There really are only two options:
1. Right and wrong are just social constructs created to preserve a status quo. In which case, there is no moral imperative requiring anyone to follow what is thought to be "right" by dint of prevailing opinion, nor is there any firm foundation for calling out the majority opinion when it is "wrong." By definition, there is no outside standard to measure the prevailing opinion by and determine whether it aligns with it or falls short.
2. Right and wrong are revealed by a divine authority to whom we must give an account. Only under this understanding can there be any grounds for calling society out when the prevailing opinion is wrong, because it is the only understanding that provides a standard that originates from a higher authority than society itself.
Login to reply
Replies (2)
Would you rekcon it is at all possible for 2. to manifest without a human intermediary?
There could be a third option - this thing we call morality are a set of useful bits of information that emerge into our experience. They are not created by us, but they are shared among us to facilitate our survival in complex social groups and organizations. Just as a hand emerged through evolution allowing the user of the hand to grasp what the world has to offer. Calling morality a creation seems wrong as there is no need to assume creator in this option.