Imagine if I attempted to impose Chess rules on a game of Checkers. Even though these games share the same playing board, they have different pieces, tactics, and objectives. Now imagine governing a game of Mancala using Chess rules. These 2 games don't even share the same board!
Society-defined morality suggests that whatever society deems to be moral is moral. Whatever society believes to be good (subjective as there is no objective measure) is good.
This is a popular philosophy of those attempting to eradicate conservative, Christian values. Many times, these are people who consider themselves intellectuals. For a moment, let me put aside my Christian views on topics, and explore this topic logically.
If society defines morality, then if there is some future society that esteems cannibalism to be good, then cannibalism is good in that society as their morals are defined by their society. Furthermore, if a current society in a foreign place determines that cannibalism is good, then cannibalism is good in that society. One step further, if a previous society of Americans had determined that cannibalism were okay, then cannibalism was good at that time until American society changed its opinion.
Much like governing the Checkers and Mancala games by Chess rules, as long as we subscribe to the society-defined morality, one society cannot judge another society. Americans cannot judge future or past American societies or any foreign societies based on our current morality because it is completely defined by our society.
In other words, to believe in society-defined morality, I must agree that slavery was good while society approved of it and homosexuality was wrong until society approved of it. Americans should not meddle in the affairs of other nations (including the World Wars), nor should we attempt to influence other nations. When Martin Luther King, Jr. stated, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere," who defined injustice and justice?
To disagree and say that a former society was wrong about their assessment is to trade one oppressive set of norms (those of the conservative Christian) for our current society's as well as completely reject the originally professed position that society defines morality.
When one thinks this through logically, it is easy to see that one of the following must be true:
A) society-defined morality is correct; no closed society can ever be wrong in its actions, but interactions between societies are messy (say when one society imposes its standards on another).
B) society-defined morality is incorrect; humanity is constantly evolving into a more perfect society with some abstract and undefinable yet absolute morality that we cannot understand until infinite time has passed.
C) society-defined morality is incorrect; there is an absolute standard set by some outside entity (consistent with the conservative Christian view).
D) there is no spoon.
Society-defined morality is the epitome of group think by its very definition. Let the intellectuals cringe at their colleagues who profess such mindless submission to society-defined morality. True, rules of conduct must be established by someone. If there is no outside entity to set objective standards, then we are indeed all to be governed by this mindless group think where we can rise to the level of our collective incompetence. Consider the "wave" at a sporting event... it is clear evidence that a committee will make a decision that is dumber than the sum of its members.
