If your action violated my moral code then I would find you to have acted immorally. I do have the moral authority to do that.
I don't mean you cannot say it. I mean your saying it means nothing to whether I have really been immoral or not.
Let me quickly try to explain "authority" in the context of morality. It is very different from "authority" in the context of legality.
A husband has moral authority to sexually touch his wife. A father has the moral authority to make decisions for his child. Your doctor has the moral authority to cut into your body.
Anyone can touch your wife sexually, or make decisions for a child, or cut you, but not everyone has the moral authority to do those things.
I just don't have the legal authority to do anything about it.
You would have to be King or Dictator to be able to "do something" about someone breaking your personal moral code.
That is the definition of fascism and tyranny. Judging and punishing others based on your personal tastes.
His moral code would be frowned upon in this culture. Do you find him to be immoral?
Yes, but not because he broke my personal moral code.
Do you have the moral authority to make such a determination?
If the moral code I used to do so is an "ought" for everyone, yes. If it is my personal moral code, Sulimani is not morally obligated to observe it.
Do you have the legal authority to assassinate him? No. Did our president? Possibly.
Legal authority is not the same as moral authority.
What about two people who share the same moral code but still disagree as to whether your action was immoral? Happens all the time.
Illogical. If they share the same moral code, they cannot judge the same action differently. A moral code is like a standard of measure. You are saying two people using the same unit of measurement can come to different answers for a fixed distance.
Then it's not so much a moral code being about personal taste, but the interpretation and implementation of the code that appears to be personal taste but is more likely a matter of different data processing, emotion and other influences.
Again illogical, for this view renders standards as irrelevant. A moral code is a standard, like the meter. It is not subject to interpretation. It cannot be if it is to be useful.
Can you imagine how much choas would ensue if everyone had their own "interpretation" for how long a meter was?
A non-religious moral code is not necessarily personal taste.
I did not say it was.
It can be based on any number of things.
And if those things were chosen by the person themselves, then it is based on their personal tastes.
Hopefully logically sound concepts that can show a demonstrable and agreed upon "good" and "bad.
Do you know any moral code agreed upon by all? Even if we restrict it to only your culture?
There was a time everyone believed sacrificing a virgin was "good". True morality should not be about how many people "agree".
Consistency is also important, otherwise it might look a lot like personal taste if your definition of good and bad are constantly vacillating.
That is exactly what happens! And when definitions of good and bad constantly vacillate, it cannot be anything other than taste.
Any society is fine to pick their morality based on anything they think works for them, but if the bases is personal taste, that morality lacks the moral authority to be an "ought" to anyone not sharing those tastes.
And so our societies fester with jails, prisons, police, armies, judges and courts. Everyone following his own tastes and expecting others do so too.