I think the entire social dynamic which leads to social norms and influence is largely derived from biology in some sense - the fact that the tribe was fundamental to our evolution puts an inherent premium on us to function within our tribe/society.

Part of cooperating and forming groups means adopting social norms within said group. That's where the inclination for social norms and influence ultimately derives from. Because a group is hardly going to be truly cooperative and cohesive without a basic set of common rules group members are expected to abide by.

I'm not making any statement about how any societal norm is "justified" based on the biological pressures that drive it. That's called the naturalistic fallacy.

But it is complicated. If you accept that cultures are different and each develop their own norms based in their own set of circumstances mixed with chance... Then condemning a culture for their norms is basically ethnocentrism. I.E. you're holding them to the standards of your own norms and thus declaring those norms in some way superior. Which in a way I think is fine. As long as you know that's what you're doing.

Subjective yet utterly dependant on being treated as if it's something approaching objective in order for it to function properly.

E.G. if you believe killing innocent children and eating them is wrong, you are basically going to view it as wrong even when it happens in a society where that's normal. You might view them as ignorant/misguided and thus not judge them as harshly as someone in your own culture, but you will still view the act itself as something best avoided.

Nah, I view morality as what harms or helps.

that's derived from a particular form of secular humanism/utilitarianism which is culturally prevalent in parts of the modern west. It's not an objective standard.. it's just the one you embrace

I feel the same way about stoning adulterers

Seriously though.. going back to your comments on things not being "justified" by biology. By using that term you are basically imposing your own (admittedly subjective and culturally provincial) form of morality on all human behavior. Merely by suggesting there is something to be "justified." Justified by what standard?

That isn't an answer to my question

Sure, if you say so.

@ elph

Basically you agree that judging a particular social norm relies on you imposing your own social norms on someone who doesn't necessarily share them.

And you also see morality as subjective.

So by what standard do you actually condemn any cultural or social norm? By your own particular subjective (culturally and socially influenced) set of norms that you happen to abide by? So saying they "aren't justified" is just saying they don't share your particular rule book.