|
Cliche wrote: "morality is objective but defined by society? Does this mean there are multiple objective moralities, one for each society with different rules?" (Too lazy to do tags right now, sorry)
Yes, actually, that is the case. Sociologists studies societies with entirely differents mores constantly. I can remember a book I read on a culture that inhabited an island in the South Pacific (I think, it's been a while). Well, in this society, each male child born would be given a male sponsor at birth. Upon reaching the age for the ritual of manhood, the Transferring of the Holy Seed (or whatever it was called) took place. This basically amounted to said young male performing fellatio on his sponsor and swallowing it down (I apologize for being vulgar, but it is germane). The spiritual underpinning is that the seed must be passed on from elder to younger, and a blow job is the manner in which it is passed.
This is an example of a society in which an act expressly verboten (man-boy love, and I care little for what NAMBLA's take is on the issue) in our society is perfectly acceptable in theirs. This is anecdotal, yes, but we can easily find innumerable cultures in which the mores are different from our own. This leads me to describe morality as objective simply because it does not originate within the individual, but is more a contruct of their society and implanted during socialization.
There is also the argument that certain mores transcend all cultural boundaries, barring actively non-functional societies. Such things as one should not kill members of one's own societal group, it is the responsibility of the elder to instruct the younger and thus help continue the species, etc. This would be the morality of survival though, and it is arguable that it transcends morality in a sense.
Tough issue, and I apologize for not watching the thread and thus responding to your question way late.
|