Power determines morality
There is no such thing as objectively good or evil, there is only power and power is what determines whether we think something is good or evil. And there are two types of power, individual power and collective power ie many people.
Morality shifts when
A) an individual gains more power
B) A society gains more power
C) Minorities gain more power
So for example (and I'm not against it) for years people though homosexuality was wrong now seen as being right, why because of power, the minority has finally gained a strong enough foothold amongst the populous to assert their right.
Racism today is seen as wrong but in the past it was seen as okay why? Because of power.
For example eating animals today is not seen as morally wrong by most people but in future it could be seen as being horrendously wrong.
Power is defined as the ability to successfully defend one's own interests. For example if you have a sword and a shield the sword is more powerful if it can break the shield and the shield is more powerful if it can stop the shield.
Stealing and murder are only wrong because the people who think it's wrong are collectively more powerful than those who think it's right.
So in summary morality is literally a powers game.
Morality shifts when
A) an individual gains more power
B) A society gains more power
C) Minorities gain more power
So for example (and I'm not against it) for years people though homosexuality was wrong now seen as being right, why because of power, the minority has finally gained a strong enough foothold amongst the populous to assert their right.
Racism today is seen as wrong but in the past it was seen as okay why? Because of power.
For example eating animals today is not seen as morally wrong by most people but in future it could be seen as being horrendously wrong.
Power is defined as the ability to successfully defend one's own interests. For example if you have a sword and a shield the sword is more powerful if it can break the shield and the shield is more powerful if it can stop the shield.
Stealing and murder are only wrong because the people who think it's wrong are collectively more powerful than those who think it's right.
So in summary morality is literally a powers game.
Comments (86)
Take this for example:
Quoting Gitonga
When you say that "the minority has finally gained a strong enough foothold" aren't you really just saying that what was once a minority view is now a majority view? Or are you saying that most people still believe that homosexuality is wrong but that the minority who accept it are able to "force" their morality on the majority (whatever that would mean)?
For example there was the period in time when Christianity had power over most people therefore it asserted its view that homosexuality is wrong
However now Christianity has lost its power in favour to democracy and freedom therefore more people are willing to support non religious views that support freedom. Therefore the individual has been given more freedom to deviate from religious dogma
Hence why I'm saying objectively it is not right or wrong nothing is. It doesn't matter what anyone's (or any societies) moral view is its whether they have the power to back up their view or not.
That doesn't follow. A Christian theocracy may enforce the view that the Earth is the centre of the universe and ~6,000 years old but the facts are otherwise. That the popular opinion changes over time given the opinion of those with power isn't that there is no objective right or wrong.
Tell me how can you prove something is objectively right or objectively wrong morally speaking outside of one's opinion?
I know that's what you're saying, but your argument doesn't show this. Your conclusion that morality isn't objective doesn't follow from your claim that power determines the popular moral opinion.
Quoting Gitonga
You're shifting the burden of proof. If you want to argue that morality isn't objective then you need to set out the premises that lead to this conclusion. It isn't enough just to say that I can't prove that morality is objective.
So that's the premise to my conclusion, now you have to counter it by providing a case where morality can exist outside of one's opinion.
It still doesn't follow. You need to show that if there are objective moral facts then the success of a moral position isn't determined by the power behind it. You haven't even suggested that as a premise, let alone shown it to be true.
You can see morality of a person in a number of ways. Inner and outer bio-markers, for example, are sets of objective material to study.
The science for actual morality in a person is, of course, psychology, and one instrument is fMRI.
During interviews over morality, there are 5 different methods of objective lie-detection.
1. Polygraph
2. Mimicry including eye-dilation
3. Voice-stress analysis
4. fMRI
5. Near-infra red analysis for blood flow in the face
+ other, such a quantum testing, OR gate testing of claims.
True, corrupt power can distort investigation, but proper time span makes it certain that truth is acquired in the end.
Moral Reality by Paul Bloomfield supports my view of objective morality in nature. I mean, come on, people less of personal morality are monsters and no amount of corrupt power can make them moral people like that.
You argued this:
P1. The strength or success of a moral position is determined by the power behind it
C. Therefore, there are no objective moral facts
This argument is invalid; the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. You need this as a second premise:
P2. If the strength or success of a moral position is determined by the power behind it then there are no objective moral facts
This can be rephrased (via transposition) to:
P2. If there are objective moral facts then the strength or success of a moral position is not determined by the power behind it.
