Morality without god

Interesting.
I've considered this many times. Moving on to another universe/world, or alternate dimensions, or different planes of existance, or even "simple" reincarnation here in our reality.I just kept running into too many different things to try and explain. That always gave me the feeling of "well, I'm really just using my imagination now... maybe this whole idea is simply imagination..." Different things like:Let's say that this is "the first level." How many levels are we talking about? 2? 50? 845,791? Infinite? Why are there multiple levels? I thought that there would either be a low number of levels (like 2) or a very high number of levels (possibly infinite).Then the low number of levels didn't make sense to me... if it's "manufactured" (set up by God to be that way...), then why? Like a training ground? If a training ground is required, why not just include it as a separate area of the "Final Level" anyway? Why a completely cut-off level of existance? It seemed... unlikely.If it's not manufactured (natural... somehow...) then why only 2? Was there originally just 1 and it split? Why wouldn't it split again?
Just 2 levels also makes me think of long-ago human ancestor's trying to deal with life and death... this idea makes me think that any "2-level" idea is more likely some sort of wishful thinking or over-active rationalization for simply being afraid of death.Which leads me to thinking of multiple levels, perhaps uncountable. But then, if there's lots and lots of levels... isn't it naive to think that we're actually in the first one? Wouldn't it be more likely that we're at some random middle-level somewhere? If I'm in a middle level, why do I have no re-collection of being in/at previous levels?This led me to begin thinking of "life" as some sort of "meta-consciousness" which kind of gets bored and sets pieces of itself out into the levels (whatever they are) to experience "life." These lives (when completed) add their experiences to the meta-consciousness which does, actually, remember everything....which then gets a bit too sci-fi and imaginary-sounding to me to take seriously anymore
And, of course, I don't have any evidence to lean my thoughts one way or another... so, to me, they remain "fanciful thoughts" until such a time when there may actually be something that indicates the possibility of their actual existance.But I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on the matter.How many "levels" do you think there are?
What makes you think we're in the "first" level?Or is it all based on a biblical view of earth and then moving onto heaven (which could even be a metaphor for some other 2-stage level of existance)?

Technically, yes... this is a very good reason to think that this is "the first level" if there are multiple levels to existance.
As well, if we assume that this is indeed the first level, of course no one else has any other memories either... as we're all on the same, first level.
To me, it's just too much coincidence that it's also great evidence for this being the "only level." But I suppose only time will tell? Heh.
My views are "highly speculative" as well. In the "out-of-my-ass" kind of way. I don't even know of any science that would back up my views Agreed.
I would add some caution here, though. The word "greater" in this scientific sense simply means "bigger" or "larger" in a "more" kind of way. Not necessarily "better" or something like that. It might be better... or it might be worse... or it might be like "more stars in the night sky" that don't make much of a difference to us one way or another. But the scientific analysis (so far) can't really say one way or the other. Interesting thought.
You may think of me pondering it with a pipe in my mouth and a super-cool look on my face. As if I just won a poker game. That'll likely be better than the reality of me half-pondering it during my morning shave.
But thanks for the idea, it does give me something to think about.

I agree... for both ways of saying the idea. Again, I agree.I'm just saying that for simple, everyday situations, the amount of abstraction required is less if we say "do what other people want" as opposed to "allow others their freedom of choice in the same way you like to have freedom of choice."Like your chilli example, as you say: "it means that I should give her the kind of chilli she likes." Exactly. So, instead of layering a level of abstraction, why not just say "treat your wife the way she likes?"I understand that this adds a layer of abstraction in the other direction (ie. giving away all my money because other people like it...)
But I think messing up that layer of abstraction is less likely than messing up the Golden Rule's direction of abstraction which can lead to a justification for selfish behaviour.Mess up my proposed layer of abstraction... and you have people wasting their lives and resources in crazy attempts to make other people happy.
Mess up the current Golden Rule's layer of abstraction... and you have a justification for people being selfish assholes and trying to force their ideas on other people.Which do you think is worse?For those people who aren't able to fully grasp the layer of abstraction (be it a lack of empathy for some reason, or maybe just lack of intelligence or education...) I think it's better to try and teach the focus on other people directly instead of indirectly.I'm just saying that I think my proposed version is "the lesser of two evils" in this case.

