Which Comes First?

[ecolox]

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.

You may as well say Piranha's are innately rational. You also failed to acknowledge that Piranhas don't act by choice. Their instinctual action is like a reflex. It's like breathing, not like moral choice.

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.

What you call legitimate I call illegitimate. You say I'm right, and I say you're wrong. Now I suppose we better talk to other people to have our opinions voted into law.

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.

Stating that euthanasia is fine is not explaining how it's fine.
I have already explained why I disagree, but you ignored it. I stated that you described a shift in public opinion - an appeal to popularity to prove that morality has changed - thus subjective, all the while ignoring the real moral standard. There's no need to go round and round, just demonstrate that this isn't just a shift in public opinion I guess.

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.

I imagine that you personally would be barred from telling anyone that they were wrong about any moral choice they made. You would have the understanding that what they did was right in their own mind, and that's as right as right can be. Calling upon popular opinion to back you would merely be a fallacy to them. How do you tackle that issue?

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.

Saying this is subjective morality doesn't make it so. Saying that some people think one way and you think another doesn't make morality subjective either. You can say it over and over until your blue in the face, but that's all you'll have achieved - a blue face. Relying on a majority is insane. What about the minority - what isn't popular but could be better for society on the whole. You have only mentioned the importance of popular opinion, failing to highlight the importance of the minority (Jews)! This is "might makes right" - the strong (those in number) rule the weak - the "tyranny of the majority". If this doesn't concern you at all on its face I don't know that I can say anything.

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.

I disagree with gay marriage. If you allow them though, marriage is shot to shit. And to be fair, I think you have to allow several more unions with the same benefits - or eliminate all the supposed "rights" (privileges) that traditional family cores have been granted in the past. The other unions may include, but are not limited to: polygamous marriages, incestuous marriages, two or more friends (non-sexual marriages), and maybe even bestial marriages and somehow necrophilia (if disease is avoided/protected-against. There should probably also be some measure to assist in dynamic marriages - the current system is surely too slow.

The only thing subjective about all of this is your unfounded insistence. Why you think this facet of reality is, at most, only an individual conception is beyond me. You disregard the notion that things in this world might work in a particular way when it comes to the way humans behave and treat each other. I also disagree with "majority rules, minority drools" as a means for implementing this system - enforceable upon all people within a society, even those who disagree.
If you considered this logically enforceable then you have committed "Argumentum ad populum" - if many believe so, it is so. If you avoid that fallacy you have no basis for enforcing your (and your pals) morality upon the minority who disagrees with you - creating an opportunity for who knows what.