You need to assert P2 (in either form) for your argument to be valid, and also support it if you want to convince me.
And you've not mentioned how power of knowledge contradicts my statement
With the sword I was giving an example of a sword vs a shield.. You're comparing apples to oranges. I'm not comparing maths to a sword because they don't have similar opposing goals. The comparison only works in that way
That might can (and does) enforce obedience isn't that might makes right.
But you're not. All you seem to be saying is that those in power have the might to enforce their moral opinions on others. Yet somehow you conclude from this that there are no objective moral facts and that this enforced moral opinion is all there is to morality. It doesn't follow.
You need to show me how you get from "those in power enforce their moral opinion on others" to "there are no objective moral facts".
You're saying that but you haven't argued it. You're just asserting the unrelated claims "those in power enforce their moral opinion on others" and "there are no objective moral facts". The first doesn't entail the second. You need to set out the premises that allow you to conclude that there are no objective moral facts.
I don't have to. You're shifting the burden of proof. You created this discussion to argue that there are no objective moral facts but you haven't actually done that. You've just asserted it without evidence.
Michael, I suspect you may have deleted my post here. In another thread where I participate, you mentioned deleting posts for various reasons.
"FYI, I've deleted some posts that were just insults and any posts that replied to them (as they won't make sense anymore). Please refresh the page so that you don't waste time replying to a post that has been deleted as your replies will just be deleted as well."
Why did you delete mine here?
It was important...and said something that should be said whenever the question of power is being discussed. Just because a meme is part of the culture as a result of television history does not make invaluable...nor inappropriate.
Tim Wood above mentions, "I hold that there is "power" in knowledge..."
That post of mine went directly to that.
I would like your permission to re-post that clip.
.
Not necessarily. When discussing deep philosophy one has to start from a position of ignorance not that of popular opinion.
Sure morality is subjective but your argument is circular, the ability to influence public opinion is power and you say public opinion is influenced by power.
Yes it is all opinion. You claim to like definitions... so what is your definition of 'right'?
It's indicative of a failure to undertake a well-formed analysis.
That someone is powerful does not imply that what they do is right.
Even if one supposes that there is no such thing as objectively good or evil, it does not follow that there is no such thing as good or evil, per se.
Edit: approaches this.
Worship thread. Be like me posting about how God is real and wonderful on a religious forum.
What are you asking? An opposing argument or debate? Sure. No. Because, gawd. Lol.
Really ok. So. Imagine you when you were six years old. Or younger or older or even now it really doesn't matter.
Answer the following questions for me please.
Would you prefer me to...
Starve you or feed you?
Let you feel like you're dying of thirst or give you something to drink?
Allow you to be exposed to dangerous heat and cold or ensure you're comfortable?
Stab you in the neck or rub it?
Insult you for no reason or compliment you?
Deprive you of education or teach you?
Take something you care about from you or give you something wonderful?
...you can say whatever and act however you please now. But at a young age, you would either cry or frown or instead smile and be delighted.
You can call this intrinsic and ingrained sense raw biologic mechanics with no purpose beyond petty survival and primal pleasure. Or. You could call it morality.
Maybe its not a circular argument, but instead an indication of a feedback loop.
Public opinion creates power which in turn creates public opinion which creates more power..... like a whirlpool, it sucks people in.
The open question remains:
Might public opinion be morally wrong?
Hence, what is good is not the same as what is public opinion.
The open question remains:
Might it be wrong to give Gitonga what they needs=?
Hence, what is good is not the same as what Gitonga needs.
Do you conclude that it is not morally correct to look after the mentally ill?
I suspect not.
Hence, what society prefers is not the very same as what is good.
A pretty much useless statement.
It's a difference in direction of fit. The chemist seeks to change what he says so as to match how things are. In Ethics, we seek to change the world to match what we say.
But if you were not interested in ethics, why bother to post?
And if your point is that it is action that countess... well, yes...
I only posted to express my pessimism about morality. If I really wanted a serious debate about ethics I would have posted something more substantial. That's all I wanted to say. I apologize for your time; Carry on.
An opinion cannot be 'morally wrong'.
'Good' cannot be equivalent to 'public opinion'.
It's actually worse. A naturalistic fallacy is at least an argument, if an invalid one.
The Op is simply a truism. Michael was correct when he said that all the OP said was that people believe what people believe, and the more power a belief has among the people, the more power it has.
We know what we know because we think what we think.
