Define moral and morality first.

Without everyone agreeing on the definition, no arguments will be worth reading.

The concept that morals are subject to social acceptability is very wrong. Certain behaviors are always immoral. For example what could possibly make rape moral?

morality not skewed by outside influence (such as religion or government) is based on survival of the species. humans do better when cooperating than when "i'm-all-right-jack"-ing (off).

g

Evil/Bad/Immoral is that which Increases SUFFERING! This knowledge is part of every mammal.. my dog knows when he plays too ruff and hurts me! He licks the spot he bit too hard..

It’s innate. We don’t need a book. Psycho paths are MISSING a part of nature just as if they were deaf/blind, etc.

If you live in a fucked up world and you still have kids — you are INCREASING SUFFERING! It’s a little abstract than sudden pain BUT still BAD

I believe morality is essentially whether or not something harms another person (and to what degree it harms them). Obviously, killing, raping, molesting, and beating another person directly harms them and the majority of people would agree that these things are immoral.

Other things that might harm a person such as stealing, lying, infidelity, dishonesty, and recklessness can harm other people to a varying degree though not always. If someone breaks into my home and steals everything of value and wrecks the place, I'm harmed both financially and probably psychologically. If a starving man steals a sandwich from a wealthy person... though illegal, I would say that it's not morally wrong. Some people might disagree with me.

But there are many things that are subjective to a person or group. I find racism or discrimination toward gay people to be morally wrong, yet both are widespread in this country (and other countries), so obviously a lot of people disagree with me.

I think humans will be debating morality for as long as there are enough humans on this planet to debate morality. And I don't think anyone will ever agree on a concrete answer.

My morality comes from treating others how I want to be treated.

Having read this I could adopt your belief of morality, where it came from, and what it really is. Caring about the pain and suffering of others in our world says it all. Acceptable behavior is a societal structure and it changes with advancement, but we should want the best for man and beast.

When you say 'behaviors that are acceptable', it begs the question 'acceptable to whom?' Everyone? Most people? 80%? 70%? What constitutes society? In smaller segments of society, you'll find behaviors that are acceptable, even applauded, that would almost certainly be deemed immoral by larger portions of the population at large. While in a very large society there may be segments that believe things are acceptable that are polar opposites of each other.
Defining mortality may be one of the most difficult things humans have ever attempted as it seems no one has ever done it successfully.

Morality, like everything else, is ultimately a product of human evolution. Our ancestors survived only through cooperation and tribal living, as Edward O. Wilson points out in The Atlantic for April 1998. Those who resisted a selfish urge to go off and hunt alone, and instead shared their risks and rewards with the rest of the group, not only stood a greater chance of survival, but probably passed on a genetic propensity for cooperative behavior to their ancestors. "Now suppose that human propensities to cooperate or defect are heritable: some people are innately more cooperative, others less so. In this respect moral aptitude would simply be like almost all other mental traits studied to date. Among traits with documented heritability, those closest to moral aptitude are empathy with the distress of others and certain processes of attachment between infants and their caregivers. To the heritability of moral aptitude add the abundant evidence of history that cooperative individuals generally survive longer and leave more offspring. Following that reasoning, in the course of evolutionary history genes predisposing people toward cooperative behavior would have come to predominate in the human population as a whole."

These basic sentiments would become more complex as we evolved, and things like honor, loyalty, courage, altruism, and mercy would become codified as "morality".

We all have an instinctive framework for moral behavior. We know how we want to be treated, and feel instinctively that we should treat those close to us the same way.

Unfortunately, our evolution brought with it such things as tribalism and xenophobia, since loyalty and generosity are most directed to one's kin. This is a natural result of genetic favoritism; it helps ensure the survival of one's own gene pool over competitors. That's the dark side of evolutionary morality. Tribal mythologies of defeating enemies grew into religions and myths of being a "chosen people"; these overlaid the instinctive moral framework and made it easy to treat outsiders as "others" not worthy of moral treatment. It is truly a mixed bag; our instincts are towards moral, compassionate behavior, but only to those we see as belonging to our own tribe.

The answer is to see all humanity as one. Then morality will become universal.

The only qualification I use for morality is whether it harms others or not.
As for opinions from culture, religion, politics they're all irrelevant.

Your first and last paragraph convey perfectly human morality, there’s no need to introduce religion into the morality question at all, it’s completely superfluous. Morality predates religion and only detracts and distorts from true morality by adding in dictats, taboos and prejudices which all run counter to human empathy and love for our fellow living creatures. Any religious stricture which causes pain, hurt and division within families and brands people as deviant cannot be considered moral.

I look at life and love as manifesting inseparably. Morality for me os internal, inborn and self-regulating. What affirms and perpetuates life and love is moral. What suppressed and destroys life and love is immoral. It makes the old, more subjective good vs. evil principle clearer as well.