Personal moral is just what you claim to follow. Social Moral would be the moral that a group follow. You have to adapt to be a part to a group to this moral, you adapt your own view. Not to say that your personal moral views come from learning from both personal experience and teaching.Can you give me an example of both a personal moral and a social moral?
A good example is the Internet users. We all follow codes of conduct in the various places. This forum for example reflects in the nature of Darth Wong - since his trait in the debates, the fact he likes to call idiots "idiots" etc, this kind of conduct is often left aside by the moderators. But if you go in other forums, some of them may condem this attitude and the moderators may even ban you for he expect the most non-agressive attitude of the members.
Or for example, the piratary. I have been in a mailing-list that banned members just for any positive opinion about piratary. The owners morality was different of the some individuals.
Those are pretty simple examples...
The individues will follow the moral of the groups. If one individual disagree he will left to either found another group that he is more close or found his own group or be ever a outcast.And how the social moral doesn't require a personal moral that we must follow?
The group moral of course, requires that they supporters believe in that moral. But some can impose this moral for example (The catholic church did it all the dark ages for example).
You basically is asking me why the individual requires the society...
Actually, the expeption may even been "not killing". There is very very few humans societies that found out no reason to ever kill someone and justify it in their moral structure. Even today , i am not sure that the majority of the societies find "not killing" the best moral to follow every time.Yes its relative. I'm keeping the example purposefully simple by exluding the exceptions.
It is of course a question without answer, hence killing or not is oldest moral debate.
I understand your point. My point is that Moral codes have nothing to do with evolution and survival of the fittest in the darwinian sense. There is societies that developed the not killing - India and cows for example - without any benefict of the society.You missed the point, I'm not trying to say wether killing animals if moral or not. Simply that a meat eating society will label animal killing as OK and moral because of the obvious benefits to that society, with no apparant harm done to any member.
The cerimonial lambs for example, are example of killing that are under the morality of those groups and nothing helped.
There is of course, moral rules that have been developed in the conflict of survival or not. For example, the polygamy is often found in societies where the number of males are much inferior of the women, so the need of offsprings allowed those cultures to see as fine to allow males to marry more than women. This is clearly a need of survival or the population of those cultures would reduce and they would perish.
But that ends here. Some of the moral rules are born like that. Not all moral rules. Some moral rules are even prejudicial to the society in case of conflict (I do not mean only militar conflicts)
This is the problem, you are using Social Darwinism that is something fail.Which is the evolution of society being determined by survival of the fittest in a non-biological sense. Evolution means descent with change with natural selection choosing the most successfull.
Charity for example is moral conduct that does not help the survival of the fittest.
Some antagonic morals such as freedom of speech or censorship exist in many different and sucessful societies.
Morals are not born and do not develop just for the need of survival. Neither H.Spencer "survival of the fittest" is a accurate thing.
THere is some very pacifist societies that followed the "non-killing" and some are no longer. But Gandhi did that and he was not doing the best for the fight of survival for example.
PLus, Societies does not grow and defeat other because their moral. That would be the same of a the label of superior moral that won. And that things is just a prejudical imperialist view.
And about celibacy
Yeah, I mean this as example of moral trait that some societies follow or not and does not actually developed as result of need of survival. It is a cultural trait, not a survival trait.