The subject of morality is subjective to society

I would Like to challenge you to a debate, on an idea which I find most indefinitely profound. In debates, arguments, or attempts at provng points, I have found that most people like to bring up the concept of morality to back up the argument they are proposing. This debate will be directed toward the issue of whether or not we can accurately say that something is moral, or whether morality is deemed by an individual or society. So I would like to start off this round by thanking my opponent for respectfully accepting this debate, and wish him good luck with the proceedings of this debate.I would like to start by defining some words, and key terms of interest for this debate. Morality 1. Conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct. 2. Moral quality or character. Ethics 1. A system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture. 2. The rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.: medical ethics; Christian ethics. Society 1. An organized group of persons associated together for religious, benevolent, cultural, scientific, political, patriotic, or other purposes. 2. A body of individuals living as members of a community; community. All definitions taken from www.dictionary.com Every nation ridicules other nations, and all are right. This is a quote from Arthur Schopenhauer , That I firmly believe is true. In our country with our politics, and the way we run our country, we feel superior to most governments and political fronts due to the fact that we have an (arguably) working governmernment. Most of us feel that the way we run things here in our country, are better then some of the way things are run in, say, a communistic government. However, Most communistic governments have been that way for extremely long periods of time, and feel comfortable with the way they run things. In fact, some countries look at our country as inferior because of the way we run our country, and the democracy we have here. The point Is, no matter how much we think the way we do things is right, another country, full of different seperate societies, believe the way they do things is right as well. That doesn't mean either side is wrong, just that both sides are right according to different perspectives. 　 Which leads me into my second point. 　 It is impossible to say that that something is right and wrong. Every human being has what I like to call, beleifs. Beliefs that determine the "why" for reasons we do things. If a serial killer has a belief or a perception that murdering innocents is wrong, there is probably an outlying number of citizens who either agree or dis-agree with him. While murder and killing is a more serious issue now, and more people have turned against the prospect, we cannot forget that in past centuries the killing of people was quite a popular (though sadistic) outlook for people. Most germans believed that by exterminating jewish people, they were ridding the world of infestation and creating good. And while there is an outbreak of opinion in the moral factor leaning towards that being "wrong", we cannot forget that their society deemed what they were doing as morally "right". 　 To conclude the round I will be saying that although Morality is Subjective, The fact that a standard code of ethics is used, that we can probably say a utalitarianism environment of people agree with, there will always be the opposing factor believing their prospect is more "right" per se. 　 I look forward toward my opponents response. Thankyou :)