Sign into an existing account

Things are made moral or immoral by whatever most people will say, if most will say that X is moral, then it is moral, if most will say that X is immoral, then it is immoral.

Might makes right because with might you can manipulate this consensus on morality - you can make something evil by punishing those who do it, and making those who support the punished action fall under suspicion.

Similarly, you can use power to make something good, such as mandating human sacrifice, as some among those in the centre and south of the Americas had.

Good and evil is whatever the prevalent culture believes it to be, and it changes as the culture does, not everyone is in agreement, and those who disagree can overtake the rest of society to alter the moral standards it's people will operate under.

Morality changes with incentives, as the threats and rewards of different actions change, so does the morality of these actions, some acts are evil only by the virtue of there being a punishment for doing them, some acts are good only because those who do them are rewarded, even if the reward is only being regarded more positively for their deeds.

If morality is a value judgement and up to personal preference, then whatever is most generally preferred is whatever is most moral, and whatever is most generally disliked is whatever is most immoral.

Everyone has their own moral values, and there's likely to be some overlap, put them together and you get a sort of consensus on the most common sense of moral righteousness is, and this morality is what is found at the foundation of the culture that itself serves as the basis for the religion and politics of a society.

Regardless of its form or source, the use of power can manipulate the expressions of preferences among people, making them more or less likely to express like or dislike for different activities (slavery, for example). Power is not just force, it could also be control, or the sum of both parts.

This is a very pragmatic view of morality, cynical, but not necessarily pessimistic, in fact it's quite useful, and with its utility there's the capacity for good (whatever good is to you).

Look at heroes and villains, the hero is good because in our world we will most likely express agreement with his actions and statements (if we say anything of them at all), the villain is evil because we would express our disapproval with his actions and statements if we say anything about them.

Jesus Christ is regarded as good because we mostly find ourselves in agreement with his words and deeds, the pharisee and romans both are seen as villains because of what we see and hear from them being generally disagreeable to us.

Even though his story ends with what is largely regarded as a loss, we still see him as a hero because of how his morality resonates with our own.

Our dominant culture largely aligns with him at this point in time, and it contrasts with that of a pharisee and the romans.

The morality of a hero or villain reflects the values of the culture that they emerged from, the standards outside the story determine those found within.

It's a rare event when the work expresses a moral view that is different to tbat of its society, and in those cases, the story fails on its time, but may find itself enshrined as a great classic as the cultural standards shift, typically in those cases, the work was either a harbinger of the change to come, or more rarely, the cause of the shift in morality.

Threats and insults are a great way of getting people to fall in line without the need for physical force, contact, or even proximity. Humans are programmed to fit in, so expressions of disapproval are an effective way to impose values on others. It can be a general insult, or one that appeals to the value specific specific the in group using fear of rejection on the misfit individual.