Which Comes First?

[theVOID]

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.

Presumably Piranhas act instinctively.

Yes, through innate social morality, a product of natural selection.

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

Not Subjective, some people are simply wrong (i.e. twisting morals).

Not the case, for example Euthanasia or Abortions - Neither are twisted morals, both are legitimate moral disagreements and again - this is subjective morality.

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.

No you haven't, you've only claimed to have. If you wish to attempt it again with different issues be my guest.

Do you want to explain why you disagree rather than just stating it?

Take the Euthanasia issue again - both are valid moral stand points, neither one is inherently wrong.

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!

You believe that nothing is "so completely immoral" the second you deny objective morality. Mob rule is the way to go you think? What if the majority supports (duped if necessary by someone influential) selective murder? Is this just another example of, as you say, social morality working?

I personally find certain things completely immoral, but that does not mean that everyone does or that it was always the case. For example i find slavery to be a completely immoral action yet not long ago western civilization found it to be perfectly acceptable.

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.

That is absurd and fallacious - you are considering what is true/best/right to be determinable by what is popular alone. You would describe those in Germany who opposed the popular Nazi movement as IMMORAL?

I would consider the actions taken by Nazi troops to be immoral, namely the genocide, but for them it was not immoral because they did not see the Jews as fully human. Again, this is something i find completely disgusting, but at one time a certain society (or at least the dictatorship - something else i am completely against) deemed it acceptable, just as slavery was once acceptable. This is subjective morality.

The system you support is unstable and dangerous - and could morph into anything (like Nazi Germany).

Yes, at the very worst it could become horrific - but this is a reality we live with, and something that has happened before, the best we can do is improve our moral standards and enforce them strictly. We can guarantee the fundamental individual freedoms for all and enforce them. This is something that is still an issue worldwide with gay rights - They are being treated as less than human, largely by the very group who claim the existence of an objective morality. Again, i see discrimination against such a group to be immoral - but not everyone agrees. This again is subjective morality, passed into law via consensus. Here in NZ their rights are completely equal (apart from the terminology marriage) but in the US these rights are still restricted by a different social consensus in many states.

This is all subjective morality.