You didnt apply "my logic" correctly, and humans are not without error which is why you see some cultures consider immoral things...moral. You just proved it.Because Death leads to greater Human Suffering and effects more people than Adultery does. Adultery is also immoral. Also immoral, is punishments that cause more harm than the crimes.I think you read past what I actually said.The conceptualization of Morals came from Man's sentience.
Cause and effect, which is basically what morals are as they pertain to a goal, come from Nature.
A concept is not a universal moral. You have said that specific acts are universally immoral. But those acts clearly have been held as moral in societies past and perhaps present. If morals are just behavior of humanity, then acts held as moral by one individual can't be universal. A universal moral has to come from without.
Which, btw, is why I see all morality as subjective and not universal.
Morals are merely the NAME we gave to cause and effect when we conceptualized them...the same way we gave "two" a name. "Two" is just a concept, but that which it describes actually, objectively exists.
Cause and effect, that which morals describe, objectively exist.
What folks CONSIDER moral and not is irrelevant to the outcome that Nature gives to their behaviors. Gives not meaning as in like an Agent "gives," by the way.
Ok. Then why is stoning for infidelity universally immoral?
Not to be crass, but so what? A village isn't just a group of people, it is the way in which people survive. Alone a person is weak. In a village people become top of the food chain. Adultery causes friction within the village and stoning is a method to prevent adultery. So stoning John and Jenny is, by your logic, the only moral move.
Your job as a human being is to create children and keep them alive long enough to create other children. If you find a little happiness, that is a nice sidebar. But it is in no way necessary to your job.
Correct...evolution's guiding force is Reproduction. Suffering is anti-thetical to that, which is why we conceptualized a way to describe the way that behaviors effect suffering. We call that "Morality," but Im happy to call it bacon or something when it makes people uncomfortable.
Morals are not some magical thing which actually exist. They're conceptions of how behaviors effect us. When suffering is measurable, Morality ~ i.e. the measurement of how a behavior effects suffering, is objective.
That some cultures come up with the wrong answers doesnt mean that Morality is thus magically subjective...it means they measured wrong.