I would say that, in simple terms, because human beings are inherently social animals and rely upon that social network to survive a moral code is essential for society to function. Thus it is necessary for the survival of the human species. Virtually every other social mammal, well at least the "higher" species, have their own version of a moral code designed to maintain the stability of the group. Its not rocket science.
I think you are confusing the state, society and the social contract. I don't believe people are arguing that anything the authorities say is morally correct or that a moral code notionally "accepted" by society is always a good one (see Nazi Germany). However the fundamental element every general moral code is the social contract, be it at a relationship, family, town, national or international level. That social contract is bargained between individuals based on their own understanding of the justification behind social rules. My society has deemed it appropriate that homosexual people cannot marry unless they marry a member of the opposite sex, a position I personally find morally objectionable. The reason I find it morally objectionable is because I disagree with the reasoning its proponents use to justify that moral rule, shaped by my education and views on society, religion, relationships, sexuality and people. Any reasonably well adjusted human will make their own judgement on morality shaped by their wider views on such things and will, in their own small way, contribute to the social bargain. Within our society I am outnumbered on this position by those who do have an objection to same sex marriage, thus that element of my society's moral code is in my opinion immoral. But you have to expect this sort of flexibility and disagreement in any organic system made up of diverse individuals.
That stable base you speak of, I don't want to go over the number of actions justified in the bible which modern society would condemn as depraved, but they are indicative of an evolving social contract within the church. Why doesn't the Vatican condone burning at the stake for heresy or the stoning of women for adultery any more? Clearly the fact that the church has dispensed with some of the core elements of the Christian morality of days past demonstrates that Christianity’s moral code is no more a stable base than the wider social contract, it is only rendered less flexible by religious dogma.
tackattack Wrote:@Radames- I also completely agree. You don't need the Bible to live a good or moral life.That's why it written that God's laws are written on your heart. If society was doing something you felt was morally objectionable would you stand up or adapt your personal moral code? Depending on your answer (I'll assume not follow society) you are using your own conscience or heart. But how do you develop it further if you feel your personal morality is more moral than society? I personally feel that a stable base is better for growing than shifting societal ideals. Especially at the exponential rate shifts happen in the information age.
@HIZ - if society shifted and it was acceptable to chop of the hand of a thief would you still find that moral... oh wait...
Coming for a country that only used to allow you to have 1 child not too long ago, these are the effects of basing your personal morality on society.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world...961538.cms
"The attackers did not know their victims personally , so the assaults must be an expression of their dissatisfaction with society."
I think you are confusing the state, society and the social contract. I don't believe people are arguing that anything the authorities say is morally correct or that a moral code notionally "accepted" by society is always a good one (see Nazi Germany). However the fundamental element every general moral code is the social contract, be it at a relationship, family, town, national or international level. That social contract is bargained between individuals based on their own understanding of the justification behind social rules. My society has deemed it appropriate that homosexual people cannot marry unless they marry a member of the opposite sex, a position I personally find morally objectionable. The reason I find it morally objectionable is because I disagree with the reasoning its proponents use to justify that moral rule, shaped by my education and views on society, religion, relationships, sexuality and people. Any reasonably well adjusted human will make their own judgement on morality shaped by their wider views on such things and will, in their own small way, contribute to the social bargain. Within our society I am outnumbered on this position by those who do have an objection to same sex marriage, thus that element of my society's moral code is in my opinion immoral. But you have to expect this sort of flexibility and disagreement in any organic system made up of diverse individuals.
That stable base you speak of, I don't want to go over the number of actions justified in the bible which modern society would condemn as depraved, but they are indicative of an evolving social contract within the church. Why doesn't the Vatican condone burning at the stake for heresy or the stoning of women for adultery any more? Clearly the fact that the church has dispensed with some of the core elements of the Christian morality of days past demonstrates that Christianity’s moral code is no more a stable base than the wider social contract, it is only rendered less flexible by religious dogma.
