Morality is a system of behavior that is objectively good, done with good reason, and done with a good intention. Good is what is written into our nature by God. I realize that some people disagree with me about what is good, even after both of us completely understand the circumstances and consequences, but since good is axiomatic, there is very little I can say to those people.
Of course I disagree.
Do live on a desert island? No? Then that excuse does not apply to you.
Your first sentence does not follow from your second one.
As I said, good is axiomatic.
If you did not generalize, then how did you conclude that the Scandinavian countries were preferable to a predominately Catholic society? You cited no specific feature of those countries other than one is more permissive and the other is less so. It sure seems like you were claiming a generalization when you said:
So now we have two societies based upon their generally accepted moral systems. It is obvious that the one, which imposes fewer limitations of your personal freedom is preferable to the one with more restrictions.
Well, that undercuts your claim quoted above.
OK, but my point still shows that a straw man argument was implied when you said:
(Don’t forget that restrictive society COULD BE a Muslim one, with Sharia laws.)
As if I could approve on one kind of restrictive society with approving of all restrictive societies.