Social effects come into relative interpretations which leads us again to preference and perspective.
I am still not following along with your reasoning.
No, social effects aren’t relative, they’re as concrete as it gets. If you screw your neighbor over, he’s more likely to screw his neighbor over, who is then more likely to screw his neighbor over, and if enough people screw eachother over, everyone is being screwed over! Therefore, the action of screwing your neighbor over has a negative social effect, in that it encourages others to do things (screw eachother over) that might negatively effect you in the future (someone will probably screw you over eventually). It damages you, through its effect on society. It’s not relative, it’s not open to interpretation. You can’t say, well, my interpretation of the act of screwing others over is that it won’t come back to bite me in the ass, and therefore this is true; the action of screwing your neighbor over will either damage you eventually, or it will not, no matter what you think it will do. And, it has been demonstrated, that screwing your neighbor over does indeed come back to bite you in the ass, so even if it happens to be your relative interpretation that the ass-biting won’t happen, it’s going to happen, interpretation be damned!
Do you follow me now? Do you have MSN? Maybe it would be easier to explain this real-time.
One can easily seperate themselves from society or make their own society should they come into conflict with others.
Yes it is. Society is not divine. It is not a monolith. Society is not absolute.
Believe it or not, beyond the television set where the so called “good” guy always gets his villainous perpetrator in actuality thousands of people go missing every year through nefarious ways and the perpetrator slips by into the stealth of shadows without ever being revealed.
Not everyone is caught. Consequences are not set in stone nor are they universally absolute.
They can be over turned like anything else.
No I do not.
What are you talking about, a single person, as is implied by “one”, or many, as is implied by “themselves” and “they”?
If you mean a single person, then no, he can’t separate from society and still enjoy the benefits of society.
If you mean a group of people, then sure they can, but they will still exist in a society, even if it’s their own little special one, and that means that screwing eachother over will still have the same negative effect.
Oh, so where did I say those things? I don’t even know what society being a monolith, or being absolute, would mean. What I said is that the social effects of moral and immoral actions are objective. Believing they aren’t there won’t make them go away.
Thousands of people every year get away. How many do you think get caught? 7 million inmates in the US, as of 2006. Gee, that’s 7000 to 1!
I’m not saying that an immoral action will always come back to bite you, just that it usually will, the same way you’ll usually lose at the lottery. If you look at doing immoral actions as taking a bet on whether the negative future effects of the action will outweigh the positive immediate benefit, you’re taking a bet that you’ll probably lose!
No, they are pretty damned well set in stone.
How about now?
Bump.
Bump for Joker and Realunorginal.
Yes, it is a generalization, but it still requires analysis of extremely specific contexts in order to validate the generalization it’s based on. For example, you see somebody drowning and so you impulsively calculate the reasons if you should save them (based on risk). If there is a high probability that both you and the person in trouble will die, then you do not take the risk. The problem here is that the generalization, the ethic, depends on the circumstances and not the other way around. This is the problem and confusion between ‘morals’ and ‘ethics’. For morals, validation rests on the generalization itself over the context, not the other way around.
Again, you’re confusing a ‘moral’ and an ‘ethic’.
Ethic: “You should (not) kill (a person?), because…”
Moral: “You should not kill a person, because it is wrong (or bad, or evil).”
You’d be surprised to learn how fast the brain calculates probabilities in a life-or-death situation. It is often not a matter of indecision, but that doesn’t mean that you are acting without reason. On the contrary, all the reasons were likely instantly recalled into your mind from prior experiences/beliefs/imaginations. You will make a quick decision or hesitate, but almost always, a person will react appropriately.
I disagree. Ethics can’t be taken out of context, at all, or you’ll have an error in arguing ethical decisions, reactions, and generalizations.
Again, I disagree. Nothing should be assumed to be “usually correct (yielding most benefit)”, because my point stands: all ethical generalizations depend on context, which means that their generalizations aren’t so general after all… 
No, I realize this. People have more access to education and scientific knowledge now. Because of sociology and psychology, people are more able to understand why and how people do what they do as individuals or as groups. And I think you’re making a hasty conclusion…
People were always aware of their emotions about killing, raping, and harming other people. It feels good, yet it comes with reluctance, because it’s human nature to empathize. However, the “pros” outweighed the “cons” by necessity. It wasn’t until the meek inherited the earth and labeled such actions as “bad” that this confusion began.
It depends on the context of course! 
Ok I responded! 
Where are you? 
So…much…trig homework.
Sorry man, can’t respond 'till Sunday.
Talk to you then.