I've already stated a system in this very thread, if you'd like to take a look, see Message 114
Here's the basic definitions:

quote:

---

1. Definitions
"The action was bad" = something that hurts someone else, as described by that someone else.
"The action was good" = something that benefits someone else, as described by that someone else.
"Being bad" = Trying to do bad things... that is, trying to do things that you think are going to hurt someone else
"Being good" = Trying to do good things... that is, trying to do things that you think are going to benefit someone else

​

(for more information, please see Message 114)

---

Using these definitions, it is objectively Right to kill someone if they want to be killed (like in that renaissance movie I can't really remember where the guy with the long-gun shot the dude in the head who was being burned alive... or in certain honourable killings like a Seppuku or other (possibly assisted) suicide kind of thing...). It is also objectively Wrong to kill someone if they don't want to be killed (like pretty much every killing ever).You still havn't answered my questions to you from a long while back:

quote:

---

What is God's absolute standard?

​

The 10 commandments?
All instructions found in the Bible? (...including Leviticus and the rest of the Old Testament?)
The Golden Rule (...love others as you love yourself?)

​

If you are unable to even say what this "absolute standard" actually is... how do you even know it exists in the first place? What objective thing are you comparing it to in order to show that it is, indeed, "standard"?

​

I have no idea what you're talking about. How can you call it an absolute standard if it's not absolute, or standard?

​

Message 74

---

Or maybe I've just missed where you did describe it. If so... can you point me to a specific post, please? If it's actually so prevalent, shouldn't we all know about it? Why do people not agree on what actually is moral? Your absolute standard doesn't seem able to explain this basic fact. I think it's because morality simply is confusing. It's confusing because it's based on other people's subjective feelings.

It is the idea that people are capable of using their intelligence to override or "not follow" their instincts and make other decisions based upon alternative motivations.Do all people eat when they are hungry and food is available? Or can this instinct be overridden using our intelligence?
Do all heterosexual people attempt to have sex when they reach adult age and are able to procreate and someone of the opposite sex is within range? Or can this instinct be overridden using our intelligence?If you accept that our intelligence can override our instincts... then it is a logical conclusion that we are capable of performing selfless acts. That would simply be our intelligence overriding our instinct of a selfish act (which you seem to say is our basic instinct). That's a big question.
Sometimes there isn't an answer.
Some people go through their entire lives without even thinking about it.
Some people go through their entire lives without ever using their intelligence to override their instincts.
If you're talking about other people, it is very close to "impossible" to tell. We are unable to read other people's minds.
If you're talking about yourself, it is still sometimes confusing and difficult to tell (sometimes, even "impossible").
But, if you are able to make an honest reflection about your thoughts and motivation for certain actions... then you may be able to identify this sort of thing as selfish or unselfish for some particular actions.(I used quotes around "impossible" so as to imply currently or practically impossible. It may very well be possible... or become possible... to tell the difference with brain scans or some other future-type equipment that is not available yet).Just because an action could be explained through "selfish instincts" doesn't mean a person did not use their intelligence to override that instinct and motivate themselves to do to the action for some other reason... and that other reason may be selfless.But... if you do not think that we are capable of overriding our instincts with our intelligence, then I can understand why you would think it's impossible to commit a selfless action.Note: My definition of "selfless action" does not mean "nothing is gained by the one acting"... but more towards "anything gained by the one acting was not the motivation for the action... the motivation for the action was an attempt for other people to gain certain advantages." Or, in other words, "doing something for others instead of for yourself." It doesn't mean there's nothing in it for you... it just means that's not why you did it.

