Why "mysterious ways" don't matter.

[Jenny A]

The list would be the point. I think you would have trouble coming up with a list of objective morals that some human society (not just person but a society) wouldn't disagree with.

For example, I'm sure you and I would agree that murder is wrong. But there is hardly human agreement over what constitutes murder. In fact there is so little agreement about it that it is hardly a rule at all. Is it murder to kill a woman for having been raped (that's happening in the world right now). What about revenge killings? Killing enemy soldiers during war? How about killing civilians? Sacrificing people to the gods? Mandatory suicide missions? (Japan during WWII). Duels? (most of Europe until the 1800s) Execution of children for the crimes of their parents? (much of the Middle East and East thought so at one time). Exposing babies? Mercy killings? A father's right to execute any of his children (Rome during the Republic and early Empire). There are or have been societies that thought all of these things were moral.

Jenny, first let me say that I like you. You are smart, always thoughtful and certainly not disrespectful. When others finish their sentences or posts with some snide remark, name calling, or disrespectful term, it gives the impression that they just hang out here because it make them feel superior; and they really aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer and are parroting what others say.

Thanks, I try to be polite, but you are arguing with some pretty sharp cookies, and my politeness doesn't make me any brighter.

I actually think that most would agree on most of that list. You will get some differing opinions on war.

I think there is evidence that there are/were people even in those societies with objectionable practices that know it to be wrong and it is only by some external pressure (religion, shame, tradition, fear for oneself or family, significant mental conditioning etc.) that individuals participate. It would seem that leaders (those with the power to perpetuate the practice) could often have other motives in addition to the ones above (as a deterrent, personal gain, political gain, etc.).

Sure there were individuals who disagreed, often covertly. But the point is that many many people really did and really do think some of the things on my list are moral. And some really really do think killing in war time is not moral. The OT not only condones, but requires a number of items on my list that most people today would find grossly immoral. And I'm not picking on the Bible, just using it as evidence of past moral standards A number of the things on that list occurred during the Roman Republic and were lawful under Roman law--lauded even. I left off killing heretics but that was once (and still is in places) thought moral and right. Men in the 1700s not only thought duels were moral they considered those who turned them down to be immoral cowards. They can't all have been sociopaths.

Morals evolve socially. We can try to set objective standards for arguing them. But there is no Platonic perfect morality out there. If there were, our standards of morality wouldn't change over time.