do morals evolve or...

[Revoltingest]

A sweeping statement is usually unfair, but generally yes, it is better. The old standards may well have been better for their time, however.

I'd say they're only "different".

 

[waitasec]

Yes, because they cared about the lives of human beings owned as slaves. Abolitionists genuinely wanted to help these people, and not just for some personal gain. That is moral.

but was slavery wrong back then even though society accepted it?
would a christian slave owner be sinning in the eyes of god for having a slave?

 

[Lawrence Mills]

To me some are natural, some are cultivated, some are degrading or sharpened by life and everything you see and how you react to what you see and what you do about some things you may see.

 

[waitasec]

To me some are natural, some are cultivated, some are degrading or sharpened by life and everything you see and how you react to what you see and what you do about some things you may see.

is there a universal law of morality you think?

i think there is...
for instance, isn't murder understood universally as immoral...maybe i'm wrong

 

[Midnight Pete]

but was slavery wrong back then even though society accepted it?
would a christian slave owner be sinning in the eyes of god for having a slave?

They justified slavery to themselves through interpreting Scripture to suit their slavedriving needs.

 

[waitasec]

They justified slavery to themselves through interpreting Scripture to suit their slavedriving needs.

so you would consider a christian slave owner to be sinning against god...
why? if it was socially accepted just as it was in scripture...

 

[Midnight Pete]

so you would consider a christian slave owner to be sinning against god...
why? if it was socially accepted just as it was in scripture...

Considering what American slave-owning entailed in those days, I would have to say yes, absolutely 100% that slave-owners were sinning against God.

I think slavery was acceptable in OT Jewish society as a means of paying off debts. But when people did that, it was more like indentured servitude. I think the slave/master relationship in those days was friendlier. As far as I know, slaves in OT times entered into a contract willingly with their masters as opposed to being kidnapped from their homeland, being put in chains, taken over to another country against their will, treated like animals, etc.

 

[tumbleweed41]

is there a universal law of morality you think?

i think there is...
for instance, isn't murder understood universally as immoral...maybe i'm wrong

No, I do not believe so.
Morals evolved along with societies. Was it moral for the first group of humans to murder a member of another group of humans? At that time, yes. It was perfectly moral to murder a stranger among many societies and groups. Just as it was moral to take women and children as spoils of war or battle.
As societies grew more interconnected through travel and trade, morality changed. Strangers were often welcomed with a large feast. They had tales to tell and goods to trade. Rather than women being the spoils of war, a kidnapping would be an act of war.
Morals have become more universally common, but there is no universal morality.

 

[waitasec]

No, I do not believe so.
Morals evolved along with societies. Was it moral for the first group of humans to murder a member of another group of humans? At that time, yes. It was perfectly moral to murder a stranger among many societies and groups. Just as it was moral to take women and children as spoils of war or battle.
As societies grew more interconnected through travel and trade, morality changed. Strangers were often welcomed with a large feast. They had tales to tell and goods to trade. Rather than women being the spoils of war, a kidnapping would be an act of war.
Morals have become more universally common, but there is no universal morality.

i can see that...
maybe the more we come to understand how much we have in common our morality becomes based on empathy and our interconnectedness
i'm a hippie at heart

 

[waitasec]

Considering what American slave-owning entailed in those days, I would have to say yes, absolutely 100% that slave-owners were sinning against God.

I think slavery was acceptable in OT Jewish society as a means of paying off debts. But when people did that, it was more like indentured servitude. I think the slave/master relationship in those days was friendlier. As far as I know, slaves in OT times entered into a contract willingly with their masters as opposed to being kidnapped from their homeland, being put in chains, taken over to another country against their will, treated like animals, etc.

i don't know...
slaves in the bible were less than 2nd class, they were beaten and
children of slaves were sold off as well (slave girls had it the worst)
and if you were a hebrew slave you would have a chance every 6 or 7 years (jubilee) to be freed, but not for the non hebrew slave.
do you think the slave owners in the OT were sinning?

 

[tigrers99]

Without a moral objective standard, we cannot say that slavery was ever, is ever, or ever will be, morally wrong for everyone. We can only say that it violates my personal moral standard. Or to me it's morally wrong. Or I think that is morally wrong.

Since militant unbelievers claim that no moral objective standard or universal moral standard, exists, then all morals or morality can only be subjective. That morality can only be judged good or evil from person to person.

 

[Midnight Pete]

If moral achievement is "better" only by the new standards, is it really better?

"New" is not necessarily better than "old." That's a very important insight.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Without a moral objective standard, we cannot say that slavery was ever, is ever, or ever will be, morally wrong for everyone. We can only say that it violates my personal moral standard. Or to me it's morally wrong. Or I think that is morally wrong.

Somewhat true. I believe Capital Punishment is morally wrong. Others think it is morally just. I believe giving same sex couple marriage rights, and all the rights commonly given in marriage, to be morally just. Others believe such an act is moraly wrong.
So no, there is no universal moral objective standard.

Since militant unbelievers claim that no moral objective standard or universal moral standard, exists, then all morals or morality can only be subjective. That morality can only be judged good or evil from person to person.

Don't limit it to 'militant unbelievers'. Ultimately, morality for the society as a whole falls on a subjective societal moral standard. These moral standards are subject to change as society changes.
This is even recognized in the Bible, as the Old Laws passed away, to be replaced by a newer, more reasonable standard.

