Why "mysterious ways" don't matter.

[SteveII]

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.

So the question is are morals invented, discovered or always known? If invented then they are surely subjective. If they are discovered, as I think you and Esquilax have implied, then that does nothing to undermine the argument that there are objective standards but does not go as far as having them being innate. hmm...