what does "there is no morality outside of human society" entail?
Occasionally i hear the phrase "there is no morality outside of human society". I believe, what is meant by it, is that you cannot say whether something is morally *right* or *wrong* in nature, if it isn't part of human society.
For example, when a turtle eats a bird ([here's a video about it](https://inv.nadeko.net/watch?v=5NsaR576XqQ)), you cannot say whether these deeds are "good" or "bad". It's part of nature, it's part of the circle of life, ... if these things didn't happen, the bird couldn't be alive in the first place.
----
Now, i've had some interesting talks yesterday with a close friend about what "morality" really means. They very certainly assured me that morality is simply the construct and the set of rules that society uses to organize itself to make itself more successful. In other words, morality aids the fitness of the *group*, but not necessarily of the individual. Do you agree with this view?
And if so, would that entail that the beneficial effects to the group can overwrite the wellbeing of a single individual? Where do you draw the limits? Like if some republicans claim that some women cannot decide themselves who they are/should be in a relationship with ... does that derive from that view of morality? What do you respond to that? I'm seriously wondering because all these discussions make my head spin and sometimes i wonder truly whether i even know anything at all... How can you find certainty in what's morally acceptable and what is not?
For example, when a turtle eats a bird ([here's a video about it](https://inv.nadeko.net/watch?v=5NsaR576XqQ)), you cannot say whether these deeds are "good" or "bad". It's part of nature, it's part of the circle of life, ... if these things didn't happen, the bird couldn't be alive in the first place.
----
Now, i've had some interesting talks yesterday with a close friend about what "morality" really means. They very certainly assured me that morality is simply the construct and the set of rules that society uses to organize itself to make itself more successful. In other words, morality aids the fitness of the *group*, but not necessarily of the individual. Do you agree with this view?
And if so, would that entail that the beneficial effects to the group can overwrite the wellbeing of a single individual? Where do you draw the limits? Like if some republicans claim that some women cannot decide themselves who they are/should be in a relationship with ... does that derive from that view of morality? What do you respond to that? I'm seriously wondering because all these discussions make my head spin and sometimes i wonder truly whether i even know anything at all... How can you find certainty in what's morally acceptable and what is not?