Slaves (which were as diverse as the day is long) were often from civilizations, nation states, or groups essentially that were "defeated" by neighboring groups. Often of the same geography. You have people who hate you and will never listen to you and will try to kill you. So what do you do? Two options. Space and resources were limited then as they are now. You make the sale or you make space. Think of an animal shelter. Needless to say those who purchased slaves, especially by those from a society that valued morality knew the fate they spared them from and logically felt no guilt. I mean, would you rather be slaughtered by people who destroyed everything you know or live with others who did and do nothing but take care of you in exchange for labor?
Group A and Group B separately trekked from parts unknown to uninhabited yet nearby forests. Each group, through their blood, sweat, and tears manage to make each area a tolerable and sometimes even pleasant home. Shortly after the two groups make contact and after some time one starts to gradually steal, kill, and destroy the other in a subtle, insidious way until they are handicapped militarily. If the victim topples the other group in spite of that, is that bad? What if they do so but you found out I was lying and the victims were really the oppressors who already had control of their educational system and knowledge of history basically.
It's a real pickle.
However, the crucial question is this: why is there a shift in power? [Why are the powerful supporting anti-racists, the LGBT community, and so on?]
Before you answer the question, a small tidbit: there's a difference between something being good/bad and knowing that that something is good/bad. The shifting moral landscape I referred to is not due to a lack of moral objectivitiy in the sense that, as you put it, nothing is good or bad but due to not knowing what is good and bad.
Why not? Is the opinion that slavery is OK not wrong?
Quoting A Seagull
Yep. Hence, the failure of the OP's conjecture.
But everyone knows that views on morality are historically contingent. That's not news. Now we could go into an analysis of just how that process works, and whether there is some permanent "core morality", and that would at least be an interesting discussion.
Quoting Outlander
I am not sure what you're talking about. Who are the "others" here?
Quoting Outlander
I get the feeling this is some weird allusion to modern day
This hits the nail on the head. Something is done by using the terms 'good' and 'evil'. The task of moral philosophy is to clarify what that might be. The OP attempts to say that what is being done with those terms is to refer to what the most powerful decree. Three minutes spent in a pub conversation with a bunch of radical socialists will disabuse anyone of that notion. So time to move on...next suggestion.
We are born enslaved. To helplessness and ignorance. Which dissipates some, usually. Beyond that there is hunger, thirst, exposure, injury, disease, and insanity.
You take care of these for me I'll take care of you. Not much more to it.
I mentioned how it should. What hurts you and why? Empathy is the cure for the cancer that is indifference.
The "others" are anyone not part of the aforementioned group that was described.
That's nice. It's a direct reference to a fictional yet plausible example where the title of the OP is proven to have merit. The argument or parts of it may be flawed and meritless but it is not without ideas that aren't.
It pleases me that you could see the import: the irrelevance of the word objective.
I agree with the sentiment but I think that particular example of a "disproof" is lacking. Can I really dismiss divine command theory by noting that there are people who claim that God is evil?
No, but we might get significant grounds for dismiss divine command theory from the Euthyphro.
These are interesting attempts at a reductio ad absurdum. Let's say that one argues that to be right is to be approved of by the majority. You might attempt to counter this by asking if the proponent of such a theory is willing to accept that murder is right if it is approved of by the majority. But what exactly is it you're asking here? If, for the sake of argument, we're accepting the truth of the theory (and considering its implications), you're just asking if they're willing to accept that murder is approved of by the majority if it is approved of by the majority, which as a truism is always going to be accepted by any rational person.
But that's certainly not your intention. You don't mean to just ask if they are willing to accept that murder is approved of by the majority if it is approved of by the majority. You mean something else by asking if they are willing to accept that murder is right if it is approved of by the majority. In which case your very question presupposes a different account of morality and so isn't really a reductio ad absurdum at all.
I think what this shows is that we have some pre-conceived notion of what it means to be moral and are arguing over what makes something moral. As an example, perhaps our pre-conceived notion is that to be immoral is to be something that we ought not do, and we're arguing over whether or not the majority opinion establishes the things that we ought not do. tim's question above then becomes "are you willing to accept that we ought be allowed to murder if the majority approves of murder?" which prima-facie isn't a truism and can be rejected by a rational person.
Yes I think you could, but @Banno beat me to the method. I think you'd be able to tell the divine command theorist that they're using the word 'evil' incorrectly in a language game which includes non-command-theorists.
Maybe I didn't word myself clearly. If John tells me that "good" refers to what God condones and "evil" refers to what God condemns, can I tell him that he must be wrong because Mary says that God has condoned evils?
