Actually May28 morals are social constructions. Compassion may be not part of your moral compass but doing not to others as I would not enjoy done to myself is part of mine. People do not live and behave in vacuum but are part of a whole. Several avenues of science show this.
Morals are principles/structures that are formulated as a code to live but there is no evidence of it being merely social constructs. By postulating that society as a larger entity/authority and has the power to dictate and enforce what is dignified as "moral" or "not moral" is tied to the acceptance that the group is greater than the members. And how did the group obtain power in the first place? By hook or by crook, pressure, bully, manipulate, ostricize others into submission to relinquish personal power to someone(s) who "knows better" and can act on everyone's behalf for their "own good." That basic maxim is rooted in socialism/communism/fascism- all means of totalitarianism which glorifies existing as one and not accommodating individual free will because freedom would be too difficult to control. The need to control human nature because it is unpredictable/uncooperative with the "group" is immoral.
And what "science" actually makes the claim that morals are socially constructed and that understanding of reality is by collective understanding of the world? So believing that morals are the product of collective consciousness, one must accept that they cannot come up with their own code of ethics and acquiesce that they are incapable of making decisions on their own and cannot determine what it is they need, want, think, feel, or otherwise.
I'll keep my freedom and free will. I will continue to use my brain and not have to rely on busybodies to who have control issues make decisions for me.
It is immoral to pressure others to feel/care/think something they would rather not, but social influence is a powerful form of pressure on an individual (see Asch; Milgram; Turner). A main theme so far has been the sizeable grey area which denotes the uncontrolled practice of astrology, unlike other professions, which have access to people, including the vulnerable. The point has been, thus, it is immoral to make such transactions, sell a product, to mentally unstable people who have been socially influenced or are easily manipulated. A further reference has been that since an internet forum is not a place where one can discern whether they are doing a first, second, or third person consultation or the age/state of a member, it is immoral to not care about this far-reaching consideration and to proceeed regardless. In my opinion such behaviour seems opportunistic and unfortunate.
Please don't cite social theorists that back up your stance. That doesn't make your point anymore believable or valid than what I have to say in the most plain ways.
Of course social influences CAN influence individual choices. I'm not talking about cut off shirts being in fashion and if you don't wear one, you're totally uncool and deserves to be made fun of and no boy will ask you out to the prom. I'm talking about detriment and corruption that society expands by rewarding those who cooperate and give up their free will by going along with whatever concepts/principles/values that are being touted as the idea du jour and seriously punish those who willfully disobeys (imprisonment, put to death, etc.) because they choose to follow their own moral compass and ideologies- that's totalitarianism.
If murder was temporarily declared as not immoral and as long as it's not considered immoral, murder can freely be committed with no repercussions. But does that still make murder wrong or because society/authority suspends any punishment for the action actually legitimize and invalidate that it was once strongly considered immoral? And what if murder violates an individual's personal principles? If society instructs you to murder, but because it's against your principles and everyone else is doing it, are you going to go murder or are you going to make a conscious stand?
Bottom line, if it weren't for dissenters, fervent individualists, and strong proponents of freedom who think for themselves, question society and authority, none of us would have made it out of the caves. We would still live completely subject to others' will and power and force to adhere to that form of logic (which is illogical). Just as it was wrong for the Roman Catholic Church to force Galileo to recant his solar centric theory, it's wrong for society to determine who is fit to rule and who shall serve, and at the smallest level, it is wrong for anyone to come along and press their values on another person and say "what I believe in is right because society/authority said so. Now you'll have to believe in whatever we, the majority believe in and accept it as reality, too or else."
My answer is
>>No, I will not. What I do/feel/care is my decision. What you do/feel/care is yours. If you want to kill yourself because I called you fat and "hurt" your feelings, go ahead. If I want to tell someone when they'll die because they paid me money to do so, I will do. Stop regulating others and practice self-discipline on yourself.
Again, I am here. You are there.
[deleted trolling comments - Moderator]