Effects on society of secularization and moral relativism?

[Totenkopf]

Let's see--pay inequality, social inequity, occupational inequality, wife abuse being viewed as acceptable in the majority of the world, girls being treated as chattel, women in some parts of the world being burned alive for not bringing enough dowry to a marriage, inadequate maternity leave, inequitable health care in large parts of the world, rape, forced female 'circumcision', education of girls/women being a punishable offense under the Taliban.... Yup, we women believe that's acceptable. Not.

 

 

Nahhh.....you're just saying that b/c you're a spoiled western woman.

[SilentScope001]

Let's see--pay inequality, social inequity, occupational inequality, wife abuse being viewed as acceptable in the majority of the world, girls being treated as chattel, women in some parts of the world being burned alive for not bringing enough dowry to a marriage, inadequate maternity leave, inequitable health care in large parts of the world, rape, forced female 'circumcision', education of girls/women being a punishable offense under the Taliban.... Yup, we women believe that's acceptable. Not.

 

I was doing it to refute Samuel Dravis' view that moral majoritism meant that female/male inequalities are morally acceptable due to actions, claiming that moral majoritism can mean the opposite.

 

If what you claim is true, that all women are united against this, and note that this is a pretty broad declaration and generalization you are making, then it does lead to the delimma of 50-50, if men remain united for inequality and women remain united against inequality. Only when you get the male splinters (like Samuel Dravis) to go and support the women can you finally push yourself into the majority and get the necessary political and social power to change the things that you dislike the most, and you reach the supermajority needed to claim that to oppose you would be immoral.

[Jae Onasi]

Actually, it's something like women 51%, men 49%--men have a lower life expectancy than women, so women have a majority because more of us survive longer.

 

Nahhh.....you're just saying that b/c you're a spoiled western woman.

Of course I am. However, that doesn't make any difference.

[Ray Jones]

If people were all totally moral and good, then slavery would still exist

Slavery is moral?!

 

there would be no discussion over equality, and we'd probraly wouldn't have all those nations and schisms in the first place

That connects to morality how?

 

n which case, I'm okay with people knowingly choosing to do an immoral action, like paying equal wages to men and women.

Same job, same money, how's that immoral?

 

Why they would do so may be for moral reasons though (keeping women happy, increasing profits and employee morale, sastifiying their own superego, etc.

Since these reasons are mainly of selfish nature, I'd find it hard to attach the label "moral" to it.

[SilentScope001]

Actually, it's something like women 51%, men 49%--men have a lower life expectancy than women, so women have a majority because more of us survive longer.

 

So you win.

 

But I doubt Samuel Dravis will approve. He'll ask what sort of actions you are doing to actually promote something. He doesn't want talk, he wants actions, and if he feels that the majority of women aren't doing anything to contest the inequality, then he'll argue that prehaps the women are consenting to this sort of thing. Disprove it, will you?

 

Slavery is moral?!

 

That connects to morality how?

 

Same job, same money, how's that immoral?

 

Since these reasons are mainly of selfish nature, I'd find it hard to attach the label "moral" to it.

 

Uh. Please read what Sameul Dravis and I was talking about.

 

We were talking about how society would work if we define morality as "whatever the majority folk say", in other words, moral majoritism, assuming that is moral. I don't want people screaming that the system is wrong when we are already assuming the system is right and we are drawing conclusions about it, like the fact that you can be immoral.

 

Don't just read an article and start drawing conclusions about my moral system when in fact I was not defending my moral system, I was defending someone elses'. I'd request you read back on what Samuel Dravis and I was debating, at least for common denecy, so that you know why I was stating what I was stating. All my positons were purely HYPOTEHTICAL. Er...

 

The moral system does sound reasonable, since if you go against the majority, they will smash you into itty bitty bits. If you are against slavery and the rest of society is for it, you will be ridiculed and hated for doing such a thing. Want to suffer the consquences? Do it. But why? Possibly to support something else that the majority agrees in...or maybe it is due to your own hidden desires.