I love simple exercises! Okay, got it. Irrelevant. What someone unrelated to the situation thinks has no bearing on whether or not the choice of action was good or bad. Understood. Don't know. You haven't provided enough information to make the judgement.In your first exercise, when you helped the elderly person across the street... did they want to be helped across the street? Were they thankful afterward, or resentful?In your second exercise, when another person throws the elderly man down before getting across the street... did they want to be thrown down? Where they thankful afterward, or resentful? The correct behaviour is the action taken when the elderly man was thankful afterward. The one who agrees with how the elderly man feels about the situation afterward.

---

Morality is not defined by some set of rules or instructions you can follow in order to "always be good."
Whether or not you did good or bad to someone is defined by those very same people who judge the actions after they've happened to them.You might be able to help the same person cross the street every day, and they thank you for it every day.
Then, one day you help them across, and they didn't want to be helped. That action was bad. You were trying to do good, and the previous days' street crossings were good... but this time, when they didn't want the help and you did anyway, that was bad.The point of morality isn't to be good all the time.
The point of morality is to try and be good as much as possible.
When you make a mistake, don't cry about it. Accept that you made a mistake, reflect on the situation and the new information available to you, and then try to make better decisions in the future. Maybe it's better to ask people if they want to cross the street before you help them. Maybe you just don't get to know the future before it happens.
Morality isn't simple or easy or clear.
Morality is about improvement, not absolute perfectionism.But it can be objectively identifiable, just ask the people you deal with if you've been treating them well or not. Or, just look for a smile or scowl, then you'll know if you're being good or bad to that person.Edited by Stile, : "The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!" - The vorpal blade sounds like a pansy

I'm not sure if #1 is even required. Morality is a choice, not a commandment. People choose to be nice and good and such. Following orders doesn’t make someone moral, it makes them an obedient automaton. I agree that such robots exist, but I would not consider any of them to be moral.As for #2... the way you state and talk about these things... your version of morality seems very proscriptive.What I mean by that is... you seem to be saying something along the lines of "if I can have all the information regarding a situation... what physically happened and what physically resulted... then I can define, objectively, what was moral or not and for whom."I don't think morality can be proscriptive in this physical way.
I don't think it's possible to look at a situation and say "it is going to be moral to do this...."I think that all we can say when looking at a situation is "My experience leads me to hope that it will be moral to do this..."I think that it doesn’t matter what physically happens for any moral situation. What matters is the feelings of the people who are involved. And those can differ from person to person, from situation to situation; even the same person having the same thing done to them again can have different resulting feelings from the same event. Caring about and showing compassion for those resulting feelings are what makes someone a moral person.There’s no such thing as a list of actions someone can follow in order to always be moral.Going back to your statement #2 "The morality of any action is inversely proportionate to the harm that it causes"
-Who judges the harm?I think it is imperitive that the only person judging "the harm" is the person that is being affected by the action.The morality is still objective in this way if someone says they are hurt, it is objective for multiple, different people to acknowledge this. Any other method of morality is too easily corrupted.