That seems to be the approach you took above. Gitonga tells us that "good" refers to what the powerful condone and "evil" refers to what the powerful condemn, but the radical socialists at the pub say that the powerful condone evil, and so therefore Gitonga is wrong.
I don't think either work as a sufficient rebuttal. I could always invert this and say that Mary and the radical socialists must be wrong given what John and Gitonga say.
Yep, I think you could. We can't avoid the fact that Mary thinks John is wrong and John thinks Mary is wrong. That is a state of affairs which we have to account for. So either one of three thing must be the case, it seems...
1. There's some state whose referencial connection with the word 'evil' has been somehow set by an authority other than the language community.
2. The word 'evil' is used in only one correct sense and either John or Mary does not know what that sense is despite apparently being fluent in the language otherwise.
3. The word 'evil' is used in different senses within different language games and so, like applying the rules of chess to a game of draughts, a person is simply mistaken if they use it in the sense of one game whilst partaking in another.
I can't see what the authority would be in (1),nor how we'd assign it, (2) seems to leave us with no means of judging which is the correct sense, so that leaves us with (3),which make either John or Mary wrong, depending on the language game they're playing.
3) would seem to suggest that meta-ethics is a wasted endeavour. There is no one correct answer to what it means to be moral as we don't all mean the same thing when we talk about what is or isn't moral.
I can only tell you what I mean by it (as best as I understand what it is I'm trying to say when I make moral claims, which admittedly I don't really).
Not wasted necessarily, but at times misguided, like much of philosophy. I think there's a lot valuable met-ethical discussion about the kinds of things we mean by 'good' and 'evil', accepting a variety is not the same thing as throwing our hands up and saying "well it could mean anything!"... It could, but it doesn't, so there's still some value in the study.
How would we approach it then? We look at what John says about morality and we look at what Mary says about morality, recognise that they're incompatible, and then what? Is there some meaning shared by both the divine command theorist and the "God-is-evil" proponent? Maybe the "one ought do this and not do this" notion that I brought up earlier?
Well, for one we could do exactly the same work within those incompatible approaches as we were going to do inclusively. Divine command theorists, I presume, still have some job of work to do regarding exactly what God did or did not command.
Quoting Michael
Shared meaning, maybe, but I'm not so sure myself about "one ought do this and not do this". If 'evil' universally means "one ought do this and not do this", then how would one answer the question "why ought I not to do that?". One is now prevente, oon pain of circularity, from answering "because it's evil".
I think this is the fundamental problem of morality. One of these must be true:
1. That something is evil just is that one ought not do it, in which case we need to explain why we ought not do something (and we can't refer back to it being evil as that would be circular)
2. That something is evil entails that we ought not do it, in which case we need to explain why we ought not do evil (and we can't claim that we ought not do evil by definition; see 1.)
3. That something is evil and that we ought not do something are unconnected issues (or at least not necessarily connected), in which case we need to explain the practical significance of right and wrong and dismiss our usual claim that we ought not do something because it's evil.
Can they not all be true? Does 'evil' have to pick out the same one thing each time it's used?
Notwithstanding, each one clearly still has questions, as your analysis shows. In each case I think both societal norms and personal feelings need to be invoked.
In (1), why ought we do/avoid certain actions without reference to evil, is best answered by some kind of 'prosperity of the group' metric. But where groups are aberrant to what we individually feel, we want to reserve the ability to cry foul, so it's a kind of negotiation between the individual and the culture they belong to. Very analogous to the way law works. We accept the judgement of past generations, but reserve the right to alter it.
In (2), we need a religion of sort (which I see as the same thing as culture, being an atheist). I can only see some form of disinterested punishment playing the role of the reason not to do evil. Anything more internal would count as a reason under (1). I can see a role for psychology here, if we still fear the punishment of our parents for our misdemeanours, we might have a reason not to do evil (even if there's no 'real' punishment looming).
(3) I see as only understandable as a kind of combination of (1) and (2),but maybe I've not quite understood what you're getting at.
So it seems morality is inextricably tied up with psychology and culture.
So when we talk about morality/being obligated to do/not do something, we're just talking about hypothetical imperatives with a goal to better the group?
By "why ought we not do evil?" I wasn't asking for a motivation to not do evil but asking how we get from "X is evil" to "therefore we ought not do X".
