Their is no universal morality, only strength and weakness

Rebuttal Subjective Morality, by its very nature, is an individual's objective morality, this is in no way universal. Universality, by its very definition, means it applies to all. There are of course characteristics that apply to all sane and rational individuals such as need of food, water, and shelter, but these are so basic that they can’t be called morals. If these were morals things like squirrels and mice might be considered moral, so this can be no suitable definition. One can have a subjective morality, but only in the terms of the strongest enforcing individual in the area. Things like pedophelia and murder are discouraged in most modern societies, but this is only due to the principle of the evolution of morals based on the procedures of standard evolutionary theory, where one moral succeeds over the other to the general principle of survival of the fittest, where the weak, useless, and/or malicious morals are discarded due to their inefficiencies and inability to survive. Due to this principle, perhaps one day there might be a universal set of morals, but this won’t be due simply to the nature of inalienable rights (which don’t exist), it will be due to the fact that what succeeded is stronger than another. This goes into the principle of Will to Power. Will To Power What defines strength in individuals also defines strength in the morals of societies, and that is will to power. The will to exert one's power over another individual or society of the individuals. Some systems promote will to power more than others, like the Nazi system which attempted to exert it’s specific principles over other groups of individuals which it would virtually enslave in the thirst for Lebensraum[1] for the German people. Argument Introduction of a New Moral into a Preexisting Moral System Strength id the exertion of one's will to power, and it is almost impossible to calculate somethings strength as it is proceeding. How would one know the results of World War II in 1940? One could make predictions, but as one might know in this case, it was a very different situation in 1940 compared to 1945. How exactly is a moral system changed though? There are two ways in which a moral system can be changed: acceptance and strength. Acceptance is the simplest of all methods in the changing of moral systems. Acceptance occurs when an idea is introduced to a new moral system and it is acceptable to it in a way that it is easily receivable. This follows the simple process of going from introduction to acceptance. Examples of this can be seen in such situations as the abolition of slavery in the Northern states of the US prior to the civil war or the banning of harmful drugs also in the US[2]. This principle is much more simple than the process of the eventual acceptance of a moral introduced by strength. Strength works through the powers of propaganda, fear, and hatred. They are all used together for the common purpose of increasing the strength of a newly introduced moral until it is accepted. The principles of hatred and fear are so interlinked that I shall discuss them together. Hatred is caused by fear and disgust. Disgust is simply the revoltment at that which you believe is below you. This can be seen in the dislike of other races by the German populace under Nazi Reign. The introduction of this notion of German superiority was introduced by propaganda, which I shall discuss later. Fear is either the fear of defeat or the fear of pain, both of which can be seen during war. The fear of defeat is simply the fear of loss in some variety. This has inspired nationalistic attitudes, which can cause major change as the United States does with the suspension of Habeas Corpus in times of revolt or war. Fear caused by pain is a much more complicated matter psychologically. Some studies report the existence of “Stockholm Syndrome” where one can actually become attached to ones torturers, but in most cases it still appears to inspire hatred. These tools of hatred and fear are used in the next for of enacting moral change, and that is propaganda. Propaganda is the chief means of changing a moral system through strength. It uses all available technological means in order to influence the ignorant masses. People are put into large crowds, which have no purpose of their own other than that told to them, where individuals are inspired to do anything except intelligent action and realistic thought. Speakers follow the lead of the great masses in such a way that from the living emotion of the hearers the apt word which they need is suggested to them to sway the mass. Among the mass instinct is supreme. Speakers tell blacks or whites, there is no gray area to speak of if you want to influence that which can’t think. Propaganda is confined to bare necessities to be expressed in a few stereotyped formulas that make use in order to create hatred and manipulate it for its own advantage. Through the force of this great power single individuals can influence the masses to be shifted from traditional loyalties to the point where they can impose their chosen order and destroy the morals of the past. Conclusion If morality can be shifted with the strength of words how can it be universal to all men? People are bent to the will of that which is more powerful than them, limiting the freedoms of the individual to that which is most powerful. Even if an individual has the right to own a small group of particular views they are still subject to the mother morality of that which is in power [1]the territory that a state or nation believes is needed for its natural development, especially associated with Nazi Germany. It was specifically farmland in the Nazi case.