What exactly, in your opinion, does it mean for something to be morally correct or incorrect? Are there things that can not be said to be either of those? Further questions may be asked as I get answers. I've wondered what would be a good absolute definition for such a concept, and I hope I can develop a better view of the idea if I hear what you guys think about it.

If morality is just opinion then we have no right to put people in prison or to ever complain about anything anyone else does. We couldn't condemn Osama Bin Laden and we couldn't judge the god-hates-fags people. I don't think many people hold a consistent belief that there is no morality.

Quote from Zed

If morality is just opinion then we have no right to put people in prison or to ever complain about anything anyone else does. We couldn't condemn Osama Bin Laden and we couldn't judge the god-hates-fags people. I don't think many people hold a consistent belief that there is no morality.

but the laws that people break are there because of mass opinion that what the person did was wrong. since when does something being an opinion instantly garner it worthless?
i never said there wasn't any morality, or that morality doesn't exist..

killing is morally wrong, but when everyone heard that osama got shot up, no one was all "HEY, THATS MORALLY WRONG YOU SHOULDN'T KILL PEOPLE", nope, the massive opinion was, hooray! ding dong the wicked old terrorist is dead

Quote from Zed

If morality is just opinion then we have no right to put people in prison or to ever complain about anything anyone else does. We couldn't condemn Osama Bin Laden and we couldn't judge the god-hates-fags people. I don't think many people hold a consistent belief that there is no morality.

Pretty much what 2-D said. Morality is subjective, but the only way a society can function is if there is some rule of law, and that law has to be set by popular and common moral standards. There's a reason why there's always opposition to laws (even if only by a few people), and also why the majority agree with them; it's a majority view (at least it's supposed to be).

[edit]
Also, just because something isn't objective doesn't mean that it can't be logically weighed up as an opinion. Most debates are formed on opinions (after all, if a debate had an objective answer then there wouldn't be any need for a debate other than to convince someone of its objectivity). We can say to people "sure, it's not objectively true that homosexuality isn't bad/unnatural, but when you consider the logical implications there's not much basis for your subjective morality on the subject, whereas there is for mine due to A, B and C".

"Morality is subjective" is not the same as "morality is what the majority of the people want". What most people want can be objectively determined and therefore constitutes an objective morality, if that's what you think morality is based on. And "we need laws to form a society so we should have laws" is based on a value judgement that society is intrinsically good.

Quote from Zed

"Morality is subjective" is not the same as "morality is what the majority of the people want". What most people want can be objectively determined and therefore constitutes an objective morality, if that's what you think morality is based on. And "we need laws to form a society so we should have laws" is based on a value judgement that society is intrinsically good.

I'm saying morality is subjective and personal. collective morality is standard; it doesn't change, that doesn't mean that it is what constitutes morality. Morality is subjective, the only thing that's objective is which morals we choose to follow as a collective whole, but the morals themselves are still subjective as they're not intrinsically true with everyone. That's the same as saying a person is a population. I'm not saying morality is what the majority of people want, I'm saying that what the majority of people want is a collective moral standard. There is a distinct difference. Also, it's not based on a value judgement that society is good, it's void of morals. Society needing law and structure and collective morality is based on the objectivity that without it it would not survive and progress.

If each person has a separate morality then what right do we have to imprison Anders Breivik? In his view he's done nothing wrong. Saying that we should put people in prison when they break the law because otherwise society will collapse means that you are basing your morality off whatever will prevent society from collapsing. Yes, what will make society collapse is objective, but that's kind of my point.

Quote from Zed

If each person has a separate morality then what right do we have to imprison Anders Breivik? In his view he's done nothing wrong. Saying that we should put people in prison when they break the law because otherwise society will collapse means that you are basing your morality off whatever will prevent society from collapsing. Yes, what will make society collapse is objective, but that's kind of my point.

And what I'm saying is I'm not basing my morality on what will prevent society from collapsing. I have my own set of morals that have nothing to do with societies collective ones, however I understand and agree that I must follow some morals even if they aren't my own if they are the collective societies in order for our society to function. Those morals aren't my own, but I follow them (most of them) nonetheless, due to the repercussions if I don't, and I agree with such repercussions being in place.

So we have two moralities. The external one and the internal one. Most ethical debates revolve around the external one - ie. "should society punish rape?" - and the internal one is unquestionable. So from this starting point, can we happily debate some utilitarianism without being blind-sided by error theory?

Well, I still don't see how we can say morality is objective even if we say morality is the collective societies. There are different societies with different morals and rules, how can that be so if there is only objectivity?

You could argue that there is one morality which it is best for societies to adopt. If we start from the goal of "stop society from crumbling into the sea" you pretty much have to have "don't kill people except in self defence," and if you want an economy you're going to have to ban theft.

Evolution has instilled morality into us, but that's not objective. For instance, most people don't enjoy mentally or physically harming others, probably due to some point in our distant past when cooperation was needed for survival. There are some, however, who don't feel that empathy/sympathy. So it's more than just what is needed for society to function, though "do unto others as you would have others do unto you" also produces a better society.

You could argue that people born without a sense of morality are like people born blind. Doesn't mean that what people see is particularly subjective - just means some people are morally impaired. So there are reasonable grounds for basing ethics on evolution.

Quote from Zed

You could argue that there is one morality which it is best for societies to adopt. If we start from the goal of "stop society from crumbling into the sea" you pretty much have to have "don't kill people except in self defence," and if you want an economy you're going to have to ban theft.

Well yeah, but those laws aren't entirely rooted in morality. At least the theft one isn't.

Say you're running the only small general store in town, and a Wal-Mart opens up across the street selling the same stuff at prices you can't compete with. You go out of business, lose your income, your home, your wife and 3 children become desolate. Is it immoral to steal one loaf of bread from that Wal-mart if it'll keep your family from starving to death before tomorrow?

I don't think so. It's certainly illegal, though. Kind of a convoluted example but you get my point.


Beyond that, there's no way you determine one universal "ideal" morality for all societies to agree upon. The definition is just what is "good" and what is "bad". Religion, culture, tradition, politics, geographic location, all of these things influence how people view the world and what's good and bad.