Quoting Isaac
If we can't explain how we get from "X is evil" to "therefore we ought not do X" then we need to stop saying "X is evil therefore we ought not do X" and we need to explain why it matters if X is evil or not. If it doesn't dictate how I ought behave then what relevance does the fact that X is evil have?
Yeah, to a large extent. I think we need this factor in the equation, we simply can't explain the astonishing correlation otherwise between most morals and group cooperation. But cultures can piggyback off this general picture to instill all sorts of off-message imperatives. Like a hammer is mainly for driving nails, but occasionally it's used to break a window. Doesn't mean it was ever designed to break windows.
Quoting Michael
I'm not sure I understand the distinction you're drawing here. Some behaviour X is 'evil', but under your definition (2) our reason for labelling it thus cannot be because we ought not to do it. We cannot ignore the fact that we nonetheless ought not to do it, because that is a consistent property of things labelled 'evil'. So to make the possibility coherent, we must have some reason we ought not do X, other than simply that that's the definition of 'evil'.
Yet if we invoke something like 'it damages the welfare of your group', I think that would (in rational people) just constitue something one ought not to do anyway, regardless of the label 'evil'. So by this means we can't explain why we ought not to do evil, under (2). I can't make sense of 'ought not to do' without some negative consequence, I don't know what 'ought' would mean without some negative consequence should you do otherwise. So we're looking for a negative consequence that isn't already in your own best interests (because that would mean evil is just what one evidently ought not to do). Religious punishment is the only option I can think of. God decrees something is 'evil', but it's not something which you simply ought not to do anyway (that would make his decree pointless. Yet to answer your question there needs to be some reason why we care what God decrees. So punishment. Had God not declared it evil, X would have no negative consequences (hence 'evil' is not just that which we ought not to do anyway), but having declared it 'evil' we now, post hoc, ought not to do X because if we do we shall be punished.
All of which I think answers your last query too.
So are you saying that in a world without God then we can't have moral obligation?
No, only under your (2) and (3). Where 'evil' just is 'that which we ought not to do', your (1), we don't need an external reason to not do it, and so no external source of punishment is required.
If might was so right all would still be rules by might, but to the opposite... Today, we go to great lengths to win people's hearts and minds by being excellent in terms of democracy, human rights and general progress. If you travel to North Korea, does your head turn by the fact that you're under North Korean control? No! They are considered backwards, many challenges such as fighting starvation and keeping its people healthy. Now, what about the Vikings and gunpowder? In many ways, the Vikings were backwards too, by their barbaric ways, finally christened long after the continental others, like Germany and France.
Norway has been dominated 3 times by Sweden and Denmark combined. The Norwegians travelled to Copenhagen to get a university education, among many other things.
Not necessarily. Not if the opinion is genuinely held. The merits or otherwise of slavery depend to a large degree on the social, economic and technological situation of time and place.
Your judgement that slavery is 'wrong' is your opinion.
Maybe it's not circular but what I meant to say is that power is not only created by public opinion but the ability to sway public opinion must be defined as power.
1. OP says "Power determines morality"
2. The ability to influence the hearts & minds of or mobilise the population is definitely a form of power.
3. If you can influence or mobilise public opinion to change whats moral then you must have power
The kind of power that influences morality can't be separated from how compelling the arguments are. If you take away those who follow and agree with the individual/groups who have gained power then they have lose all of their power. If their power is just "people agree with me" then it seems like that's the important thing. OP is just labelling a range of complex motivations as power and then saying "power determines morality".
I came across this quote recently, despite being written some 250 years ago it is still relevant today and to this thread.:
'Opinion rules the world, but in the long run it is the philosophers who shape this opinion' - Rousseau.
Quoting A Seagull
I find it hard to see any truth in that. How and where does opinion rule the world? And where’s the proof that philosophers shape that opinion?
I'm not very much into hypotheticals, but I will try to answer your question.
I would not say that you 'don't have a right'.
If the horrible thing a person has done is against the law of the land, and I lived in a non-corrupt democracy then I might report the incident to the appropriate authorities.
If it is not against the law of the land then I have some options:
!. I could ignore it in a stoic way.
2. Retaliate in a way that would make the 'horrible action' a net loss for the person.
3. Try to persuade the person that such horrible actions were not in their best interest.
I would not consider that arguing about somewhat abstract rights and wrongs would be a productive course of action.
Do you always agree with the views of those in power? Do you automatically change your opinions as the dominant forces in society change? Would you have been against homosexuality if you had lived a hundred years ago? If so, why don’t you think homosexuality is wrong now? (If that’s your opinion.) If you were consistent, you wouldn’t have had an opinion about anything since you claim to have seen through the insincere origin of right and wrong.
