murder? Then I have to go to court to plead my case and possibly lie saying it was self-defense.

A rational alternative is to go along Duxwing's lines. Tie him up and let the cops take care of it. I run the risk he will be set free and return, but the odds are low especially if he sees my firearms.

I see why this would appeal. It can be considered morally correct, (did i just compare morality to being a concept like political correctness?), for the reason a life was not taken.

Plus, you don't have to worry about the bloodstains.

 

[TheScornedReflex]

Imma enjoy this one. I realise that following thoughts are far from practical, but what did you expect?

I think it is impossible to define good and bad on an absolute level, and therefor it is also impossible to define morality on an individual level. Morality is, at all times, linked to the society which has constructed it. Societies can judge people, they cannot judge eachother, and people from diffrent societies cannot judge eachother in any 'proper' way. What is good and what is bad is no more than a choice, after all.

I agree with this.

This means that morality is unconditionally linked to space, time and your own belief system. Things I do could be moral in one place and immoral in another, due to the 'general opinion' of the people in these places being diffrent. What is good and what is bad is decided by your environment, and there is no way of saying which environment is 'right'.

And this.

Societies and their moral code could, in themselves, be seen as organisms. They interact with eachother and evolve. We could impose some form of darwinism onto them... A society survives as long as it has members / followers. The better a society is in keeping it's followers, the more adapt to survive. Kapitalism is better at rewarding it's followers, and therefor better at keeping them than communism. Yet both seemed more appealing than feudalism, slavery and other ancient societal forms, yet all of these were established for long periods throughout history. Were people immoral back then?

Aaaand this.

This is true, how could we judge diffrent views, however? Our view is correct, because we are many? Yes.
Our view is correct because we are stronger?
Yes.
When we have diffrent opinions, how is one chosen over another?
People will either agree or disagree to some degree, (), on an opinion.
Both are just opinions, after all.
Yup, they are.


Morality evolving biologically within us, because the 'more moral' pack had higher chances of survival? Perhaps.
Twas just a thought.

How not to debate .

Soz @Etheri. I had typed out decent points. But somehow deleted the lot. (Am using my phone). And am to lazy to retype.

 

[Amagi82]

Morality is a social pressure to conform and behave appropriately for a given society. It's appropriate for people operating on the 3rd, 4th, and 5th level of Kohlberg's stages of moral development. INTPs find morality less useful than most other people because we often operate on the 6th stage.



To those who remarked that they would shoot the intruder, because "nobody fucks with my family", you may wish to consider that scientists have shown we are all one family(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_eve ). That murderer is part of your exended family. So are the millions starving to death all around us. It's immature to limit respect and human decency to just your core, nuclear family. Remember: if a situation has devolved to violence, we have already failed profoundly. This breakdown of communication means we must reevaluate the mistakes leading to such action.

 

[Question]

My questions to you are: What does morality mean to you ? How have morals effected your life ? And, is morality always right ?

Morality is just what an individual sees as right or wrong, because there is no universal right or wrong. I have a strong sense of morals that I have built, and I'm not sure if I made them because it feels right or if it makes sense because people respond positively to morality. Because of that morality has a big effect on my life, I always do what I think is the right thing to do without any bias. Morality is relative, so it can't be right, or wrong.

 

[The Introvert]

Morality as a concept is the congregation of beliefs within a society. Things are defined as 'morally wrong' only en masse.

Morality as function is an internal 'moral compass' for the subjective viewer. It can only be defined per person; what is morally right for one person may be to the contrary of another.

The question becomes: who is right? The individual, or the masse?

In a subjective view, the individual is correct. In an objective view, the masse is correct.

It is up to the thinker to determine what is more important; the being as a whole, or the being as an individual component. Arguments can be made for either side. If you want conformity, then the opinions combined as a whole are the most logical way to go. If you are looking for change - inspiration, even - the opinions of the individual are the most important.

 

[PhoenixRising]

I agree with what others have said, there is no such thing as absolute right and wrong. These are subjective concepts defined by both the individual and society.

I was actually having a conversation about the topic of morality the other day. The conclusion we agreed on is that the basis of thoughts of 'right' and 'wrong' is all in the treatment of other individuals or of one's self in the view of others. It is true that the survival and thriving of the individual depends on their collaboration with other humans. If one is considered 'safe' and 'benefits their community/business/family/etc.' then they are successful in society. If one is considered 'dangerous', they will be locked away from the rest of humanity. Therefore it is important as a member of the 'tribe' to get along with others.

