Oh, please stop.
Morality is entirely subjective? Really? Really? So there's no grounds on which you can say that Hitler actually did anything wrong, then? And if you can't possibly explain "what morals are", what are you doing making moral claims? By your own definition, you have no idea what you mean - so quite how anyone else is supposed to understand you is something of a mystery.

In fact, you didn't say that morality was subjective before. You said that the interpretation was subjective. Can you not tell the difference between something and its interpretation?

You still haven't answered the question about the origins of moral claims, though: to say that it's the law simply won't do - again, because that'd mean that there'd be no way to evaluate the desirability of a given law; nor would there ever be any moral reason to change the law.

Moreover, most codes of practice go quite a way beyond the demands of the law - so, if they're compelling, it can't be because of their legal foundation.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Fri 17 Jul 2009, 15:32, 1 reply)

Do you want me to stop, or to address the points you've made?
I said that morality was subjective, and that in this case it was initially dependant on the law and only THEN could we apply our own morals- and yes, they are subjective.

"What are you doing making moral claims?" - I'm making them based on my own moral code. What I meant (and probably didn't explain too clearly, since there's a fair deal of misunderstanding here) is that there is NO WAY my moral code is the same as anyone else's. Even in subtle ways, it would be different. Therefore there is no way my moral code would be justitifiable to someone who thinks otherwise.

For example, there's a difference in someone who thinks it's morally right to exploit people in order to protect money invested in shareholder accounts, rather than showing some shred of humanity in dealings with people who don't understand the workings of a bank. To me, ethics are about humanity, not capitalism.

You haven't told me what your morals are either, and frankly I don't care. They're bound to be something that coincides with the Law, since that's the code we're all raised to follow. Other than that, I'm sure you're very different from me, and wouldn't agree with my moral code.

Yes, everything is rooted in the law. I was raised as a Christian, so after the law comes my religious code. After that comes the code that my mother taught to me- manners, rules, and so on. I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate it if I told you I feel the origins of morality are rooted in the Bible, so how about in the generations of people before us, who decided how to act and how to behave in order to function as a civilised society? Hell, morality probably came before that, when Darwin's ancestors first decided to give a banana to the starving marmot in the next tree. In our society, morality could be said to come from the wars (Dulce Et Decorum Est?), from the civil unrest, from the history that made our country- all things that are compiled in our history, our law, our consciousness.

Second, being subjective does NOT mean that our subjectivity is always justified. I know that people disagree with my own moral code, just as I disagree with some people's... but unless their actions are embodied in some physical form outside the boundaries of the law then there's nothing we can do to change them. I find it frankly offensive that you associate the freedom of conviction that I've been trying to explain to you to the actions of the Nazi party.

(I have no internet for the next week, so sorry if I suddenly disappear after this post. :( )
(Sivvus trolley collision in the fruit aisle led to a jam, Fri 17 Jul 2009, 22:44, closed)