 

And, Ray Jones...Why shouldn't you support your own self rather than support something else? You need a reason to support something and that reason is likely to be connected to your own self anyway. Also: the Superego is the most "selfless" of the reasons I mention here, the superego is the consience, it is the one that represents society and its view of right and wrong. (Morality is what is right and what is wrong, there is nothing special about it.)

[Jae Onasi]

OK, this is sort of straying into a late-Classical through Renaissance History of Science and History of the Crusades. If one of you would like to start a thread on historical contributions of religion to science and medicine, that would be fine (history of science and medicine being one of my favorites). If not, I might after I get back from youth group drama practice/dinner later tonight and split off the relevant posts. Otherwise, we should move back on topic.

[Ray Jones]

Hm, I think it originated from my comment that thousand years ago religion had more if not almost total control, and they weren't doing better than the modern world "suffering" from secularisation. My point is, with positives and negatives on all sides, it is (was) often the fact that religious institutions "collided" with discoveries or inventions of whoever, regardless if religious or not.

[Achilles]

...and I've been waiting since post 3 to find out how moral relativism relates to secularism.

[Ray Jones]

Maybe that is the answer exactly.

[Jae Onasi]

...and I've been waiting since post 3 to find out how moral relativism relates to secularism.

 

Secularization has pushed religion out of the public arena and into the private, and essentially made all religions and moral systems 'equivalent' in the minds of many (note I did not say 'all'. However, it's a prevalent belief). With many people considering all faiths, or the lack thereof, to be equally valid, a situation is set up were all moral systems are now considered valid. If every moral system is equally valid, there is no definitive moral standard and everything is relative.

 

@Ray--the only major 'collision' so far has been the incident with Galileo, and in that case it was the Church clinging to an incorrect view that had nothing to do what the Bible says about heliocentrism/geocentrism (which is pretty much nothing). Evolution could arguably be another collision, however, Darwin was a theist and wasn't intending to dismantle religion with his theory.

[Samuel Dravis]

I have some bad feelings that all of Web Riders/Achilles' discussion and Samuel Dravis' post was deleted in the DB Terror Attack.

 

Don't worry, Samuel I read it, so no need to repost it. Altough I don't remember much of it, I do understand what you say.

Yes, that is kind of annoying. Fortunately, I have a copy of it and the rest of the page on my computer; if anyone wants the page just PM me. I don't want to repost it when it's so far from the discussion.

 

2) Assuming that you are right, then your comment that statements are actions, then it is said that it is moral to offer lip service and to claim and totally support equality. However, if you say is true that they don't do actions that support equality, then maybe they are just being hypocrites. Maybe they are not totally thinking about their actions, not knowing that they are wrong, or that that they are listening to the rhetoric. So, it may be right to pull off the higher payments of wages or treat them with other ways of equality, but people don't know it yet. Maybe all it takes is a "immoral" person, who is in fact moral but the majority doesn't know it, to go and convince the "moral" people that they are in fact not fully being moral, and then therefore cause them to evovle their morality to be more in support of equality.

 

3) Going against the majority, committing an immoral act, is immoral, but that doesn't mean you can't do it. One thing that is interesting about secular ethical theories is that you won't get punished if you commit immoral stuff. There is no Kantian lighting bolt that will strike you if you lie. In fact, without people being immoral, society won't progress at all. If people were all totally moral and good, then slavery would still exist, there would be no discussion over equality, and we'd probraly wouldn't have all those nations and schisms in the first place. In fact, I would consider that Web Rider is in fact committing an immoral act right now, by preaching moral majoritism when it is possible that a majority of people disagree with moral majoritism. In which case, I'm okay with people knowingly choosing to do an immoral action, like paying equal wages to men and women. Why they would do so may be for moral reasons though (keeping women happy, increasing profits and employee morale, sastifiying their own superego, etc.).

