[ - cont]
No humans know all they need to know. That's why allowance for development and change in the principles informing our moral decisions is important. These things shouldn't change like the weather, but neither should they be fixed in the face of learning.
My parents, the people around me, and the culture I grew up in instructed me. As an adult, I took personal responsibility for my moral positions on things, and continued to try and develop my understanding of the world, and the principles by which I live.
I now have children (and was previously a teacher), and again try to impart these key principles, whilst giving room for growth and interpretation.
Humans are indeed complex. An 'instruction manual' is horribly insufficient to deal with the nuances of life, particularly in projecting forwards the next 80 years in terms of what my children will need to try and address.
No doubt. Some of my best friends are also 'adversaries' in some senses. There is no way to understand others unless this occurs, I think.
Not really. I take personal responsibility for how I live, which is not really the same thing. My morals were heavily informed by my parents, and by those around me, as well as extensive reading and study. That's not to suggest this makes them 'better', but I could no more change what I believe around morality than I could change my beliefs on the existence of God. I can direct what I think about, and what I study, and indirectly this does impact on my beliefs, and my morals to some degree. But they're not simply 'opinionative'. That might sound like I'm splitting hairs to you, I'm not sure. It's an important distinction to me, though.
It's the same thing (to me). There are a couple of distinct points I'd make in relation to this. Hopefully I can make them somewhat succinctly.
1) Assuming the Bible is the holder of objective truth, there is an interpretive quality to the moral code of all Christians.
By that, I mean the subjective interpretation of the Bible leads to different moral beliefs. And has led to different moral beliefs over time. Consider the allowance (or otherwise) of imagery in Byzantium. The acceptance...or otherwise...of polygamy, divorce, female clergy, translated Bibles, personal worship of Jesus, etc, etc. These beliefs all stem from subjective interpretations of the available data. Indeed, consider the books included in the Bible itself.
2) The Bible is a source of morality...this merely makes it a more widely accepted subjective morality. It speaks nothing to it's objectivity.
Is it more 'objective' than Islamic morality? Why? Is it more objective than Jewish morality? Why? Is it more objective than Jainism? Why?
In each case other than the moral beliefs you follow, you'd suggest that a moral belief being documented and widespread is not indicative of it being objectively true, I believe. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on that.
Whether it's a strawman is entirely contextual, and nothing to do with whether it is 'true'.
For example, were I to say that 'Christians can't even explain the Trinity', and then go on to explain why Christianity is flawed based on this, that would be a strawman. Even though it's quite factual that there are plenty of Christians who struggle to understand or explain the Trinity. Indeed, there are those who don't even believe in it.
It's a legal ruling involving certain sorts of killing which sit outside what is permitted.
It's not a moral ruling.
For example, my grandfather was a soldier, and killed people. He did this 'legally' based on the laws of our land.
Individuals can judge that 'moral' or 'immoral' based on their beliefs...a Jain would surely see it as immoral, for example. But it's not 'murder', as it was legally sanctioned.
For what it's worth, I don't see anything immoral in what he did. War is regrettable, etc, and I am very much non-violent. But to me such things are contextual.
