The Jewish question, what would persuade you?

I dont know if it is ethical, but the law is based on revenge. Morality is based on being allowed to live. Surely both the law and morality are central to ethics ?

I agree that morallity is arrived at subjectively--but that's because i don't in fact believe that morality exists. However, anyone alleging that morality does exist contradicts him- or herself by alleging that morality can be arrived at on an individual basis.

morals are more of a personal set of priorities

The social contact is the basis of civilized society. You cannot constrain venality, greed or cupidity by appeals to people's basic "goodness."

Quote:

morals are more of a personal set of priorities

Morals are certainly personal, but we are born with some, accept others from society and discard some depending on the situation.

The law is based on common morality.

Ethics is an attempt to determine what one should do in a given situation assuming there is an absolute correct behaviour. Only religion provides the authority for ethics, any other direction assumes authority for ethical behaviour without providing any authority.

Well if I may put it this way. What is in one’s own heart is the morals one has, for in certain circumstances he will do according to his heart or seek the opportunity for the fulfillment of what is in the heart. ( if I am correct, would in the context of subjectively)

But on the other hand if one agrees to something, does he do what he agrees to, or what is in his heart?

For example: if someone would say something that would in your heart want to feed him a knuckle sandwich or two or many more. Therein is your morals, what is in your heart to do. but you agree not to do that, by previously agreeing to what ever rules that apply, even if it’s agreeing to freedom of speech with out being in danger for speaking, therefore your action is ethical, not moral.

To do what is in one’s heart, is a moral issue according to one’s own heart/morals, and to do what one agrees to is an ethical issue not necessarily what is in one’s own heart, but has agreed to. Which I believe the basis of a civilized society.

If a society is ruled by a King in the traditional sense then the law is based on the morality of the King.

We're right back at the problem i had with your thesis to begin with. If it is individual, and subjective, it's not morality.

The social contract is arbitrary and tyrranical. It applies whether or not you consent in advance, and if you choose not to consent, you are literally outlawed, and take your chances. Indeed, i mentioned it because although some smarmy lip service is paid to morality in the enunciation of the law, the social contract is only ever coincidentally referential to morality.

Quote:

If a society is ruled by a King in the traditional sense then the law is based on the morality of the King.

Not always so...there are many instances of Kings being forced to change the law.....the Magna Carta for example.

We have to establish definitions upon which everyone can be on the same page, as it were, to even begin tackling the question of morals. Your definition of morals doesn't jibe with the standard definition which concerns conduct and behavior. It doesn't concern feelings or thoughts.

For example, person A, out of negligence, damages person B's property. Person A could care less about the damages he's caused, but because of his moral obligations he pays recompense to person B for the damages to his property. Person A has acted morally regardless of his thoughts and feelings about the damages he's caused.