Moral is your view of right or wrong. emphasis here on 'your' view
There is sadly no universal Moral law code, but we can go by the original foundation of modern moral which would be the ten commandments. Irregardless of your view, I find it hard to see anything 'immoral' about them since they are the highest level of morals. Morals can be added based on how you grew up, but commonly in topics or when accusing somebody it's these morals which were infringed upon. "Do not steal" since it's immoral. "Do not bear false witness" (lie) etc...
Morals are subject to change & do not always reflect the authority. If a law is passed which makes taking others art legal (Everything is now open source kinda law) some people will say "It's moral to do so now" (Because it benefits them). When asked why is it moral now but not before? -The government says so However, if a law is passed that killing jews is now legal... yeah. You can see my argument.
Is morality the subjectivity around the words used to describe what is (perceived as?) positive and negative in someones actions? This sentence doesn't make a lot of sense to me for some reason. Maybe your terminology has some subjective qualities to which I am not privy and which causes my inability to find meaning in your words?
It does not make much sense because it`s subjectivity is artificial. It is defining morality on a whole, meaning it cannot really talk in specifics, without being a paragraph listing more specific sub-definitions of morality. IE this is the best I can do with one sentence.
But essentially this is my way of saying that what is called "moral" is what someone percieves as positive in an affective approach to actions, views, intentional laws(in opposition with scientific), etc... And immoral as what is negative in an affective approach to such things.
Yeah, but I don't want to discuss which definition is correct, I want to discuss which definitions exist and how they affect debates about morality. Surely this is less common than your run-of-the-mill definition discussion. And more important as well. When people talk about morality they may talk about completely different things, in which case their discussion is pointless until the point they agree what they are talking about. They don't have to agree on a 'correct' definition, but they should be aware of what the other person means when they say 'morality'.
Morality, a derivation of an animal's (usually human) social needs as a part of collective survival as deeply rooted emotions in response to certain actions serving as a base for creating a functioning society. Partly evolutionary, partly cultural, partly personal.
Not particularly. Humans are pretty similar, odds are we'd have a similar concept of morality. Then again it's very possible, and in fact unusual if it doesn't happen, that given specific circumstances people change and develop different moralities. Add in things that aren't human (other animals, aliens, etc.) and you'll have very different morals between you and it (as you likely have different forms of survival).
I think that is a nice definition of morality, but I don't think that captures all of what people think of as morals. People may raise moral objections to behavior that doesn't hurt the species collective survival (or anybody else) in any way... Religion also has some pretty specific moral teachings, can all of them be thought of as morality using your definition?
Religion is a cultural moral influence. It's a build upon evolutionary morals (not always perfect, but oh well). The other thing you described would fall under personal moral influence, a build upon cultural morals.
I believe morality is a construction of human thought, not something that just exists because it has always existed in the universe. It is subjective to each person, even within cultures. Something I would feel bad about doing might seem totally fine to another person. I would not kill a spider, whereas someone raised the same as me would be completely comfortable doing it with no moral objection. The same goes for an item ringing up at a store for a dollar less than it was marked. Some might correct the cashier, some might just go "Eh, it doesn't matter" or "Ooh, lucky me!" And then obviously it goes onto a way grander scale.
The only real consequence I can see of this kind of view is that people act differently in the same circumstances. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing all the time.
I think there are larger consequences than that. Laws are made on the basis of peoples subjective morals, so moral discourse matters. If you think morals are real things that exists outside of human thought, as for example major religions teaches us, then you might be more inclined to force them on others than if you think about morals in the sense that you have expressed here. If two groups of people come in conflict because of different morals, do you think they would handle the conflict differently if they subscribed to moral anti-realism contra moral realism? If so, in what ways? If not, why not?