The problem is that you measure "harm" differently than I do and everyone else.
This is because "harm" is subjective.
Therefore you cannot do any "for everybody" calcuations in this way.You may be able to do calculations "for this person" and seperate calculations "for that person" in this way. But, obviously, they could be different results. Because "harm" is subjective. I do actually support your stance as long as it is done correctly (obtaining the "harm" judgement from the one being affected) and individually.In reference to your "hammer-thumb" example to Straggler (Message 642). Have you ever heard of masochists or sadists? Some people even want their thumbs to be hammered. There's nothing objective about the amount of harm caused by hammering thumbs. If I tell you that it hurts me 6/10 "harm-ies", then it is an objective, measurable fact about me. But this says nothing about anyone else.
The fact that two different people measure harm differently does not mean one is more accurate than the other. It means they are both right, and different people react differently to different situations. Your moral system needs to account for this, not ignore it and try to sweep it under the rug. Not only are they the better judge, they are the only judge. In fact, if someone else steps in and speaks for them, there's a good chance they have an ulterior motive for doing so. Hence the ease for corruption in the system you propose where "anyone" should be able to judge the harm.Morality is focused on caring about how your actions affect other people.It is impossible to calculate "harm" without direct communication with the person being hurt. Any other way is a guess. It may be an educated guess... if you have past experience with this person or that situation... but it is only a guess and is immediately superceded by the person-being-harmed's judgement whenever it is acquired. Perhaps your assessment of this situation is correct. Perhaps it is not. Without communicating with the Pakistani citizen, or President Obama, we'll never know.My point, however, is that the morality of this situation cannot be judged by outside individuals. The only people with the right to judge the morality of lobbing a missile onto a funeral procession are those people who happen to be in the funeral procession that will get hit (is the Pakistani citizen one of these people?). The only "harm" that can be measured is how much they feel they will be harmed by such an action. It's a pretty fair chance that they will not want to be hit by the missile. If so, then regardless of what anyone, including Mr. Obama, may think... the action is, definitely, a morally bad action.Any moral system that tries to judge this situation by going on what Mr. Obama thinks, or any other outsider in order to come to a conclusion... is morally bankrupt.Morality is about how you treat other people.
In order to figure it out, you need to communicate with the other people you are "treating."Anything else is a self-serving rationalization for some ulterior motive and provides a moral system that is worthless. If it doesn't match reality, it's no good.Many times that "self-serving rationalization" is some need to be able to "figure everything out" before it happens. This is possible for any well-designed video game or some novel's story. But life is not a video game. Sometimes we just need to make some guesses. That doesn't mean we then get to say "oh, well I was still acting morally... I was just forced to guess." What that means is that morality isn't easy, and it may not be predictable.Is it really all that big of a surprise if morality isn't the same as math?Edited by Stile, : This edit has been brought to you by the letter "a". Stupid "a", always looking for attention.

Depends on what you want your moral system to be used for.If you want your moral system to be used for "the average person, but nobody specifically..."
Then, yes... your method would be decent for this purpose.If, however, you actually cared about the specific, individual people you have an affect on... then no. 100 "others" or 100k "others" doesn't make a difference. They are simply unable to judge.
What's wrong with saying "Hey, I cannot judge this moral issue because I do not know if the person had a positve or negative reaction."? I do not agree that we can ever objectively know how much harm an action will cause.
I do agree that we can objectively know how much harm an action caused to an individual. (Just ask them).But the data for "future calculations" is kind of useless. Sometimes people just change their minds.A guy works with a lady and opens the door for her one day. It was a nice thing (she liked it).
The same guy continues to open the door for her every day from now on.
She likes to do things on her own sometimes, she does not want someone to open the door for her every day.
After a week or so she no longer likes it.Is it moral to open a door for this lady?Objectively, the answer was "yes." Then, objectively, it became "no."
It's quite possible that she could change her mind again in the future.We can make our best guesses... but we cannot ever formulate some sort of calculation that will account for personal taste. Because personal taste changes. Sometimes simply on a whim. Sure.
But if the quantification doesn't remain consistent... then the mathematical principals would give us inconsistent results. So what's the point? I certainly agree that the Golden Rule is easer for good people trying to do good things.
But why would good people need an easy route for being good?The point of changing the golden rule to being about "how others want to be treated" isn't meant for good people.
Good people don't need the golden rule or anything else, they'll get along just fine on their basic use of empathy without needing to think about any rules.
Changing the rule is meant for preventing abuse of the rule... it's meant for restricting the ways the rule can be rationalized in order to hurt other people.If we take the golden rule to it's extremes and abuse it... we can end up hurting other people.
"I like to sleep in, therefore all other people should sleep in, every day!!!"
"I like to get tattoos, therefore all other people should get tattoos!!!"
...the basic pattern is getting everyone to do whatever you want. What's so good about that?If we take my version to it's extremes and abuse it... we only end up hurting ourselves.
"Other people want my money... so I will give them my money."
"Other people want my labour for free... so I will give them my labour for free."
(Notice, of course, that these are also "good" things... giving to charity, helping others for no charge...)
...the basic pattern is about confirming the information received from your empathy.Would you rather have conmen hurting other people under the guise of the golden rule? Or only hurting themselves?Emapthy is the entire basis of a good, benevolent morality.
The golden rule doesn't have anything to do with emapthy, it doesn't even mention trying to understand how other people feel.
My version works with empathy, it gives a way to understand what other people are feeling even if you don't have any empathy... just ask them.
If you do have empathy, my way provides a path for confirmation of those feelings, this way empathy can be improved and allowed to grow.Which rule sounds more moral?
The one that has nothing to do with empathy?
Or the one that sounds pretty much exactly the same as empathy?

