The subject of morality is subjective to society

Subjective V.S. Objective Definitions Subjective: of, affected by, or produced by the mind or particular state of mind; of or resulting from the feelings or temperament of the subject, or person thinking; not objective; personal subjective judgment. Objective: Of or having to do with a known or perceived object as a distinguished from something existing only in the mind of the subject or person thinking. Both definitions are taken from the Webster's new world dictionary (second college edition). Hopefully this source for definitions is more appeasing for my opponent. It is a dictionary after all :) As I talk about society and how morality ties into the subjective matter of effect, we see that by definition, we have an exact application of how subjective it is for morality to be tied into the same standard as effected by society. Morality is, (as all things are), produced by the mind or particular state of mind. See definition. When Morality issues arise, it is society who is effected by judgements on the predicament. See definition. And last but not least, it is cause for those who are not moral (societal standards), who in fact feel the results from the feelings or temperament of the subject. See definition. In all aspects of the definition of subjective, we find relative cause for it being subjective to society. Now depending on which approach my opponent would take with the route of the question at hand being objective, it is still either supportive of my case, or absolutely non-relative. A perceived object distinguished only existing in the mind of the subject or person thinking is pretty much equal to society. Thus he is taking the objective approach supporting the subjective theme. Or the other approach that to be objective is to pursue something of subject matter that is only detrimental to morality. In both cases, it is safe to say that Subjective is a far better word to place on the attachment to society. Definitions My opponent has a problem with the definitions I have provided. In order to better satisfy him as well as the readers, I attempted looking at other dictionary sources, however all led to the same if not the exact definition. In each there was a defining factor stating "moral quality, or character". Fallacy indeed, but must we correct the dictionary? Whether the definition has fallacies or not, I'm sure the basic understanding of morale and ethics, is well perceived by all individuals. If my opponent would like to offer a more prudent definition for the words, I would be more than happy to abide by them for the remainder of the debate. :) I agree with my opponent that ethics and morality comes from two different cultures, both referring to the same thing. I also realise that this case is about society VS Individual. However I fail to see the how neither come into play seeing as it is the subject of debate. Moral Relativism I agree that each society is built upon different moral beliefs and that certain actions bring up certain consequences that for some individuals feel can be negative. This is a very good point, and I'm glad my opponent brought this up. When countries like Germany dictated their standards that the rest of the world thought were immoral, and then the country faced negative results from their actions, it changed their belief on morality the same. Before a child touches a hot oven without being told he would be burnt, did he know that touching the oven was wrong? Same scenario, variation of the theme. America is built on a democratic society, in which the people get the deciding vote on how everything is run in our country. China is a communistic government, and run things seperably. While china faces huge problems as any other country, they have their own ways of fixing things, which most Americans would argue as immoral. However, for the Chinese government, they believe the way they fix population increases, is beneficial. While some believe it is wrong, most would agree that the way they do it has worked, and the Chinese have not yet felt the detrimental effect letting their moralities know what they have done is wrong. Their societal standards are different from ours and tell us that what they do is right. The same can be said for people who choose to have abortions, or any other hot issue of morality, such as death penalty. However, Moral relativism in actuality is different from my opponents proposed definition, and actually goes along with exactly what I am trying to prove. " The term ‘moral relativism’ is understood in a variety of ways. Most often it is associated with an empirical thesis that there are deep and widespread moral disagreements and a Meta ethical thesis that the truth or justification of moral judgments is not absolute, but relative to some group of persons. Sometimes ‘moral relativism’ is connected with a normative position about how we ought to think about or act towards those with whom we morally disagree, most commonly that we should tolerate them." http://plato.stanford.edu... The line I have bolded submits to the fact that there are different groups of people who must belong to different societies with obvious differences of beliefs. It is true that if I punch someone, I will probably feel an obvious reaction, to immorality. That is because I have been born and raised in a mostly Christian society, as have most Americans, that teaches us that hurting someone, or infringing on their rights is any way shape or form is wrong. My beliefs, go along with my societal beliefs, as I'm sure yours, and many others do as well. However, taking a completely different person, from a completely different society, (perhaps his society teaches that punching people is okay), we cannot say that they would feel the same immoral consequences. Members of Al quida and the Taliban are taught that by committing acts of terror, they will be rewarded in the afterlife. Our societal standards say that terrorism is evil. For there's, they are praised and held in the absolute highest regard. Reactions to Immorality In our society, if someone commits a crime or wrongs us, we often seek revenge, which is a leading factor concluding why we have one of the most controversial nations, and why people sue so much. If someone steals my wallet, I am going to assume that person is of low moral quality. If I steal someone's wallet, and I have my set reasons why I did it, I may or may not feel those immoral actions. If I needed that wallet to feed my family, I may feel like it is a better impact I am serving by doing. In reality, and for realists, they may not say this is a plausible reaction. However this doesn't change the fact that those from different societies born and raised under different moral principles will feel arguably un-effected. MY CASE Societal moral differences " I acknowledge the fact that we see Germans exterminating Jews and that they believed that this was the right thing to do - but was their belief TRUE?" Now that is the question this whole debate is essentially about. Was their belief true? According to yours, and my belief, no. They were absolutely horrible, in our opinions. But that's the key word, 'opinion'. In their opinions, or beliefs as I prefer to call them what they were doing was right. They were a completely separate society believing that killing and exterminating certain grou