What I was trying to get out of Web Rider was whether he was a hypocrite or not. I take it he treats women well and I suppose I have my answer, or at least as much as I'm likely to get.

 

I've talked about the static society that a relative morality would create that you write of here before in the Senate; if you'd like to look it's in the "New Abortion Thread" IIRC.

 

Given that morality is defined as the majority opinion, there can be no 'moral' minority opinion. Still, as you say, most of society doesn't seem to agree with this idea of morality that we've been talking about here. Since this is true, I think few would like to be doing whatever the absolutists tell them to do, following them around like a dog on a leash. Still, if you disagree with the majority then you must be disagreeing with the moral view. If you're going to do that, then why not just say you're going to do whatever you want to and skip the justification part.

 

1) I do care what people say and not what people do, only because I find it impratical to claim that certain actions can support or not support an idea. Actions, standing by itself, without any sort of justification or explaination, does not seem to mean anything. Murder is wrong, but states and nations do it anyway, but it is not moral to murder because the states and the nations provide justifications for certain types of murders and condemn other murders. If you don't listen to the justifications, then you would only see people dying, and that would showcase a moral picture that is much different than if you account for the justifications.

Actions in context should be a good resource for discovering the reasons people do things. In the context of your murderer example, we find that the actions of a murderer correspond with a particular action by the government. It is easy to guess just from that that the people do not like murderers, so we shouldn't either.

 

The reason I say, "Show me that your actions fit your words!" is the same reason you said to Ray:

Prove it. We can't accept whatever people say just because they say it.

And we can't, really. If I said that a while back I went out and protested against Kenneth Foster being executed for a crime he manifestly did not commit, I would be lying. Fortunately he got his sentence commuted, no thanks to myself. However, this protesting I would be lying about is something that you might expect from me; it is something that on the face of it seems true. But it is not, is it? Words are very nice, yes, useful, yes-- but they are not always based in reality. In a very real sense, I personally consented to have Kenneth Foster killed. Murdered, even. My public opinion, my words, the respect for life that I like to think I have - that meant nothing. That's why I don't trust words; they lie, they cheat, they steal the will to act away from you. They describe visions of a false reality, where everything is nice and neat and polished, where you can be morally upright even if you do nothing. They let you tell yourself, "I am a good person" so you never have to examine your actions to see if they are actually correspond to what you say. I am not the person I like to think I am. I don't know if I will ever be that person, but as long as I know that there is this disconnect between my views and my actions, I can change myself. I can work towards being who and what I really want myself to be, whether that be towards this relative morality or an absolute one.

 

To say that we should simply trust people and not validate how their actions correspond with their words is...insane. It's like a little child putting a cloth over her eyes and saying, "You can't see me!" But we do see, don't we? We know. We are responsible. That same responsibility means that we can't just say, "No, I can't see you" and laugh it off - we have to find out what people believe to the best of our ability and (in this case) use that as our moral compass. If people looked at me, what would they think of my actions in Kenneth Foster's case? Perhaps they'd think that someone's life wasn't important enough for me to get off my ass. You know what? I can't refute that, and I am deeply ashamed I didn't do something when it would have counted. But these words here wouldn't have saved his life, would they? They certainly don't do a damn thing now.

[Achilles]

Secularization has pushed religion out of the public arena and into the private, and essentially made all religions and moral systems 'equivalent' in the minds of many (note I did not say 'all'. However, it's a prevalent belief).

Hmmm...how?

 

With many people considering all faiths, or the lack thereof, to be equally valid, a situation is set up were all moral systems are now considered valid.

Awfully big leap in reasoning. Do you have anything to support this?

 

Seems to be the quickest way around this problem would be to find some way to objectively determine that one set of beliefs really was superior to others, don't you think?

 

If every moral system is equally valid, there is no definitive moral standard and everything is relative.

I agree. Luckily, not every moral system is equally valid. Some are better than others with objective moral systems being the best.