I saw that post, and I actually want to put something together going through my thoughts on morality.
Unfortunately, I'm quite a bit under the weather right now, and my head doesn't seem up to it. I wanted to wait until I could actually think about it.The first question moved into an "is capitalism good" kind of area...
The frilly knickers questions moved into a "good for this person, bad for this person... and how to we judge an overall goodness or badness?" realm. And that's where I needed my brain to kick in for some thinking, and it didn't. It will likely come towards a "do the best we can" kind of answer from there.But, yes, I did want to reply to that. I'm just runnin' on empty right now

As a moral question, this is sort of vague.I suppose there is the naive sense... the one that just invloves the athelete receiving the money and the organization paying the money.
If the athelete is content with the money being paid for his services... then it is a good thing towards the athelete. Otherwise, it's a bad thing for them.
If the owner is content with the money being paid out for the services received... then it is also a good thing for the owner. Otherwise, it's a bad thing for the owner.In a deeper sense, we can try to compare an athelete being paid so much with (say...) a window washer being paid less (a normal, everyday wage).
There is likely a feeling of unfairness since both are working hard, yet one is being compensated in a much larger way.There are many factors to consider, these are just a few off the top of my head:
Were the same opportunities accorded to each person on their way to their current jobs?
Are the two people equally deserving of a large amount of compensation?
Do the two jobs contain the same amount of risk to personal health?
Is it possible to give the large compensation "a bit less" and use that money to help those less fortunate?My personal answer when taking into account the world and system we currently live in is "yes, the athelete should be paid whatever the market value is for their services."
My personal answer in an overall sense is "no, it is not moral to pay an athelete so much money while there are those who starve to death and cannot even afford clean drinking water." ...but this also goes for a lot of "normal wage" jobs as well as is more a product of the system we currently live within rather than a simple statement of "paying xxx money..."Anyway, onto the more interesting one (at least to me): The harm in wearing a short skirt is in whoever feels personally awkward/ashamed/uncomfortable when they see someone wearing a short skirt.
Sort of like the harm one feels when someone else is naked in public.It's not really anything "physically bad", it's a subjective moral harm. It's personal and therefore different for different people:For those who feel uncomfortable, it is morally bad for anyone to wear a short skirt in front of them.
For those who don't feel uncomfortable, it is morally neutral for anyone to wear a short skirt in front of them.
For those who feel happy to see it, it is morally good for anyone to wear a short skirt in front of them.Those statements were true way back then, and they're true today.Now, the question moves into a "should anyone care" if a morally bad action occurs when someone wears a short skirt in front of someone else and makes them feel uncomfortable.This is what's changed from then to know.
Then, society was much more sexually repressed. (I think we're still very sexually repressed right now, but it was still worse back then...)
