You have seen the light! :D

If we agree that just because the majority says something doesn't make it right (in most cases, which can be mobocracy), why have we codified societal rulings on ethics and morals in our lives? — Copernicus

I’ll turn your comment around. It’s not majoritarian tyranny. It’s necessary social control to maintain societal equilibrium. That’s not to say it doesn’t squash people sometimes, but as a general matter, it’s inevitable and indispensable.

Unless you live alone on some remote island, you are part of a society. And for a society to function, most of its members must at least give their tacit approval to certain things.

Even when people are ruled by a tyrant, the majority often goes along with the tyrannical rule and does not resist—hence the tacit approval. Otherwise, the tyrant would be overthrown the very same day he came to power.

That’s not to say it doesn’t squash people sometimes — T Clark

That's what our system of squash courts are for: upholding morality.

Though, morality changes and shifts with time. It is not a decision made by a majority that “now we think like this”, but rather a defining set of values by a certain generation. A new generation will likely shift what is considered moral and as the older generation dies, the new generation morals start to become the norm.

pardon?

I think you're confusing ethics with laws.

I think you're confusing ethics with laws. (2)

I think you're confusing ethics with laws. (3)

I think you're confusing ethics with laws. (3) — Copernicus

Laws are formed out of the morals of the people. Laws are just the most extreme form of the consensus of morals. And if laws are based on morals that only half of the people hold, then it usually becomes the focus of that time's politics.

I think you're confusing ethics with laws. — Copernicus

Ethics and morality are just fancy words for social control.

Laws are one kind of social control, but not the only or most common one.

Where do we find morality? I know there are laws.

If we agree that just because the majority says something doesn't make it right (in most cases, which can be mobocracy), why have we codified societal rulings on ethics and morals in our lives? — Copernicus

I think people seldomly codify ethics in their lives. Actions and judgments accord far more to convenience, signaling social tribes, and vibes about what seems normal. Rather than a code, it is frequently an incoherent mess of various conflicting judgments picked up socially.

This description is not universal. Some people are more principled and virtuous. Most people reason and reflect on occasion and can be motivated by what they think is right. But the bulk of "ethical" engagement is influenced by a cluster of tribal instincts. On reflection, one could see that something's popularity does not make it right, but the comfort of getting along is often more enticing than any cold principle or code.

Laws can go beyond ethics and address procedural issues. Ethics are taught in family and society.

For example, an old man can't sleep with a 4 y/o. But they can with an adult. Let's use laws and ethics interchangeably. Why do you think we've all agreed to this? Let's assume the kid is his own and no community war will break out.

I think such matters boil down to intersubjective agreement. This is never unanimous, there are always dissenters, and the mores or systems we have, whether informal codes of conduct or formal laws, were built up over time. Some are now obsolete, some are too weak, and some are simply silly. The question is whether we think people would behave respectfully towards each other without the law.

If we agree that just because the majority says something doesn't make it right (in most cases, which can be mobocracy), why have we codified societal rulings on ethics and morals in our lives?

If by "codified", you mean "passed laws", I'd ask what your alternative would be? Laws based on what a small minority of the community thought was correct? Though since laws are passed by legislators (not the populace), I suppose one could argue that laws aren't passed by the majority of those governed by those laws, rather a majority of their representatives, who make up their own community.

Laws can go beyond ethics and address procedural issues. Ethics are taught in family and society.

For example, an old man can't sleep with a 4 y/o. But they can with an adult. Let's use laws and ethics interchangeably. Why do you think we've all agreed to this? Let's assume the kid is his own and no community war will break out. — Copernicus

You argue like both laws and ethics overall was something that everyone just decided on overnight. Morality and laws grows out of society over time. Most fundamental moral values appeared organically over years of trying to find stability within social communities. If someone murders, steals or abuse a child, it has always had major negative consequences on the community in which it happened. And so people started to adopt values that forms the basis for stability in that community.

By the time a community grew so large it needed laws, those laws were based on those values.

And if we look at nations and cultures with practices which breaks against this basic idea of stability, they’re usually corrupted states in which people of power decide what’s best for them and not the society they govern. In those places, violence and immoral behavior becomes a norm only accepted by the risk of more violence and harm. If that society were to rid themselves of abusive leaders, they would slowly rid themselves of such values over time as the need for stability overturns the arbitrary ethics that were forced upon the people.

If we look at nations today which are considered free democracies (actual free democracies, not the US), the fundamental laws reflect the people’s need for collective stability. They’re a set of ethics which over hundreds of years have, more or less by blood, been arrived at through trial and error of societal norms.

Morality is just an extension of the basic instincts that flock animals have to form a stability within the flock. It’s extended into a more advanced form because of the cognitive differences between animals and humans. Since humans make more complex decisions and since humans are able to form larger blocks of collective groups, morality becomes more complex along the line of the complexity of human interaction. But it’s still based on the stability of the group and the stability of the individual psyche based on the emotional guidance it has for our interaction with others.

If we treat the complexity of us as an intelligent species and that all our actions and what we humans build and transforms in reality, to be part of our biological being, then morality is an organic self-guiding mechanism for collective stability and psychological balance of the individual. Arrived at over time through evolutionary trial and error. Our laws are only reflections of this, put into systemic practice by the necessity to govern a massive amount of people as a collective.

If we agree that just because the majority says something doesn't make it right (in most cases, which can be mobocracy), why have we codified societal rulings on ethics and morals in our lives? — Copernicus

Can you give at least one real world example to support your hypothesis.