If you were alone on a planet with no other humans around, what would be right/wrong? There would be no such thing as murder, stealing, etc. Therefore, it is something that is defined by social dynamics, but also may have a philosophical root in reality.

imo, the closest we can get to the reality of right vs. wrong is that there is no such thing as 'power' except for the control we have over our own actions. Even this 'power', though, is very much subject to the laws of nature and how they influence psychology. This would suggest that it is against the natural order of what it is to be a conscious being to attempt to take control over the behavior or survival of another. In this respect 'right' is alignment with natural laws while 'wrong' is doing something out of misconceptions of reality.

 

[Etheri]

In a subjective view, the individual is correct. In an objective view, the masse is correct.

Why is the masse's view objectively correct? They're both just subjective opinions, are they not?

I often notice that people think that what the majority thinks is true / valuable / the best idea / we strive to please as many people as possible / ... I wonder if it's truly in our nature, or simply because we were raised in such a democratic society. In our societies, it's very common to value opinions in plain numbers. In other societies, other measurement systems have been used.

This would suggest that it is against the natural order of what it is to be a conscious being to attempt to take control over the behavior or survival of another. In this respect 'right' is alignment with natural laws while 'wrong' is doing something out of misconceptions of reality.

-I like food, but I assume my food doesn't count as conscious beings?
-Everything we do affects people. This, indirectly (or directly...) influences and controls the behaviour and survival of others. Considering this, is only direct control is bad?

@TheScornedReflex I'm sad. Unlazy yourself and retype it!

 

[TheScornedReflex]

@Etheri.

Maybe later when I'm less hungover

 

[The Introvert]

Why is the masse's view objectively correct? They're both just subjective opinions, are they not?

I often notice that people think that what the majority thinks is true / valuable / the best idea / we strive to please as many people as possible / ... I wonder if it's truly in our nature, or simply because we were raised in such a democratic society. In our societies, it's very common to value opinions in plain numbers. In other societies, other measurement systems have been used.

Mmm I knew I messed up somewhere in that

The point I was trying to prove is that the opinions en masse are regarded as 'true' - simply to have the least amount of conflict possible. You must have some sort of standard for truth, even if it is not objectively true, just for peace's sake.

So yes, you are correct; the opinion of the masse is just as subjective as the opinion of the individual. However, for the sake of order, there must be some 'objective truth' on which to base rules, regulations, etc. The most popular opinion, (regardless of validity) must then be the truth on which to base society (and so, for lack or a better word, we have the societal 'objective truth').

In this light, my words still make sense (and are clarified).

If you don't mind my asking: what other measurement systems have been used?

 

[Etheri]

So yes, you are correct; the opinion of the masse is just as subjective as the opinion of the individual. However, for the sake of order, there must be some 'objective truth' on which to base rules, regulations, etc. The most popular opinion, (regardless of validity) must then be the truth on which to base society (and so, for lack or a better word, we have the societal 'objective truth').

In this light, my words still make sense (and are clarified).

If you don't mind my asking: what other measurement systems have been used?

We've had a lot of systems where not everyone had a 'voice', where people didn't have anything to say in regards of what is and what isn't moral, or anything in that regard.

History teaches :
Men having more to say than women, including diffrent rights.
Slaves not having any rights, unlike free citizens.
Morality and what is and isn't acceptable was more frequently decided by an elite / select group than it was by everyone in equal numbers. Totalitairian regimes, feudal regimes, religious powers (and just about any religion applies!), ...
While we can all see the advantages of democracy, it's still easy to say that if morality is decided by democracy, then any minority group is at the whim of the majority. It's not a flawless system, but I don't think a flawless system exists.

This reminds me of a scene from game of thrones. (well, the books rather, but hey!)

Spoiler

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31o-Sji2Hr4

Ignore the second scene, was too lazy to search youtube properly

We now state what is moral is what the majority of people consider to be moral. Yet moral had a lot of diffrent meanings over the ages... and we'll have newer ideas in the future. Morality is what people believe is moral, it's a nice combination of history and heritage more than anything. There's nothing objective about it, but I agree, we can take 'what people believe is moral' as a standard.