A life without spirituality.

In fact, you could not do better to demonstrate a subjective point of view than to point out that someone believed something wrong despite a contrary consensus.

Ros,

There are some things that you consider to be wrong.

And I've little doubt that concerning at least these some of these things, it would not matter if the rest of the world considered them right, you would say 'I don't care, the rest of the world is wrong for considering them right. These things are wrong.'

real life wrote:

Ros,

There are some things that you consider to be wrong.

And I've little doubt that concerning at least these some of these things, it would not matter if the rest of the world considered them right, you would say 'I don't care, the rest of the world is wrong for considering them right. These things are wrong.'

Try to explain to him, Ros...that even if everything he is saying is so...

...that would not make those "wrongs" any less subjective.

Yes, it's hard work.

Therefore YOU do not believe all morality is subjective.

Not only is morality subjective, it doesn't even exist outside of our (human) thought.

Personal morality defines and distinguishes among right and wrong intentions, thoughts or actions. Human conscience is widely acknowledged to encourage individuals to do right; its origins and role are the subject of much discussion. Belief in an effective system of divine judgment often helps with personal motivation, as classically seen in the success of Medieval codes of knighthood and the spread of Islam. The desire to conform to the behavior of a group to which an individual belongs or aspires to belong is also a powerful force, though it may generally apply to more general cultural norms and customs, where the dichotomy is between proper and improper behavior.

Group morality develops from shared concepts and beliefs and is often codified to regulate behavior within a culture or community. Various defined actions come to be called moral or immoral. Individuals who choose moral action are popularly held to possess "moral fibre", whereas those who indulge in immoral behavior may be labelled as socially degenerate. The continued existence of a group may depend on widespread conformity to codes of morality; an inability to adjust moral codes in response to new challenges is sometimes credited with the demise of a community (a positive example would be the function of Cistercian reform in reviving monasticism; a negative example would be the role of the Dowager Empress in the subjugation of China to European interests). Within nationalist movements, there has been some tendency to feel that a nation will not survive or prosper without acknowledging one, common morality.

Codified morality is generally distinguished from custom, another way for a community to define appropriate activity, by the former's derivation from natural or universal principles. In certain religious communities, the Divine is said to provide these principles through revelation, sometimes in great detail. Such codes may be called laws, as in the Law of Moses, or community morality may be defined through commentary on the texts of revelation, as in Islamic law. Such codes are distinguished from legal or judicial right, including civil rights, which are based on the accumulated traditions, decrees and legislation of a political authority, though these latter often invoke the authority of the moral law.

Morality can also be seen as the collection of beliefs as to what constitutes a good life. Since throughout most of human history, religions have provided both visions and regulations for an ideal life (through such beliefs characterized by 'the god(s) know what's best for us') morality is often confused with religious precepts. In secular communities, lifestyle choices, which represent an individual's conception of the good life, are often discussed in terms of "morality". Individuals sometimes feel that making an appropriate lifestyle choice invokes a true morality, and that accepted codes of conduct within their chosen community are fundamentally moral, even when such codes deviate from more general social principles.

While some philosophers and biologists hold that morality is a thin crust hiding egoism, amorality, and anti-social tendencies, others see morality as a product of evolutionary forces and as evidence for continuity with other group-living organisms. Proponents of what could be called "Natural Outgrowth Theory" see no conflict between evolutionary biology and morality since moral codes generally prescribe behavior that enhances individual fitness and group well-being.

real life wrote:

Therefore YOU do not believe all morality is subjective.

rosborne979 wrote:

Not only is morality subjective, it doesn't even exist outside of our (human) thought.

Exclusive of the possibility of extraterrestrial intelligence, how certain can man be that the higher animals alive today (or in the past - such as man's predecessors) in no way have/had morality "outside of our (human) thought"?

Further, if you argue that morality is wholly subjective, what is to stop me from successfully arguing that a family of chimps has a merited measure of morality?

Further if you argue that morality is wholly subjective what is to stop me from successfully arguing that a colony of bees (making up a hive) has a merited measure of morality?

I see where you're going with this Chumly. I think animals that have what might appear to be moral behavior patterns have acquired them in the usual Darwinian way. Bees that don't function as a team don't compete well with similar bees. Monkey's that don't learn how to "behave" don't get the chance to mate. I think human behavior is exactly the same. I think we may project moral concepts onto what is essentially survivalist behavior.