Which Comes First?

[theVOID]

Morality IS subjective, this is evidenced entirely by the fact of slavery - something that was once considered morally acceptable (even in the Bible) is now considered extremely immoral, perhaps even evil. This demonstrates that our morals can, and have, changed over time, thus, not objective.

Slavery still occurs commonly and is considered morally acceptable (wage laborers, prisoners, etc). Sure, racist, forced, inescapable slavery is widely considered wrong...but it always was by morally aware people. The practice of kidnapping people and putting them into slavery (southern slavery of blacks) is specifically objected to by the Bible (e.g. the story of Joseph, son of Jacob - he was forcefully sold into slavery by his brothers).

Yes, it is considered Moral by some and Immoral by others - thus Subjective.

Change worthy of disproving objective morality not been shown. Perhaps you have described a shift in popular opinion, but using that to argue against objective morality would be a fallacy.

I HAVE demonstrated a change in morals - thus showing morals are subjective, and i can demonstrate a change in morals on many more issues, from gay rights to murder to rape and torture - all of these morals have changed over time and are still disagreed upon by many people - the morals are different from place to place and time to time - that is completely subjective.

"It's as though to murder or not to murder is equivalent to deciding which flavor of ice cream is better"

Oh... My... God...

Let me put this REALLY simple for you... so you can understand..

Please do.

We, mankind, are social animals and as such we need each other to survive. It is obvious, and evident, that murder does not make for an efficient society, so in turn we (and all other social animals) evolved an innate sense of social efficiency to allow us to most effectively work together and thus, to survive.

It is obvious that murder does not make for an efficient society? There are many subscribers of evolution who believe that selective murder would make for more efficient society. They claim that some people should be sterilized (or that their babies be murdered/aborted) and others who are not productive to society should be eliminated (elderly, infirm, etc). It is obvious to them that you are wrong, so it seems you two are at a deadlock. You'll have to come up with a better argument I suppose.

Yes, it is obvious - If members of a social group begin to kill each other over their issues then the society cannot function! It may be true that selective murder is a way to a genetically superior society but the concept is so fucked up, so completely immoral, that anyone who claims such an idea is a good idea is a sick freak, also another example of subjective morality.

And we come back to a consensus from society (democracy) for your last point, the idea of being social animals is that the opinion of the majority of the society is used to determine an ultimate moral standard, so in the case of the genetically selective murderers disagreeing with me, well they also disagree with democratic consensus and social morality still works!

Our evolved social morality is not however, absolute, and in order to protect ourselves from divergence in what is the moral standard accepted by consensus, we form Law and Order to protect the society and it's moral standards as a whole from the moral standards of the few, leading us to what is the pinnacle of society, democracy. If morals were absolute then no system of governance would ever be required as the innate morals we all posses would never conflict with an opposing moral standard (because no such standard would exist)

People like to bend/twist the rules for their own pleasure, so this argument falls on its face as well. You fail to account for selfishness - something contradictory to morality, which can, at times, be quite forceful and sly.

Yes they do, and we consider such corruption as what? IMMORAL... If an action is committed that goes against the moral opinion of a society then it is immoral. Society sets moral standards as law and breaking the law regarding a moral issue is covered.

While we are on the subject of Morality and God, i would like to bring to everyone's attention the Piranha and the fact that they are morally superior to us... This most bloodthirsty, savage of creature has NEVER been seen to harm one of it's own kind, something that sadly cannot be said of our own species.

I am curious, Christians, as to how you reconcile the fact of the Piranha's moral superiority with the idea of Humans being created in God's image under his absolute moral standard?

Piranha's are morally neutral - amoral, not superior - due to a lack of rationality - the ability to understand the difference between morality and immorality and choose. That's, at least, how I reconcile your claim.

If the Piranha is amoral due to a lack of rationality then explain their ability to decide not to attack each other when they will instantly go after a non-piranha. If the piranha had no understanding of social morals then it would be unable to differentiate between attacking like and dislike.

The Piranha has some innate moral standard, evolved as a social animal, that tells it not to attack it's own kind.