The idea of a centralised morality system is relatively new and novel to human cultures. 

 Firstly, moral traditions began with ancient priesthoods.  For example, sexual purity was a necessity for priests because abstaining from sex and sexuality was supposed to bring them closer to whatever deity that they were serving.  Somehow, this tradition made it's way into Judaism and Christianity and was established as a moral necessity for everybody.  Thus, sexual "impurity" constituted a transgress against god himself.  Such a transgression became codified as "immoral", the opposite of which is "moral", behaviour.

Ideas of right and wrong are not necessary.  Such things are cumbersome, burdensome, and detrimental to social harmony.  They promote idealism and segregation, make people depressed when such ideals are not met, cause "culture wars" and disunity, and generally are baseless.

Yet, we are stuck with them.  Laws are made promoting some "morals" and outlawing those things that some see as "vices", and people are oppressed.  All that's left is to watch the sky and wait for the bomb that heading our way.

Void, you have almost all the evidence, but coming however to a preconceived conclusion.

If Morality were entirely subjective, then there would be a steady decline of the pseudo-standard of morality (as observed). Pre 2000BCE however, Moses received the 10 Commandments dictating an ultimate moral standard.  Initially, the standard was given, and we have it still today.  The gradual drifting of humanity from this standard, taking it upon themselves or leaving it to their government has turned the issue into a subective one.  Now that kids are born into this world not knowing any better, they are taught or take it as given that morality is subjective and that a standard for morality is in essence immorally pressed by moral standardists, so to speak.  This ignorance doesn't mandate that subjective morality came before objective morality, but rather that the objective is simply being ignored and left out of the equation.

There seems to be a small problem here... You say "If A then B (and we see B). However, not A" and then explain why Not A then B. If either A or not A lead to B, then what's the point of bringing up B?

Additionally, please back up your claims that subjective morality leads to "steady decline of the pseudo-standard of morality" and that Moses existed and was given 10 Commandments.

Also, if your child disobeyed you, would you kill him?

-Triften 

Holy Spirit..., you couldn't be more assed backward.  At one point it was moral to have sex with a twelve year old.  It was once moral to stone an adulterous woman.  It was moral to own a person.  It was moral to wage war and kill all the babies, and rape the women.  As our species has developed mass communication technologies, our morals have evolved.  Dawkins calls it the "Shifting Moral Zeigeist".  It is a phenomena that we may not fully understand the driving force behind it, but it's so appearent your blind if you can't see it.  Morallity is completely subjective, but it is also determined democratically by a culture.  It is often hotly debated on the evening news.  Just turn on the TV.  Should we execute the criminal?  Should we allow the homosexuals to marry?  Do you honestly think that the subjective morallity of the people of the fertile creasent 2000 years ago should be applied to the rest of us?  Cultures have had their own morals (subjective morals!), since, well, longer than you would be willing to accept.  Open your damn mind retard! 

Shadow, your shady haze of overcast grey is as clear to me as day.  My trouble is figuring out how to word my explanation of candid understanding to penetrate your inumbrated eclipse of obscureness.

Since you made no clarification yourself, I can only assume for you that it was the Law from where you draw your first five sentences, even though not all of those are found there...If you wish to expound more on where you pulled these defenses, I would be overjoyed.

Your ninth sentence states your presupposition, that morality is subjective, but this is what you are trying to illustrate, so you are begging the question.

It makes much more sense that there was originally a moral standard from which humanity drifted because it was too confining.

Your closing sentences assert 2000 years, but it is closer to 4000 years since Moses, believed to live about 2000BC, received the Law from God.  Even in the same book of the Bible it tells that people had already drifted from those moral standards....obviously they would have drifted even further by now 2000AD.

The point is that if there is no moral standard, then humanity would have to take it upon itself to determine what is moral...subjectivity.  As case after case comes along pushing the boundaries of that subjectivity wider, you find a gradual moral decline. This is quite evident in the States' short history, even in the past several decades...compare Leave it to Beaver and Howard Stern, compare big band and modern vulgar pop/hip-hop, compare Elvis from the waist up and pornographic programming of today.

The Moral standard, though still existent, has long since been abandoned by the vast majority as predicted by the Bible, leaving morality more or less to "as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else, it is moral." Expect the envelope to be further pushed in the near future, until the standard of morality becomes and absence of morality, exactly how the Roman empire crumbled.

So holy how do you know this moral standard is the standard?

You talk about Elvis being on par with Leave it to Beaver and Big Bands. Ironically many people thought rock and roll, mostly because of Elvis, was evil and the work of the devil. Much like you seem to imply Howard Stern, Vulgar Music, and Porn is doing. BTW those things aren't made for the children you are probably worried about and parents should be doing their job if they are worried about the evils of Mr. Stern and D12.

Ideas of what is moral or what is right and wrong vary thru time and location. In the US the word 'breast' was a bad word even if you were talking about chicken, but beating your kid was perfectly ok. In other places of the world they will do what we would call hardcore drugs, but they frown on the uses of caffeine or alcohol.

When you talk about a moral decline you are having to use a reference point to determine to "movement" of morals. The idea that things are moral if it doesn't hurt anyone has more to do with what the government has the right to control and deals with what can be made law then social standards.

The idea that roman fell because it was naughty is silly, historically world powers rise and fall constantly. For roman it had more to do with the leaders lacking control, economic problems, and splits in the population. There are other things people will list, but some will list christianity for making the citizens weak and using up money.

I do not blame you for wanting to have a moral standard that doesn't change and everyone agrees to as everyone wants it, but it doesn't exist. Even people in the same religion disagree on what is moral and what isn't. I have even heard christians tell me the 10 commandments don't count anymore, but that is what they have to do to not have to murder for their god.

The major thing to understand in point of view. What may be right for you may not be right for another. Stealing? Killing? Lies? All bad thing no one would do until someone is trying to hurt you or you are starving.

My morals have nothing to do with the Law. Though I am willing to admit that SOME of the commandments are good morals.  My morals are my own (subjective).  You would definately concider some of them immoral, but it goes both ways.  Sorry for begging the question, yet again. 

Nah, it makes much more sense that we developed morals through an evolutionary process.  Being a social species, our cultures have defined our morals.  Cultures evolve as well.  The meme has stepped to the front lines of our evolution, since we are so very good at changing our environment to met our physical needs rather than the environments changing us.

I don't know how old you think the earth to be, but do you think the early Assyrians and Egyptians were more moral than the Romans.  What proof do you have of this?

Maybe kids don't respect their parent enough.  Maybe some parents don't deserve any respect.  You, like so many others, are in my opinion, overly concerned with sexual morality.  I certainly don't know enough about your morals to pass any judgements, but many American Christians see nothing wrong with war and capital punishment.  That seems to go against Christian morality, even in self defense, though most people ignore this fact.

You can say all day that America has grown less moral over the passed few decades, and in some cases youd be right.  I could then site specific examples to the contrary.  Which of the two is more moral to you?  A parent that teaches their child about safe sex and doesn't denounce masterbation or homosexuality.  Or, the parent that, though force, places the child in an anti-sexual device designed to harm the child if it gets an erection (hundreds of devices were designed to do various sexual harm).  This was a very common practice and once concidered VERY moral.  Maybe to you, neither of these are moral.  My point is, for every example you can site of moral high ground in the past, there is possibly a better example of moral high ground today.