I agree. Societies, as well as their circumstances, change. And their moral codes do with them. Not all features of society or codes change at the same time or rate. We see friction between generations, for example, because of this.
This is largely why I don’t see “morality” as being objective, even if some features of moral codes are very widely held.
I agree that any moral code is not an ultimate authority. But within any society, their moral code functions as if it were ultimate, because the society itself enforces its code. And it does this at every possible level.
Mitchellmckain, did you have something different in mind, when you pointed out that “it is not an ultimate authority?”
This is a good point. There are many examples we could point to of psychological harm caused by societal expectations. However, those were not always seen as harmful by society at large.* I have in mind, for example, societal and religious expectations related to gender norms that have been codified as morality. The changing, wider understanding of non-male humans as normal humans intertwined with our society’s valuing of personal freedom have brought both friction and change in our society as well as our ever-changing moral codes.
There are countless areas where the concept of “acceptable harm” could be exposed, examined and criticized. Many, many have. And many have been considered acceptable by societies - ours included - in spite of measurable damage.
Part of what bothers us, though, is that our society values not causing harm. It’s a moral virtue to us. Yet, as we explore all sorts of outcomes (psychological, socio-economic, etc.) outcomes, we can see that societally, we embrace all sorts of harm and excuse them, attempt to justify them. Which brings me to @T_aquaticus’ point:
Societies have varioius moral ideals, which are not all uniform from group to group. Each group, though, recognizes moral changes as “better” as moral changes come closer to the group’s ideals.
If our society values universal individual freedom, cooperation and human flourishing (as opposed to harm), we will see as better moral changes that maximize those things for the members of our society. According to our subjective understanding of “universal individual freedom”; “cooperation”; and “human flourishing.”
<><><><><>
One of the things I find strange in discussions like this one, and there have been many around this and other fora, is the way discussions of atheism in contrast to Christianity so often turn to discussions about morality.
Why is this?
Do people view Christianity as simply or primarily a matter of moral code? This seems like a lifelessly anemic understanding of it.
<><><><><>
*Foucault’s book “Discipline and Punish” is one that I know of and need to read. It’s history of the concept of punishment throughout “the west” I think would add a lot to this discussion. The idea, for example of “paying one’s debt to society” has nothing to do with harm abatement; it is society’s delberate harm of a person in exchange for the harm the punished perpetrated.