Therefore, I think you're asking "is it right or wrong to allow/disallow short-skirt wearing?"And the answer is that it is neither right or wrong... at least in a moral sense.If someone wears a short skirt, and if someone seeing that skirt becomes uncomfortable... then it is a morally bad action for the skirt-wearer to wear the skirt in front of the skirt-uncomfortable person. Please note, this is not saying anything about whether or not the skirt-wearer should choose to wear a short skirt or not. It is simply describing the result of the situation.If the skirt-wearer wants to care about the skirt-uncomfortable person's feelings... they can wear something else, or apologize or do something to acknowledge and possibly make up for the sore feelings... or maybe even just talk with the skirt-uncomfortable person until the skirt-uncomfortable person is no longe uncomfortable with short skirts.If the skirt-weare doesn't care about the skirt-uncomfortable person's feelings or if they care about something else more (say, women's rights, or freedom of choice or something like that...), then they can ignore those hurt feelings.Notice that neither option removes the hurt feelings that did occur in the past. It happened. Describing it as it happened (the skirt-wearer did something that make the skirt-uncomfortable person feel bad) says nothing about what to do about the situation.That is the definition of a "morally bad action"... when someone does something to another person that makes them feel bad.
Justification rationalizations can come later.
Understanding if it was intentional or not can come later.
Choices about "what to do" in the future can come later.
Being able to identify and describe the action itself is an important step. When this step is skipped, it muddies the already-difficult-to-traverse waters.Definition: It is morally bad when a person interacts with another person and hurts them.
Therefore: It is morally bad when a person interacts with another person that hurts their feelings.
Therefore: It is morally bad when a person wears a short skirt in front of people who have their feelings hurt by seeing people in short skirts.Again, notice that this doesn't say that the person should or should not actually wear the short skirt.
Basically, it's just acknowledging that someone's feelings were hurt because of the short skirt.That is an important distinction. Because that is where "morality" ends.The rest is "legality."It is important to identify that yes, feelings were hurt.
And, no, physical harm was not done.
This is important when considering the next step:Should the person be able to wear the short skirt socially?Well... lots of things should be taken into account:How many people are offended?
How bad is the offence?
Are there any precendents in the existing society?
Would it be detrimental to the society?
Is it a freedom that really makes a difference?
etc...Personally, I think the girl should be allowed to wear her short skirt.
But, also personally, I think people should be allowed to be naked if they so desire.However, if a society is so sexually repressed that a short skirt could cause detrimental catastrophe's (constant car crashes... no one can focus... people cannot go about their daily business...) then I can understand why short skirts should be legally restricted.Just as if a society is so sexually repressed that a naked person could cause detrimental catastrophe's (constant car crashes... no one can focus... people cannot go about their daily business...) then I can understand why nakedness should be legally restricted.Notice how the legal restrictions are more about allowing the society to work together as an "average cohesive unit" while the moral analysis is only concerned with the exact, specific, unique situation of who is involved.The moral identification is important, and it's good to know where the lines are drawn in order to make rational decisions of the resulting analysis.Do we want to fit into society? Do we want to change society? Do we want to increase our freedoms? Do we want to add restrictions in order to (hopefully) help society grow more smoothly?These are all important questions... but none of them have anything to do with the morality of any specific situation. The morality of the specific situation is simply whether or not people got hurt.In understanding whether or not people got hurt, we can then make other decisions... do we want to be good people and help reduce the times we hurt others? Do we want certain freedoms in our society so that we ignore certain times when we hurt others?Answering difficult questions like that can become unneccessarily more difficult if we do not seperate morality from legality and personal motivation.

