A moral system is a set of rules, internally consistent (insofar as it is a system) and designed to inform all social instiututions, such as laws, government itself, religion, commercial arrangements, and the interaction of individuals within social groups, where other explicit rules do not apply. It’s purpose is to standardise the basis for these explicit rules.
This system is invariably the result of a social contract, broadly defined. The moral values of any group do not precede the social contract, but are the result of it. The moral values are these rules themselves, adopted for the purpose of obtaining a general regulative value - this is an extramoral value.
The need for regulative values is, in turn, created by social institutions themselves. These institutions precede moral values. They are created for extramoral reasons. Thus, morality has as its source broader social entities. The desire for durable social institutions creates the need for morality. What creates the desire for durable social institutions is another subject.
“Right” and "wrong’, then, are contigent values. Contingent, ultimately, on extramoral social considerations. A “good” morality is not one that serves “good”, but one that serves the social exigencies of the group that adopts it.
Hi. gem. It is not relativism, although that is a common misunderstanding. It is a kind of perspectivism that I call contextualism. “Collection of mores” is okay by me. I am trying to remove metaphysics from morality, so if my premises seem a bit mundane, that is intentional. There is no “bad” BUT the socially bad - society defines good and bad. The is no a priori good or bad. That is my point.
That sounds reasonable to me… although I’m not sure that we can exclusively define good and bad by their effect on society. I think that good and bad ought, at least partially, to rest with their subjects/victims.
For example, that which hurts an individual for the benefit of society isn’t automatically right because its good for society.
Gem - if you mean this as an example of utilitarianism, I agree. But you are being a bit unspecific for me to know. Society could simply adopt the value you champion here, though. Rights are allowed, but not mandatory. In the U. S, in theory, majority rules, but the rights of minorites are protected against that majority rule. It’s a rights-based system, moreso as time passes. The system of social justice here has evolved. That’s okay. We have here a system that uses several divergent precepts toward gaining justice. It’s an ad hoc approach, but is often misconstrued as a natural rights system. I’m all for ad hoc approaches.
The salient feature of your example is the word “automatically”. Nothing should be “automatic”. You’re correct, I think. Every value should be examined. In this country, at least, they haven’t been. But there is no doubt that “victims” are a part of society. My formulation is, thus far, general (read: vague) enough to allow for them, too.