Morality

There have been multiple assertions made about the nature of morality and I'd like to look at two of them.

First; Definitions.

Morality
1.   Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion, or culture,
2.   In its descriptive sense, "morality" refers to personal or cultural values, codes of conduct or social mores. It does not connote objective claims of right or wrong.
3.    Morality in a descriptive sense may be defined as a code of conduct endorsed and adhered to by a society, group or—much less frequently—individual. Moral codes in this sense will, therefore, differ both from society to society, within societies, and amongst individuals.
4.    Morality in a descriptive sense may be defined as a code of conduct endorsed and adhered to by a society, group or—much less frequently—individual. Moral codes in this sense will, therefore, differ both from society to society, within societies, and amongst individuals.
5.     Conformance to a recognized code, doctrine, or system of rules of what is right or wrong and to behave accordingly. No system of morality is accepted as universal, and the answers to the question "What is morality?" differ sharply from place to place, group to group, and time to time

The first is that morality is subjective.   If one looks at the dictionary as well as what sociologists say the morality is subjective, at least at the level of the society or group.  So far no one is suggesting that morality is subjective at the individual level, which seems as though it would result in chaos.   But what does it mean to be subjective at the society or group level.   In practice that probably means that as long as either 51% of the society or group agree, or if there is some sort of intellectual or ruling "elite" who guide the society, that decisions about morality will be made by either of those two groups.   Personally the idea of 51% being able to impose their will on 49% doesn't sit well with me on some level.  Of course, neither does having some "elite" class doing the same thing.  The primary problem with this construct is that things change.  For example, in many cultures throughout history (even today in many Islamic nations) chattel slavery was a practice that was approved of by a majority of the population, which made it a moral practice based on the social mores of the groups in question.   Nowadays, many people regard chattel slavery as an immoral act and condemn it.   Yet, if one holds to morality as subjective and society driven, then both the anti slavery society and pro slavery society are moral as defined by their societal norms.    Or, what happens when a society changes it's mind?   Again take slavery.  For years slavery was considered as a moral act by much of western society.  Yet as attitudes changed, slavery was considered immoral.   This raises the question, can an act be immoral at one point in the development of a society, yet immoral at another point.

The second is that morality is self evident.   This one raises numerous questions.

1.  If morality is self evident, why do we see so much variation on moral principles from society to society and group to group?
2.   If morality is self evident, how do we explain the large numbers of people who act in immoral ways?
3.   How can morality be both self evident and subjective/
4.   How can one argue that protecting the right to live is self evidently moral, and argue that abortion is not immoral?   (That abortion is either moral or morally neutral)
5.   When people engage in acts that contravene these self evident morals, why do they engage in those acts?
6.   Are people simply unaware of these self evident moral standards and act from ignorance?
7.   Are people aware of these self evident moral standards, yet choose to act contrary to them?
8.   If a member of a society who considers it moral to randomly kill innocent people, acts in a way they (and their society) believe to be (subjectively) moral, what basis do other societies have to condemn those actions?
9.   Are actions moral or are individuals moral?

Finally, no matter whether you believe that morality is subjective and culture driven or that morality is objective and God directed, what morality really comes down to is simply exercising human effort in order to outwardly conform to some external standard of behavior.   It doesn't address motive or attitude.  It doesn't address acts in private.  It is simply peer pressure from either society or authority that forces conformity of action.     Don't get me wrong, "Don't kill innocent people." is a good moral standard from either perspective and I'm glad that most of the world agrees, but is it enough to simply exert enough control to avoid acting on our impulses?

Jesus never once told people to be moral.   Jesus told the one guy who bragged about how moral he was that his incredible morality wasn't enough.   Jesus talked about not just avoiding actually killing people, but about avoiding the internal hatred that is equivalent to killing someone, about the lust of the heart that is the equivalent of adultery.    Jesus commanded us to love Him with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength and to love others the way we love ourselves.   Jesus talked about how those who love Him will keep His commandments, He never mentions conforming to some societal ordained subjective list of behaviors.     Elsewhere we hear talk about faith and not works, lest anyone should boast about how incredibly moral they are.

I guess I conclude that subjective societal morality certainly plays a role in regulating behavior, but that if someone claims to follow Jesus then that bar just seems like it's much to low.  

Personally being moral doesn't seem like much to boast about, but if it's enough for some, then I guess it's better than nothing.