Morality is Objectively and Analytically the Same regardless of Culture and Era.

Before I begin, I feel I should give the definitions we shall use. Morality: Principles which concern the distinction between right and wrong. Subjectivity: Based on, or influenced by, the the personal feelings, tastes, or opinions of the person or group of people in question. Objectivity: Based on factors outside of the personal feelings, tastes, or opinions of the person or group of people in question; being absolute regardless of whom is involved. Analytical: The capacity of a subject to be proven through the use of reason and logic. I need also to point out that, given the nature of our argument, sources may not be common in all cases. As per Definitions, Subjective Morality doesn't mean there is no morality, it simply means that the morality we have is dependent on ourselves in our culture. Now that the definitions have been provided, let's start. Case I: The Lack of Objective Source Firstly, we have the issue of what is required for morality to be Objective. That is a source. If Morality were Objective, it would have to come from a source other then ourselves. This source could be a higher power, or some hidden detail in our own beings. I would deal with those seperately. Higher Power: {This is not an argument against a Higher Power. } The problem with a Higher Power Argument is the extraordinary number of different beliefs for what this higher power(s) is(are). No particular belief in a higher power (minus the possibility of the belief of a small isolated tribe here or there, but even that's unlikely) is older then the year 2,600 BC at best {1}. The Egyptians have had worship at 4,000 BC {2}. Some believe that the oldest religions date back 70,000 Years ago at least {3}. This serves to show that the oldest religions are no longer practiced, and no religion today was practiced back then (overall the oldest organized Religions have been aroun dfor only a fraction of our existance). What this means is that no current diety being worshipped can be treated as an objective source since that diety wasn't worshipped in the most ancient times in Human History, and an Objective Source, if objective regardless of Era, must have been there to provide Objectivity in all points in time. No one can say also that each religion is simply a continuation of the priors morality, for reasons I shall answer in Case II1] . http://books.google.com...2] . http://www.ancient.eu...3] . http://news.nationalgeographic.com...A Hidden Detail in our own Beings: The major problem with this is that fact that if the source of Objective Morality were in ourselves, we would have no issue with our beliefs (worldwide regardless of era) being the same, and we wouldn't have such extensive discussions on what is right, since the answer would already be harddrived into our beings. Of equal issue with this is that we actually tend to change our own moral code over time. Few people reading this can say they believe exactly the same moral views that they believed as a teenager, and few of us would dare to say we will hold the exact same moral code in 40 years that we hold today (and if you consider it, and find that my statements here are true for you, then you are the only source I need to prove that to you). The very fact that so many people have such different views, and hold them with such conviction, serves to show us that we do not by our very nature have an objective source for morality in our beings. This will be elaborated upon in Cases II. Case II: The Difference in Morality Throughout History And Cultures A major issue with those who support a objective view to Morality is the overwhelming difference in Morality throughout History. In ancient times, it was considered largely acceptable to force others to fight to the death for others pleasures, and the fact is, it was considered completely acceptable (even if it wasn't enjoyed by the participants) {4}. Today, we can't even decide is a Rapist and Murderer should be executed {5}. Once it was considered considered acceptable to be Homosexual {6}, then suddenly it found itself to be unacceptable for a period of over a millenium {7}. Today, it is yet again acceptable {8}. Before Pro can claim that the return to acceptability simply showed the it to be a Aberation from the norms (itself showing that Morality isn't solidly Objective), the problem is the extreme length. Had it been only a decade or so, we may have been justified in calling it an anomaly, but at roughly a thousand and a half years, it is simply too large to consider a minor abnormality. That's an entire Era. There are many other examples of the incredable differences in morality between back then and now (including pedophilia {9}), and this shows us that Morality is Subjective. Had Morality been Objective, we would see the Morality from the beginning being correct. But since few today share the same moral code with those from the first civilizations, we can conclude that either our Morality is wrong, or Morality has changed, which is the greatest sign of Subjectivity in Morality. One could also say that Morality evolves, but even if this didn't imply the lack of Objectivity, it would be haunted by the often times back and forth nature of certian details in morality, but even worse is the implication of future generations. Simply put, only a fool would believe those who will come after us shall share our same morality. Can we objectively claim our morality (A joke of a concept giving that we can't even decide what's right and what is wrong in our own societies) to be superior to their morality? Or perhaps we should remember that they will have gotten to their morality through deciding our morality is itself flawed. Certainly we aren't somehow better then them. The fact is our Morality is substantially different from the past, and as determined in Case I, if Morality were Objective, then our exact morality would have been seen in substantial numbers in the past, or the exact Morality of the past would still be found in substantial numbers today. Ultimately the extreme difference of Morality, not only in the past, but likely in the future, calls into question the idea of a Morality that is objectively the same regardless of Era or Culture.4] . http://www.historytoday.com...5] . http://www.gallup.com...6] . http://en.wikipedia.org...7] . http://en.wikipedia.org...8] . http://www.gallup.com...9] . http://en.wikipedia.org...Closing Statement: The Inability to Find Objectivity in Morality. The simple fact is that Morality has simply had too many different forms throughout the ages. Our morality is simply too different from morality in the past, and too different from morality across the world today (I would hope I need not source some of the differences). What this shows is that (as I've said), Morality isn't solid, it changes over time. We would have to be pretensious to assume that we are Objectively Right, above all others, not just in our time but in others, when our own Morality won't be the same in the future. And if there is an objective morality that we aren't aware of (likely we all would like to think it's ours, though that's impossible due to our own habit of changing our views over time), then how could we possibly find it? Unless we are given absolute proof of an Analytically Objective Morality, we cannot declare ourselves to be objectively right in relation to others. Therefore, I bring forward that Morality is in fact Subjective to our Culture, Era, and Ourselves.10] . https://philosophynow.org... (Additional Source I wanted to include, but couldn't find the right opening for)==Unitomic==