In our SOCIETY, murder is generally wrong, rape is often wrong, making lots of money is good,procreating is good. Ethics are relative, morality is society based. When people such as yourself state that morality is individual you're simply making up your own rules as you go, a very libertarian attitute, which is really really entertaining... "what 'I' think is good is 'good', what 'others' think is wrong or irrelevant". You can't run a society like that, in the past, the point of morality was to establish a list of social rules, based on what a majority+1 of individuals agreed with, or if the dictator and/or church leader says so. Some 20,000 years ago, before humans gathered into large groups, there was no need for the above stated morals. If the neighbouring tribe killed one of yours, you went out and killed one of theirs, or made war on them... back and forth, back and forth, this ensured that human populations remained low. All these morals we speak of was a intentional political strategy to allow very large numbers of humans to coexist, not kill each other, and especially not kill the bastards that were enslaving vast numbers of slave labourers. Large human populations go against the very grain of our ape nature, and morality allowed for the cancerous growth of humanity.
If I were to be leader of my ideal society I would declare all human procreation to be immoral for about 50 years, a moratorium of sorts, to allow other species to recover from our systematic destruction of our ecosystem. Obviously, most humans think only of themselves and this proposal would not pass and I certainly would not in present time get elected to office with such a platform. It's my personal opinion, until it becomes policy, then it reaches the morality status. If it's just me saying it, it has no morality bearing.
if ethics are relative then morality is also relative, the two are related and inseparable. Morality in definition has no direct link to society. Morality is individual though ethics and morality are elevated to the legislative level when the general population shares a common ethic.
Great then, we need no government and no legislation. I'll just "trust" that my neighbours values mesh with my own, lest I get murdered or something. A personal value, on it's own, is but anecdotal, and has no bearing in life unless you try to participate in your democracy, attempting to make your civilisation reflect the values you think are important. We as atheists are fighting faithers because we opine that society's morals would be better off serving our agenda than theirs. If you're content with your values being "just your own", then I'm afraid women would still not be voting and we'd still have a slave trade between Africa and the Americas.
Dictionaries are so handy! Now can we have the definitions of right & wrong, good & bad?
it's not so much about defining right and wrong as much as clarifying terminology and using this terminology to work out different situations. it's got nothing to do with the dictionary defining what is moral or immoral.
Ultimately, it'll come down to realpolitic. When the majority of the public wants women to be able to have an abortion, none of the moralistic arguments will mean a thing.
In the game of civilisation, politics is way more important than truth. It's ability to convince, diversifying the argument, reframing, which eventually leads to victory.
You draw the line between personal and government at homosexuality, drugs, pregnant drinking, etc, others draw the line at different topics.
The point here is that as a society, we seem to agree that murder and theft are things we agree to legislate, whereas other topics are not legislatible. It is perfectly reasonable and rational, if someone thinks an action is wrong, that it is wrong for all of the society we are living in.
For example, I think dog fights and coq fights are disgusting and need to be illegal, however plenty of people think those are "personal moralities". Personal morality is BS. If I don't think dog fights are ok, they're not just not ok for me but for all of society.
For example child pornography, I don't want it and I don't think anyone in society should be allowed to profit from it either. so, we legislate.
Think of states which still have the death penalty, if the death penalty is "immoral" as some people like to say, why is it still on the books, who gets to write the books????
Legislatively speaking, we either agree with our societie's rules or we don't. Morality is a concept which I think should be dumped.
We agree with some actions
We disagree with other actions
We COMPROMISE on what is personal and what must be legislated/mandated on all of society.
IF I was a pro-lifer I would absolutely want a ban on abortion. But I am a pro-woman and pro-abortion, and I am against any legislation on any period of abortion, because any legislation in this regard hinders the fundamental right of a woman to manage my own body. IT'S NOT PERSONAL, IT'S SOCIETAL.
I don't disagree with your position, as far as it goes. But what I want to know is how you feel about the death penalty and killing people in a war of choice. If you oppose those as well as abortion, you are conscientiously and honorably pro-life. If, on the other hand, you believe that some killings (adultery, apostasy, heresy, smiting people residing on real estate you covet, etc.), which God approves throughout the Bible are okay, then you are NOT pro-life, you are anti-choice ONLY .
This link is representative of the backward nature of many around the world:
The oath of Hippocrates is a load of shit in my book.