What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[Ravenshire]

To them, in their society, yes it is. Do I consider it moral? No. Do I expect the society I live in to condone it? No. Can you prove that your morality is right and theirs is wrong? No.

I already know that in their society they think that killing gays and burning rape victims is moral. But do you think they are wrong in believing that? Sounds like your answer is no. Is this correct?

(sorry, I don't mean to be annoying, just wanna be sure I fully understand)

Do I think they are wrong? Yes and no. Yes because my morality is different from theirs and no because they are doing what their morality tells them is right. Who am I to judge their morality when I can't prove that mine is more correct. I certainly don't think they're moral from within my moral framework. They don't think you and I are moral from within theirs (how dare you go out without covering you hair) and that is the point. Neither of us thinks the other is moral and neither of us can prove the other wrong because all morality is subjective.

No, I'm saying that if morality were objective, he could not have stopped the stoning of the adulteress. If the morality you hold near and dear is indeed objective, it is what it is, no matter what and cannot be changed and the morality he lived by called for her to be stoned.

Hm? What do you mean he could not have stopped it? I'm sorry. I don't understand.

If morality were truly objective, he would have had no basis for saying that they shouldn't stone her. He would have had no alternative morality to present in in place of the current morality, especially considering what they were doing was in line with what gawd said.