Sacrieur, I know this is light discussion, but it is a serious topic and should be treated as such and with proper philosophical rigor. I'd advise editing your post to define your terms.
Now, OP, you seem to be taking the position that all ideas of morality are taught by society, and therefore hold no value. However, I contend that your are wrong on two points, the first of which I will address here. Let us assume that people in a "state of nature", that is those who have never been in any form of society, have no concept of morality. This is implied by the statement "ideas of morality comes only from society", as, if that is true, people without a society would have no idea of morality. Where then would a society get its ideas of morality? A human with no data on a subject can arrive at no conclusions about that subject, because that person is unaware that the subject even exists. For example, suppose a race of photosynthetic aliens exists, who neither need to eat nor are capable of doing so. This race would have no concept of food, and as such could arrive at no conclusions about it. So, if people outside of society have no ideas of morality, then where does society get the ideas of morality to teach people inside it? It would be an example of what is sometimes called "bootstrapping". In other words, there has to be somewhere for the concept of morality to enter the human mind; if it does not in some manner come from people themselves, society would not have anywhere else to get the idea in the first place.
Of course, all that I have proven so far is that people must have some idea of morality, not necessarily that their idea of it is correct or corresponds to anything that actually exists. However, is it not the case that every other idea humans naturally have relates in some manner to something real? To demonstrate, I will ask you to come up with something that neither exists nor has any relation to anything that exists, except that it is unlike it. You will find, I think, that this is impossible. So, if you cannot come up with something utterly unrelated to anything real, why does almost everyone come up with some idea of morality, if that idea is indeed unrelated to anything real?
The second problem, which leads to a much stronger argument, with this position is that it assumes everything society comes up with is artificial and that that means it has no value, but does not prove this. Let me define "society" as "a group of people working towards the greatest common good". This is a bit of an incomplete definition, but for our purposes it should suffice. Now, in order for society to meaningfully exist, there has to be some things that are naturally good. What exactly those things are is another matter entirely; however, if we accept my definition, and there is nothing inherently good, then society's value depends on that natural good's existence. Of course, one could argue that society does indeed have no value, and I will attend to that point if asked. But for now, let us assume that a properly-ordered society works towards some good which exists. Now, in philosophy, evil is commonly defined simply as the opposite or lack of good, and morality is defined as acting for good things and against evil things. If good exists, and evil is its opposite, then morality must also exist.
Now, this is not a bulletproof argument, nor is it intended to be. Rather, the purpose of this post is to see how you reply to it, and which portions you disagree with. If you agree with X, Y, and Z, but not with A, then there is not much point discussing X, Y, or Z, but instead we should focus on A. As such I did not attempt to make every single point completely compelling, simply because that could take pages, and that could lead to things getting muddied.
None.