 

Here's a counter argument for you to ponder:

 

Multiple religions, all equally supportable and equally valid, all claiming to have access to absolute truths. These truths contradict themselves, as well as each other, to varying degrees.

 

Which school of thought is "more guilty" of promoting moral relativism: privatized subjective beliefs or the subjective beliefs themselves all claiming to the "real truth"?

 

So going back to my point in post three, I'm not sure how your (or the author of that not-very-well-thought-out poem) characterization of secularism being the cause of moral relativity is either accurate or supportable.

[Jae Onasi]

Hmmm...how?

 

Awfully big leap in reasoning. Do you have anything to support this?

It's simply an observation. I never said I believed it, however I agree for the most part with what your saying (barring your beliefs on Christianity). How many people have you talked to who think Islam is the same as Christianity is the same as Buddhism is the same as New Ageism is the same as Philosophy-du-jour? It's almost as if people are afraid to say they believe in anything for fear of offending someone.

 

Which school of thought is "more guilty" of promoting moral relativism: privatized subjective beliefs or the subjective beliefs themselves all claiming to the "real truth"?

 

I don't think most people appreciate the difference, do you? And to be honest, would it make a difference if the end result is the same for most people? In any case, those of us who participate in a given religion obviously don't generally think our religious views are relative (if someone ever gives that kind of thing a thought to begin with). Your view that Christianity is just as relative as any other religion does not make a difference in how I view Christianity as bearing Truth.

So going back to my point in post three, I'm not sure how your (or the author of that not-very-well-thought-out poem) characterization of secularism being the cause of moral relativity is either accurate or supportable.

They're co-contributers to moral decline--with religion out of the picture, everything is OK, nothing is wrong, do whatever feels good as long as you don't hurt anyone (depending on your definitions of 'feels good' and 'hurt', which are now relative) and we're all going to hell in a handbasket because we no longer know if up is down, East is West, or good is bad or bad is good, and polls determine how we should think, feel, and vote. America is filled with people who act like mullets--brightly colored clueless fish that travel in large schools, following each other around aimlessly with no discernible leader, just going where the waves happen to take them next. Note that I am most certainly not saying anyone here is a mullet--whether we all agree with each other or not, we've at least thought about some of these issues now and then and not abdicated our decision-making on morality to whatever the talking heads deem 'good' or 'bad' this week, as so many have.

[Achilles]

It's simply an observation. I never said I believed it, however I agree for the most part with what your saying (barring your beliefs on Christianity).

Oh, so you started a thread about the affects of secularization and moral relativism, but you agree that they aren't related? Sorry, that wasn't clear before, so I was confused.

 

How many people have you talked to who think Islam is the same as Christianity is the same as Buddhism is the same as New Ageism is the same as Philosophy-du-jour?

I honestly cannot recall ever speaking to anyone that thought this.

 

It's almost as if people are afraid to say they believe in anything for fear of offending someone.

I'm sure that we could probably accurately assume that n>1. In other words, I'm sure that if we looked long enough we could probably find a few people that really do this.

 

Wait. Hold on. I changed my mind. Atheists living in the bible belt. You're right, Jae. I think there are a lot of people afraid to speak about how they really think for fear of repercussions (including, but not limited to, offending people).

 

I don't think most people appreciate the difference, do you?

Is that the question we're trying to answer now? Sorry, I'm still thrown off by post 1 and thread title.

 

Erm...in that case, no I don't suppose that most people appreciate the difference, hence why many people (mistakenly) equate the moral relativism with secularism.

 

And to be honest, would it make a difference if the end result is the same for most people?

Yes, it very much makes a difference. If a doctor was attempting to diagnose an illness, would it matter which illness the patient actually had? The patient might not care whether they feel crappy because they have ebola vs. the flu, but I bet a lot of other people have a vested interest in the truth.

