(June 15, 2023 at 5:17 pm)R-Farmer Wrote: If your system of right and wrong is based on any form of morality not decreed by god. Then at some point the acts you deem as moral or immoral have changed.
If you don't think this is the case, then provide an example.
Example that have already been discussed in this thread and disproven are: Rape, Murder, Child murder/abortion, Child sex, slavery. All immoral now, but at one time where considered moral acts by the societies in power.
So you have your own idiosyncratic definition of moral objectivism and moral relativism. The standard definition of moral obectivism is that there are objective moral principles that are valid for all people. Yours is an oxymoron.
I'll go out on a limb and say that no matter the circumstances, doing any of those (and I'll add torture) for fun or on a whim is immoral, alway was, always will be. The essence of moral objectivism is that some things are right or wrong no matter the prevailing fashion or who is in charge. This seems to be a difficult concept for you to grasp; since you're still struggling to impose some relevance on what the societies in power think.
I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-stupid.