If I decided to murder someone just for fun, would you condemn me? I hope you would, but how could a murder really upset you if you knew you were just copying the attitude of the powerful? Why do you have to support them? They are certainly doing fine without you.
No, I don’t believe you. You really think murder is wrong, and if the authorities of your country were to make it legal tomorrow, you would still think it is wrong. Or are you saying that your feelings have been so thoroughly molded by the powers above you that you can’t follow your own reason? You just feel that murder is wrong, but you don’t think so?
Don’t you have your own sense of what is right and wrong?
Also you haven't captured the switching of power accurately in your depiction because you're not measuring the correct level of power/influence of the people involved.
Like let's say you have 33 presidents that all had one moral view, would the power of the 34th incumbent be enough to change public opinion if it was contrary? Nope but if the subsequent 34 presidents supported this new moral view then of course the view would change
On homosexuality my point is, if you were born in a Greek society it would be seen as okay however if you were born in a 19th century Christian society it would be wrong. You see there's no objectivity here it's just boils down to what each society wants, how many people want it and if they have the power/ influence to enforce it.
Let me ask you, does an individuals moral view matter if it's contrary to what society thinks? And if it does matter how can you validate it?
For the murder I'm saying it goes much deeper than that.. There's also how we murder and who we murder. Is abortion wrong? What about euthenasia? Lethal force? Capital punishment?what about animals, do you see how all these factors have no meaning on their own but are purely determined by what the majority of people think? How can you prove something is right if you're the only one that believes it? Doesn't it boil down to mass belief which is determined by power and influence.
You do this by influencing public opinion or those in power. While it's true that we can critique the morality of public opinion or those in power, if we want the world to be more moral, then we have to change one or both.
Problem is, what makes it "more moral"? That you're able to persuade people? Because as you pointed out, morality isn't like chemistry. Chemistry forces the scientist to adjust their language to coincide with the facts. But ethics is trying to persuade people to change their moral valuation. Which can differ depending on the ethicist.
Unlike with chemistry, there is no agreed upon fact to determine what people should value. Take equality versus freedom. Which is more valuable when they come into conflict? Depends on who you ask.
Depends dude. Depends. Think of it this way:
Some things are morally absolute and some things are morally relative...
Sometimes I do this by lending a hand to the blind. It's not all big stuff. And yes we do disagree, and without a clear method to resolve our differences. That's what makes it interesting.
I don't think it's quit as different as you're making it out. People make a lot of hoopla about the "facts" in science, and yet we still have flat-earthers, climate change deniers, young-earthers, intelligent design theorists, alchemists, astrologists, etc. Furthermore, what was accepted as scientific "fact" 100 years ago (let alone 500 years ago) is now reckoned as falsehood. And yet these considerations don't prompt most of us to abandon science as hopelessly subjective. That's because there is tangible progress in the sciences, but I'd argue the same can be said of ethics, even taking into account the horrors of the 20th century. How many of us would prefer to live in an ancient democracy, a medieval absolute monarchy or a contemporary communist dictatorship? Are we not justified in reckoning the moral underpinnings of some societies tangibly inferior to others?
Then whence apostates?
Dictates is a poor choice here. One choses one's religion, even if one does so by not changing one's mind.
That is, there is a logical error in your OP that you have not addressed. See my previous posts.
It’s easy to observe that the general moral view of society is often in harmony with the view of those in power. That could be a chicken and egg observation, though. No doubt it goes both ways: the opinion of the powerful is reflected by the general social morality as well as vice versa.
But let’s suppose you are right, and it only goes in one direction. You observe that your fellow citizens mostly accept the view of the powerful and you call that right. How about yourself then? Do you always accept the ethical viewpoints of your authorities? If you answer yes even though you have seen through it all, it means that you really don’t have any morality and you can’t criticize anyone who live under other authorities. Why would it be wrong to own slaves, for instance, if the laws of one’s country accepted it? If you answer no, you acknowledge that there is a morality independent of the powerful since you yourself use another standard.
Quoting Gitonga
It certainly matters to me what kind of morality a person has, but validate it? I don’t expect the laws of any country to be in full harmony with any ethical standard. Law and morality are two different things. I just hope that the laws will not be too far removed from good ethics, but most of all I hope as many people as possible will act morally whether that means following the laws and customs or breaking them.