What is with refusing to admit slavery is wrong?

[CapnAwesome]

Yeah, but you aren't less immoral because you are surrounded by other immoral people. ISIS isn't immoral because of some sort of comparison with other people, they are immoral because they spread pain and suffering. The same thing applies to the past.

Not less immoral by our standards. But he's not an example of immorality compared to all the other religious founders or revered leaders of the time. As this thread shows. It was a worldwide barbaric society by our standards. Roughly at the same time, the Franks rose to power. Using the same means as Mohammed. Charlemagne, the slaughterer of Saxons, lived and rules a short hundred years later. And he's highly revered in religious history. And one of the reasons why he slaughtered the Saxons was the fact they were stubborn heathens.

So there's no examplary immorality there, compared to what others brought upon us.

Here is the problem I have with this argument. I don't think the standards matter. Why would they? I don't think that morality depends on context. We certainly don't phrase it that way today. For example if there are people who are geographically isolated, say Muslims in the middle east, we don't give them a moral pass because that's what their community tells them is okay. It's the same with Muhammad. I don't think that morality has changed at all. Slavery was immoral in the past because it caused pain and suffering to people. Slavery is immoral today because it causes pain and suffering to people. It's just that our understanding of it has advanced.

I also think that if you are a moral relativist you have to admit that Christianity was morally advanced for the time.