 

[tigrers99]

I think that there does exist a moral/spiritual 'standard' that is innate in mankind. For instance, there exists a universal moral standard that murder and stealing are morally wrong. We prefer to qualify these however. Stealing (on the face of it) is morally wrong, but, if someone is doing it to feed their starving family, then it is not morally wrong. Though the person that was stolen from may not think so. Murder (on the face of it) is morally wrong, but, if it is a criminal that gets murdered, then it is not morally wrong. We just prefer not to be consistent with what we know deep down inside, what we are born with.

 

[waitasec]

I think that there does exist a moral/spiritual 'standard' that is innate in mankind. For instance, there exists a universal moral standard that murder and stealing are morally wrong. We prefer to qualify these however. Stealing (on the face of it) is morally wrong, but, if someone is doing it to feed their starving family, then it is not morally wrong. Though the person that was stolen from may not think so. Murder (on the face of it) is morally wrong, but, if it is a criminal that gets murdered, then it is not morally wrong. We just prefer not to be consistent with what we know deep down inside, what we are born with.

clearly the intent is what should be looked at
but why would we need to be told that murdering and stealing are wrong...
don't we know this already?
for instance...child brides in the middle east
is it morally wrong? is this subjective?

 

[tumbleweed41]

I think that there does exist a moral/spiritual 'standard' that is innate in mankind. For instance, there exists a universal moral standard that murder and stealing are morally wrong. We prefer to qualify these however. Stealing (on the face of it) is morally wrong, but, if someone is doing it to feed their starving family, then it is not morally wrong. Though the person that was stolen from may not think so. Murder (on the face of it) is morally wrong, but, if it is a criminal that gets murdered, then it is not morally wrong. We just prefer not to be consistent with what we know deep down inside, what we are born with.

No, we are not born with it. It is part of growing up in a society. Anthropologists have found isolated tribes who have no problem stealing from another tribe. Of murdering anyone from outside their own small society. But it is wrong inside the tribe. Because they must be a cohesive unit.

Look at Spartan society. A Citizen in training would think nothing of murdering a slave or non-citizen. Or stealing to support themselves, as long as it was not from another Citizen. Their punishment if caught was not for the action of murder or stealing. It was for being caught.

clearly the intent is what should be looked at
but why would we need to be told that murdering and stealing are wrong...
don't we know this already?
for instance...child brides in the middle east
is it morally wrong? is this subjective?

Yes, it is subjective. For the family selling their daughter, there is absolutely nothing morally wrong with it. We find it morally objectionable because our society has moved beyond a necessity for dowries and using pubescent children to cement family and business bonds.
We cannot stop it by merely being outraged, or going in and banning it. That society needs to progress beyond what we consider to be barbaric. Educated and progressive societies have more protective moral attitudes towards other humans than those stuck in tradition and stagnation.

 

[waitasec]

No, we are not born with it. It is part of growing up in a society. Anthropologists have found isolated tribes who have no problem stealing from another tribe. Of murdering anyone from outside their own small society. But it is wrong inside the tribe. Because they must be a cohesive unit.

Look at Spartan society. A Citizen in training would think nothing of murdering a slave or non-citizen. Or stealing to support themselves, as long as it was not from another Citizen. Their punishment if caught was not for the action of murder or stealing. It was for being caught.

it's safe belonging to a tribe
why would it be immoral to wrong your brother and not immoral to wrong your enemy?
even though it is accepted, i wonder if a study has been done about an actual emotional conflict, if there is one; is it still wrong but done out of necessity for survival and/or keeping the peace within the tribe?

Yes, it is subjective. For the family selling their daughter, there is absolutely nothing morally wrong with it. We find it morally objectionable because our society has moved beyond a necessity for dowries and using pubescent children to cement family and business bonds.
We cannot stop it by merely being outraged, or going in and banning it. That society needs to progress beyond what we consider to be barbaric. Educated and progressive societies have more protective moral attitudes towards other humans than those stuck in tradition and stagnation.

could it be that society can become addicted to a certain behavior and underneath the layers of tradition there is still a knowledge that it isn't quite right?
sort of like smoking cigarettes, we know it's unhealthy but we still do it...

 

[tumbleweed41]

it's safe belonging to a tribe
why would it be immoral to wrong your brother and not immoral to wrong your enemy?

Because the enemy is not a member of your society.

I know it is hard to comprehend, because we live today in what we consider a global society. We have come, basically, to a moral understanding that killing is wrong except in the most extreme of circumstances.
I believe this is a 'better' morality than the xenophobic moral attitudes in my example.

Think about it. In 2000 years, will the humans look back at our 'moral' behavior and consider us barbaric?

 

[Revoltingest]

Without a moral objective standard, we cannot say that slavery was ever, is ever, or ever will be, morally wrong for everyone. We can only say that it violates my personal moral standard. Or to me it's morally wrong. Or I think that is morally wrong.

Discomfort with that view is the crux of why so many I know insist that there must be some absolute morality.

Since militant unbelievers claim that no moral objective standard or universal moral standard, exists, then all morals or morality can only be subjective. That morality can only be judged good or evil from person to person.

Even we non-militant heathens claim that.

 

[LuisDantas]

Think about it. In 2000 years, will the humans look back at our 'moral' behavior and consider us barbaric?

Doubtless they will. It is barbaric to not even blink at the levels of military expenditure that we currently have, or at what passes for political debate these days.

Particularly given the current situation of poverty and social inequality.