Yes. I see why that might be inferred. But, the point was simply that might doesn't determine right or wrong, it facilitates.
I see, and I suppose I would have to agree on that. The only point I would make is we often decide what is right or wrong after the fact (when power has already dictated what will happen) or long before in abstraction as we are now (when power only exists in words). When tested, our moral compass is bent by time. We don't always have time to consider the relative righteousness of our actions. Afterwards, many are prone to rationalization and even spread such in effort to gain validation. Of course, many are also prone to deep self-reflection, honesty and humility after the fact and even spread
that in an effort to gain validation. Both gaining the justification of their peers in one way or another. When you have the justification of your peers, what you end up with is power even if that isn't your actual goal.
Have you noticed that I'm a fatalist? I agree with your point, that we only act according to what is physically possible. I also agree that there are social norms dictating right from wrong, and that these designations are constantly changing.
Fair enough. Also must agree. I would add though, that we are the ones responsible for that change on an individual level even as it is manifest in society. Social norms change because a person has an idea and spreads it vigorously. What was previously considered right can become wrong when that happens and vice versa. One might say wrongs are righted if one felt cheeky.
The question I want you to consider is 'why'? Why do we designate social norms? Why do you have likes and dislikes? These are not spontaneous, as you know. They are a function of our evolution, in relation to the Earth. Why did we develop a sense for self-preservation? Why did we evolve to be empathetic? Etc.
I would say the reason is because it works to the advantage of the species in terms of continued survival in every case if we are talking about evolution. To paraphrase a common saying, "There is might in numbers." Social norms, likes and dislikes (at least in this context), self-preservation, empathy these all serve to bring humans together in a mutually beneficial manner. In other words, its easier to get what you want when you convince someone else to want it too. Some things are impossible without this.
I agree with you in that sense. Right and wrong are subjective, depending on what we are, and what we are subject to. They depend on natural, universal laws or intentions preceding us.
I don't know about universal laws. I refrain from bestowing that on anything unless you just mean it figuratively. As a social norm would be 'universal' in the sense that practically everyone agrees behavior X shouldn't be done. Not in the literal sense as in some power or force that binds right and wrong in the cosmos such that we are either definitely right or wrong, that I don't believe in at all.
