Morality fails at arguments

The term “morality” can be used either

1. descriptively to refer to a code of conduct put forward by a society or,
   
   
   1. some other group, such as a religion, or
      
   2. accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
      
   
   
2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons. (Sourced by some dictionary site on the internet, probably dictionary.com!)
   

What “morality” is taken to refer to plays a crucial, although often unacknowledged, role in formulating ethical theories. To take “morality” to refer to an actually existing code of conduct put forward by a society results in a denial that there is a universal morality, one that applies to all human beings. Recently, some comparative and evolutionary psychologists (Haidt, Hauser, De Waal) have taken morality, or a close anticipation, to be present among groups of non-human animals, primarily other primates but not limited to them. “Morality” has also been taken to refer to any code of conduct that a person or group takes as most important.

I don't percieve how morality is at least bit credible in an argument!

3.) can be used by Calinis to spam and troll others

Liche wrote:

3.) can be used by Calinis to spam and troll others

LOL!

Seconded.

morality can be right when used in the subjective stance

I agree.

But I believe morality does best in Little Kid cartoons (should replace evil communist bears with lessons of morality).

Morality is never right because morality is determined by time periods.

In ancient history it was alright to fuck your sister, i don't think that's declared moral anymore, is it? Same with practically all morality besides killing. Even rape was accepted at one point!

Sin wrote:

Morality is never right because morality is determined by time periods.

But what about morality that has stayed the same for practically ever, such as murder?
Thats subjective stance which im talking about