It's that constant claiming that, for the most part, calcifies peoples opinions about good and evil and their nature as subjective, relative, or objective - much more so than any facts of the given positions.
Descriptive moral relativism, for example, is more of a comment on cultural anthropology than metaethics - and it was derived, in the modern form, explicitly from cultural anthropology. Since we find ourselves discussing anthropology, though, consider the constant claims of the religious in that light. Perhaps they make those repeated claims because their conclusion is accurate, even if the underlying moral reasoning is not. We do that all the time. Get the right answer for the wrong reasons, or have the right answer handed to us in ignorance of any valid underlying justification.
The OT prohibitions on polyblend cloth and shellfish, for example. This comes to us from the phillistine and canaanite occupations of the northern coast and interior lowlands as narrated by a pastoralist in southern judah. They're not about underwear and shrimp, at all, they're about cultural contamination and the fear that the consequences of this will be disastrous. The judahite authors of the OT are obsessed with god punishing transgressions against the establishd order, and they contextualize the increasingly urban and coastal populations living an openly multicultural lifestyle due to recent mass migrations and the post sea peoples collapse of the traditional powerbase. Linen was made by The Other Guys. The Other Guys ate waterbug. They're saying "don't wear the invaders clothes or support his economy and excess, or A Bad Thing(*tm) will happen.
There's an attempt at consequentialist objectivity hiding underneath fanciful stories of gods laws for man, though anyone from the time of this particular bits inception wouldn't have needed any explanation to this effect. They already knew. It only became opaque after centuries of time and transportation had eradicated a massive chunk of the popular cultural memory. Never forget that the people who composed old magic book only deigned to do so after the diaspora and as they were returning and reclaiming territory. The Bad Thing™ was only bad if you shared a certain political viewpoint on the correct demographics and governance of isreal and judah. The negative consequences alluded to (barring the divine as a non issue - more a way to emphasize than anything) do not materialize outside of that group. In the end, the Bad Thing™ -did- happen, but not quite for the reasons assumed.
Building momentum from the lowlands between and beneath the pastoralists freeholds, culminating in the creation and maintenance of an extensive agricultural empire very much of it's own time in an otherwise productively barren landscape - the wealth and success of the kingdom of israel made it a target for foreign adversaries, who utterly destroyed it, fulfilling the "prophecies" of contemporary judahite commentators. The israelites had strayed from what was taken to be the traditional path, the conservative effort to continue doing what's been working. God brought the hammer down. Or so it was contextualized, a very common way for pre-modern societies to summarize disaster . The recitation of a litany of offenses we might recognize as moral offense (though we may not agree with the moral basis) amounting to a morass or miasma that then makes tragedy inevitable.
Descriptive moral relativism, for example, is more of a comment on cultural anthropology than metaethics - and it was derived, in the modern form, explicitly from cultural anthropology. Since we find ourselves discussing anthropology, though, consider the constant claims of the religious in that light. Perhaps they make those repeated claims because their conclusion is accurate, even if the underlying moral reasoning is not. We do that all the time. Get the right answer for the wrong reasons, or have the right answer handed to us in ignorance of any valid underlying justification.
The OT prohibitions on polyblend cloth and shellfish, for example. This comes to us from the phillistine and canaanite occupations of the northern coast and interior lowlands as narrated by a pastoralist in southern judah. They're not about underwear and shrimp, at all, they're about cultural contamination and the fear that the consequences of this will be disastrous. The judahite authors of the OT are obsessed with god punishing transgressions against the establishd order, and they contextualize the increasingly urban and coastal populations living an openly multicultural lifestyle due to recent mass migrations and the post sea peoples collapse of the traditional powerbase. Linen was made by The Other Guys. The Other Guys ate waterbug. They're saying "don't wear the invaders clothes or support his economy and excess, or A Bad Thing(*tm) will happen.
There's an attempt at consequentialist objectivity hiding underneath fanciful stories of gods laws for man, though anyone from the time of this particular bits inception wouldn't have needed any explanation to this effect. They already knew. It only became opaque after centuries of time and transportation had eradicated a massive chunk of the popular cultural memory. Never forget that the people who composed old magic book only deigned to do so after the diaspora and as they were returning and reclaiming territory. The Bad Thing™ was only bad if you shared a certain political viewpoint on the correct demographics and governance of isreal and judah. The negative consequences alluded to (barring the divine as a non issue - more a way to emphasize than anything) do not materialize outside of that group. In the end, the Bad Thing™ -did- happen, but not quite for the reasons assumed.
Building momentum from the lowlands between and beneath the pastoralists freeholds, culminating in the creation and maintenance of an extensive agricultural empire very much of it's own time in an otherwise productively barren landscape - the wealth and success of the kingdom of israel made it a target for foreign adversaries, who utterly destroyed it, fulfilling the "prophecies" of contemporary judahite commentators. The israelites had strayed from what was taken to be the traditional path, the conservative effort to continue doing what's been working. God brought the hammer down. Or so it was contextualized, a very common way for pre-modern societies to summarize disaster . The recitation of a litany of offenses we might recognize as moral offense (though we may not agree with the moral basis) amounting to a morass or miasma that then makes tragedy inevitable.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
