I think in that case "morality" boils down to how each individual answers the question, "what can I get away with?"
Otherwise we have to assume -- either explicitly or tacitly -- the existence of some transcendent moral order that makes it "wrong" do do certain things even if we can get away with them.
If you look back through this thread, you'll notice that by and large people are assuming that such a transcendent moral order does, indeed, exist.
Some folks, such as the good general offer a middle ground, corresponding to a general assent among people as to what they will or will not tolerate. This falls short in a couple of ways, though.
First off, there's not a whole lot to separate "general assent" from mob rule, and in a moral system based on "general assent," it's difficult to say that mob rule is actually wrong, as opposed to merely distasteful. For example, if we abide by general assent, it's difficult to find legitimate grounds for complaint when the Third Reich undertakes to gas the Jews.
But of course, we just know that it's wrong to gas the Jews, regardless of the fact that it enjoyed general assent. In that vein, general_re has also referred to "an innate sense of morality" which could potentially moderate the urge to mob rule.
But again, this is an appeal to some transcendant moral order. It could be an evolved trait -- "Moral DNA", if you will. But as Diamond points out, it appears that "morality" will have lost its meaning in the context of this conversation. If it's an evolutionary thing, morality becomes a matter of random mutation! At any rate, this idea of "moral DNA" is really just the biochemical equivalent of "what can I get away with?"
Which apparently leaves us to pin this "innate sense of morality" on some non-physical phenomenon. This leads us directly to a consideration of moral authority. Must I bow to a purported moral authority if I "don't believe in" the non-physical phenomenon from which it allegedly springs?
Obviously not: if this non-physical phenomenon is merely a made-up concept, then the "innate sense of morality" reduces to a matter of personal belief and moral relativism.
If the "innate sense of morality" is to have authority, it has to be valid even if we do not believe in it. Appeals to general assent don't really work here (they lead to a circular argument); nor does the idea of "moral DNA (who's to say this isn't just a potentially successful "moral mutation?").
Instead, it seems that moral authority comes only if the source of this innate sense is truly transcendent -- some entity or property of nature that can somehow differentiate between right and wrong and, more importantly, enforce the difference in some manner. The "property of nature" approach seems weak, in that it does not easily explain how a Pharaoh can "get away with it" until he dies at a ripe old age.
Which leaves an entity, coupled with some different concept of what "life" is.
True. On the other hand, proceeding in the opposite direction, and depending on who you ask, it's difficult to say that the divine right of kings is actually wrong, rather than merely distasteful. I note with some amusement that there is a certain contingent of posters here on FR who proudly proclaim themselves to be out-and-out monarchists - apparently even the distastefulness of it is still the subject of some discussion ;)
But again, this is an appeal to some transcendant moral order. It could be an evolved trait -- "Moral DNA", if you will. But as Diamond points out, it appears that "morality" will have lost its meaning in the context of this conversation. If it's an evolutionary thing, morality becomes a matter of random mutation!
Not purely so - social conventions don't simply spring forth sui generis, fully-formed and ready to roll, with no essential grounding in reality. Avoiding pork and shellfish in Bronze Age societies may very well be an eminently practical decision, although the mixing of two kinds of cloth thing always seemed like a bit of a curveball to me ;)
At any rate, this idea of "moral DNA" is really just the biochemical equivalent of "what can I get away with?"
But as I suggested before, so is any other conception of morality a weighing of potential benefits against potential consequences - the existence of God and transcendent morality only serves to throw a bit more weight against whatever immoral act you are considering, and then only if you accept some specific premises to begin with, more specific than simply "God and objective morality exist." There has to be some specific sense of agreement on what exactly God actually said and what exactly He actually meant - agreement that, in the most optimistic view, does not appear to be forthcoming any time soon among the various Christian denominations, let alone the other two-thirds of the world. The posters here on FR are less ideologically diverse than the population of the country as a whole, or the world as a whole, and yet I seriously doubt that you could get general assent in the religion forum to anything beyond the broadest of moral tenets - once you get beyond the obvious notions of murder and theft being wrong, things are likely to get a little hairy.
The "property of nature" approach seems weak, in that it does not easily explain how a Pharaoh can "get away with it" until he dies at a ripe old age.
Neither does transcendent morality explain how he can get away with it until the day he dies - it merely suggests that he has interests beyond that day which are not served by doing as he does. And even if we grant that such transcendent morality actually exists, what then are we to make of the countless Pharaohs throughout history who "got away with it" until they finally expired after a long and successful life of tyranny and debauchery? The existence of such transcendent moral proscriptions does not appear to have precluded the existence of Pharaohs....