Theistic morality

[Eilonnwy]

I'm curious, Ely. What exactly did we learn that indicated that such previously held views on slavery and wife beating are "wrong"? What did we learn that makes them "wrong" even when such things were acceptable or tolerated previously? How do you define "wrong" here? The way you are using the word seems to presuppose some objective standard for determining what is "wrong".

Nope. It's subjective. Social morality is based upon the agreement of what is wrong, which is why people can still have personal morality that differs with what is generally agreed upon by the society. I find it morally wrong to eat animals for many reasons. I'm not going to detail my reasons here, because that is not the point. The point is I don't eat meat based on certain ethical and health convictions, and there is no doubt many people here would vehemently disagree with me on this issue, and that's fine. We can still as a group of people agree that it's morally wrong to kill people.

You're clinging onto the usage of my word know to say, "Ahah! You have to be objective!" Nope. Our society has evolved our morality to declare that treating women like property and keeping slaves is wrong, based on our propensity to learn and recognize what benefits the society as a whole (The basis for morality). We as a society know slavery is wrong because we have deemed it to be such based on the consequences of slavery and recognition that all people are equal. Therefore, we know people in the past are wrong. I realize this is a difficult concept to grasp, but as I said before, if morality was objective, then it had to always be wrong, and we know from that people in the past did not consider it wrong. Therefore, subjective.

I do admit that my explanation is slightly messy, it's a complicated discussion and difficult to express.

What exactly do you mean by "Now we know better"? In the context of the rest of what you said, it appears to me to be just a pompous way of saying "Society merely does not accept such behavior any more". I use the word pompous here as the phrase you use seems to imply that somehow our current knowledge on these issues is somehow better or more appropriate that the knowledge of those who previously accepted such behavior but I do not see any support for such a position.

Would you not admit that we knew better when it comes bloodletting? It was used as a means of curing diseases, but know we know better through scientific inquiry that it was 100% wrong and didn't do a damn thing. It's not pompous to say that we have built our knowledge to the point where we "know better" than people 1000 years ago. I know better than Galileo what the universe is like because I was lucky enough to exist in time were from his knowledge we have built a more comprehensive understanding of the universe that is readily available to people like me. That doesn't mean I dismiss what Galileo did know and his achievements. I know better than Kelvin who postulated the wrong age of the earth, because he knew nothing of nuclear energy.

I do not fault people of the past from making decisions based on their limited understanding of science, medicine, philosophy, etc... Yet, the fact remains we have built our knowledge from them and what some of what they said was good but what some of what they said was wrong and just simply doesn't apply anymore.

Of course our knowledge is better because it's more complete. We have vastly more information to work with. And in 1000 years, those people will have better knowledge and know better than us in matters of science, medicine, and philosophy.

We've made wondrous achievements on the backs of those who came before, and people will continue to do so long into the future.

Edit: I just realized the futility of using examples from science, especially related to age of earth and astronomy with a creationist, but, I'm to lazy to think of others and it's lunchtime.