Of course, we can all complain and ridicule the current moral code our society (neighbors) have adopted. We can opine how stupid and silly their moral code is and how we would write the code differently, but that is really only saying "My personal moral code is better and society would do well to adopt my values. By God." In short, it does no good to opine about the smartness or dumbness of society's rules. Doing so is only a theoretical argument. One must work to get the rules that one dislikes changed. It could happen. Society's code can change. It has happened before.
Another place we learn our moral code is through religion. I state the obvious. Religion is, more or less, one big moral code, and if one learns it from early childhood, one accepts it tenets, whether it be Islam or John Calvin's version of Christianity. Religion is more like society's rules, though, in that you HAVE to go by it's rules if you want to be a part of it. Religion is different than society in that you can't really change it; you can only leave.
There is a lot more I could say about morals and morality, but I would probably only start getting intrusive, and that isn't my intent in these posts. As usual, I only seek to research truth and to restate what I think I have found that truth to be, for my own benefit mostly.
Man cannot live in society without a moral code; he can't just go around doing as he pleases.
Allowing people to come CLOSE to doing as they think best is the best kind of society to live in, don't you think? As soon as I wrote the preceding sentence, I realized I don't really believe it; man needs structure and order to thrive, and sometimes that means a certain structure must be imposed upon us.
What are your own thoughts about that?
Do you believe that the moral code you have formulated for yourself, based on what you have learned so far in life, is the best moral code?
Do you agree that when you ridicule certain "dos and don'ts" that society tells us we must abide by, you are really only comparing them to your own set of values?
I personally believe one cannot judge the goodness or badness of a society's moral code without, at the same time, comparing that code to one's own personal moral code, and noting flaws or excellence - defined by how society deviates from our own personal values or how society is congruent with our personal values. I also think the exact same process takes place when an author creates a fictional character in a book: that fictional character has "good points and admirable qualities" only when those "good qualities" are in harmony with the author's true real-life code of morals; and the character can only have "bad or even despicable" qualities when those acts deviate from the author's personal view of what is good and acceptable. In other words, the author, without perhaps even thinking about it, defines what is bad behavior for the fictional character by contrasting it to personal definitions of "goodness and acceptable behavior" in the author's real life.
You think your morals are ambiguous? The dictionary tells me ambiguous means undefined or open to more than one interpretation.
I certainly believe a person can consciously refrain from judging the morals of other people (a lot of the time.) I certainly believe a person can have a very broad live-and-let-live personal moral code. But I also think that no matter how broad it is, it is still defined - else one day you could murder and rape without remorse, and the next day you would be horrified to do the same thing. And you would countenance horrible and hurtful acts by others, because you had no opinion on the subject.
I believe we all have a moral code. Some people's list is longer than others'. But what things, long or short, are on our list, they ARE defined.