Social Morality Leslie Green Analysis

Leslie Green, a student of Raz, writes this article to show scholars that it is possible to change social morality. Once he proves that it can be changed, he argues that it should be changed through enacting laws. Green believes there is an unchanging, objective, set of morals that we as a society is always working towards. This set is considered ideal morality, and acts a goal. Then there is social morality, this is the current state of society and what our laws depict.
Green defines social morality as “shared by a given group”, this doesn’t inherently mean that morality isn’t pressed. This is actually how we know that social morality has the ability to change law. We have a legal system that allows for amendments and precedent for this very …show more content…
That is still not acceptable. If humans have a conflicting idea of what this ideal morality is, then no one can change laws in their favor because what it to say they are correct? Morality should not be at the hands of whoever has the authority and ability to change it. Just look at the Nazi’s, they truly believed that Germany would be better off without the Jews. They had all these moral reasons behind it like improving and purifying their culture, they wanted to protect their genes, and create a safer world. The Nazi’s easily could have created laws that expanded their realm and suede other countries of their morals. We have learned since then though that genocide is inherently immoral. But my point is that Hitler believed he was following ideal morality. The Nazi’s may have not, I know a lot of them just didn’t ask questions because in their heart they knew it was wrong, but that furthers my point. When a person of authority is telling you what your morals should be, you change your morals based on that authority/law. For this reason, I am a firm believer that nobody should attempt to change