Maybe you do, maybe you don't.If you do possess such a Spirit of knowledge, and you try to tell others that they need to act like you in order to get the same thing... you'll be wrong. People are different. What works for you will not work for others. Please note that I'm not saying "the Spirit of knowledge" is wrong... I'm saying you'll be wrong to say that the "Spirit of knowledge" should work in others the exact same way it works in you. The Spirit of knowledge may be smart enough to deal with different people differently such that it can work for everyone... but if you think that some "constant action/thing" can work for everybody... then you are wrong. Regardless of what that constant action/thing is.Personally, I would only be concerned if you stop trying to improve your "ideal way of life." If you think you've reached an end, your Spirit of knowledge is doing it wrong. If the idea is an absolute (say, like the fact that my shirt is gray today). Then, yes, people should all come to the same conclusion.
If the idea is an absolute but cannot be tested/shown to be an absolute, then no, people should not all come to the same conclusion.
If the idea is not an absolute (say, like the fact that I feel cool in my gray shirt today). Then, no, people should not all come to the same conclusion.
If the idea is not an absolute, but can be tested/shown to be constant for all tests/shows... then, yes, people should all come to the same conclusion. Exactly. It's the same with all of us. We're all here with "incomplete testable/showable information" and we're all just trying to do what we can with what we have. That's what leads to different conclusions. That's what's supposed to lead to different conclusion because people are different.If all people were the same, then all people should come to the same conclusion all the time.
Obviously, people are different. That's a pretty good challenge.
The world would certainly be in a much better place if everyone took up this challenge.
A better challenge would be to help prevent other people from down harm as well as preventing yourself. Or helping allow others to have the same freedoms you do. Or even helping others in any way at all.I'm not saying all those options are possible (or impossible), or even if I do them or not. I'm just saying... they sound better than simply "not hurting others." If you're dreaming, why stay in the shallow end?

Yes. Sorry, were you under the impression that I thought otherwise? Or are you just saying?Morality is extremely subjective.When defined as it is by me (that the good/bad behaviour is determined by the reactions of those who are affected by the situation) then we also have the fact that the resulting moral conclusions of any specific situation can be objectively obtained. All you have to do is communicate with the person who was affected by the situation.People can say "It's good to wear a short skirt!"
Or they can say "It's bad to wear a short skirt!"...but we can objectively say whether or not it's morally good or bad by looking at the people who are affected by the situation.This way we can then also look at the society and see how the question of skirt length does fit in, where we want it to fit in, and the feasibility of fitting it in the way we want to.When wondering if it is moral for the society... then it is clear that we have to ask all the people that are in that society.This removes the abuse of one person standing up and shouting "short skirts are the devil!!!" and making policy based on shock "moral" values.
If morality is defined by the people affected, the only way to know if it's moral for the society is to ask those who are in the society. Thinking that this knowledge of whether or not it is moral for the society can be gained in other ways is what leads to corruption of the system... people speaking for other people... people making social policy based on their own thoughts and not considering the thoughts of the entire society.In order to get the end point correct, and prove that is a correct way to do things, the foundation needs to be clear, understandable and feasible."Good/bad is defined by the people who are affected" is clear, understandable and feasible.Saying things like "short skirts are a good thing because people should be free!!!"... is nice to just shout out, but it isn't very clear why this makes sense down to the foundation of good/bad or why people should be free in the first place. Without an objective basis for good/bad the whole thing just falls into opinion. Given an objective basis for good/bad, we can then build an entire reasoning for why it should be so.Good/bad may be subjective, but that's irrelevant.
What's relevant is having an objective way to determine if an action was actually good or bad. Once you have that, you can build a moral arguement and make sure it aligns with "good" all the way through.It's like favourite colours. In themselves, the choice of favourite colour is subjective. But, if there is an objective way to determine what someone's favourite colour actually is (say, by communicating with them...) we can then build things to suit "favourite colours" in an objective way.Morality being subjective doesn't make it useless. It simply makes it unpredictable for the future. However, we certainly can look at the objective past and work from there. Understanding this fundamental difference between subjective things and objective things (ability to correctly predict future situations), leads to understanding how morality should be used when creating policies that will be affecting everyone in a society. It makes it easy to spot someone who is abusing the misunderstandings. And that makes it more difficult for corruption to occur in the first place.

Fair enough.I think I'm done with my soapbox for today anyway.
Save that guy for later...

I can easily see the purpose of morality being at least two different things:1. To govern how an individual can "get along with others" in a social atmosphere.or2. To govern how an individual can treat all other people as nicely as possible.One's more survival oriented where the other is more virtue oriented.
Both seem plausible, I'm pretty sure I've met people who could fall under one category, and other people who would fall under the second category. I also think it would be possible for someone to live a portion of their life under one goal, and switching to the other goal during a later portion of their life.Are you saying that such things are impossible?
Or did I misunderstand what you're trying to describe?