Do you affirm that morality is subjective? If so, do you accept the logical conclusion that if the Nazis had won and become the majority of the population that the Holocaust would at best become a difference of opinions and at worst morally right?
If not, do you affirm that morality arises from our genetics and aan evolutionary need to do what is best for the group? If so, do you accept the logical conclusion that those who are no longer an asset to the group, such as cripples who can't work or old people, should be killed, as this would be best for the group?
If no to both of these, where do your morals come from? I didn't think I would have to actually add this, but please refrain from ad hominen or tu quoque and actually answer the question. @Paladin
Where, then, does your morality come from? @Vidi
"Don't be a jerk" is not a set of morals, because not every moral situation involves being mean or nice. The world isn't that simple, sweetie. @Sour
Good point. Let's say then that these old people have Alzheimers or they are mentally retarded to the point where they are unable to contribute anything. Should they die? Logic says yes, but (I would hope) you would say no. @Shawn
Yes, actions of consequences. Morality is what tells us whether or not those consequences are good or bad. @nyphdinmd
I'll admit, your answer was the best, and certainly the most intriguing. However, it has some problems. Your view of morality says that what is morally good is that which promotes society anything that makes living in society unsafe is morally bad. However, why are these things morally right or wrong? Because Thoreau said so? That's nice, but opinions don't make ethics. My question was not "why are good things good" but rather where do your concepts of right and wrong some from? You say the holocaust would have been morally wrong because it causes suffering and death, but why are those things bad? They may not be pleasant, but that doesn't make them morally wrong. Also, they Bible never says slavery is right. It recognizes slavery as part of the world (which was, by the way, worlds apart from American plantation slavery) and sets rules that keep the slaves (ideally) from being mistreated. (FYI, slaves back then were mostly war prisoners or p @Spencer
So, "life is preferable to death" is an absolute moral? What does that say about suicide victims? For them, death was obviously preferable to life, but I thought that the opposite was an absolute standard? @Everard
You contradicted yourself. You say that every moral advancment was opposed by the Catholic Church, but then go on to say that all morals are subjective. If that is the case, then genocide isn't morally wrong. "Something wrong with their brain chemistry"? If that is an absolute, objective standard then it's not dependent on brain chemistry. And, more to the point, how can some morals be objective and others not? Ah @Andre, I was hoping someone would bring that up. You have just committed a fallacy, namely that of a false dilemma. So see, there is a third option, one that solves that little problem. God tells us X is good or bad BECAUSE He is good.