 

In any case, those of us who participate in a given religion obviously don't generally think our religious views are relative (if someone ever gives that kind of thing a thought to begin with). Your view that Christianity is just as relative as any other religion does not make a difference in how I view Christianity as bearing Truth.

Right, so you have a subjective truth that provides a relative basis for your morality. Just like any other person that takes their morality directly from religion without any manner of examination or challenge. Whether or not you specifically do this is really quite beside the point.

 

The common argument against moral relativism is that one can pick and choose their morals like shopping in a grocery store. This sounds to me like driving through any part of almost any town or city in the U.S. on a Sunday (Saturday? Wednesday?). Don't like what the catholics are selling? How about protestantism? Not your size? Try on southern baptism? Doesn't go with your shoes? How about mormonism? Or any other myriad of religious options. All demanding center stage because they have it right and everyone else has it wrong. In other words, conflicting moral systems which act as a breeding ground for moral relativism (the alternative being a fight to the death).

 

They're co-contributers to moral decline

Well this seems to contradict what you said in the first section. Could you please clarify your argument?

 

--with religion out of the picture, everything is OK, nothing is wrong, do whatever feels good as long as you don't hurt anyone (depending on your definitions of 'feels good' and 'hurt', which are now relative) and we're all going to hell in a handbasket because we no longer know if up is down, East is West, or good is bad or bad is good, and polls determine how we should think, feel, and vote.

Well if one assumes that religion (ha! which one!?) was a source of moral truth, then I suppose this could be right. However since there is absolutely no evidence to support such an argument, I think my argument stands. Your entire argument hinges on this assumption, so please be thorough with your counter-argument.

 

America is filled with people who act like mullets--brightly colored clueless fish that travel in large schools, following each other around aimlessly with no discernible leader, just going where the waves happen to take them next. Note that I am most certainly not saying anyone here is a mullet--whether we all agree with each other or not, we've at least thought about some of these issues now and then and not abdicated our decision-making on morality to whatever the talking heads deem 'good' or 'bad' this week, as so many have.

And? Surely, you sit next to some of these people on Sundays don't you? What makes their mulletness less mulletty? That they happened to follow your congregation instead of some other? I believe the technical term for that is "cognitive dissonance".

[Totenkopf]

Still glossed over or conveniently ignored is the fact that since secularists/atheists appear to share nothing more than a lack of belief in God/gods, is the fact that there is no universal objective secular morality. Just like any religious sects, they will be divided on their outlook as to what constitutes "objective". Hence the fallacy that a secularist will have any less of a relativistic grasp of morality than a theist. They'll simply have their version of "objective" morality depending upon whatever philosophy they happen to buy into when formulating their views.

[Ray Jones]

Secularization has pushed religion out of the public arena and into the private

That's where religion belongs, as it is a very subjective thing. Also, as I said it before, I doubt religion is where it is just because of secularisation. Mostly religion's situation is to be blamed on religion itself, if it's to be blamed on something else at all. If religion is so correct and right and superiour to secularism/atheism, why do people turn away from religion?

 

 

With many people considering all faiths, or the lack thereof, to be equally valid

Can't second that. While I see any religion equally as religion, I would never put them as equally valid. And I doubt we'll find many who'll see Judaism, Hinduism, Islam and Christianity as equally valid faiths. Not among the followers of these religions, and among the non believers neither.

 

 

If every moral system is equally valid, there is no definitive moral standard and everything is relative.

That's right, *IF*. But nowhere does it say it is. And you might agree, it ain't.

 

 

@Ray--the only major 'collision' so far has been the incident with Galileo, and in that case it was the Church clinging to an incorrect view that had nothing to do what the Bible says about heliocentrism/geocentrism (which is pretty much nothing). Evolution could arguably be another collision, however, Darwin was a theist and wasn't intending to dismantle religion with his theory.

I did not say anyone intended to dismantle religion. And another major collision I can think of is the topic of contraceptives and safer sex.

[Nancy Allen``]

Morality and religion? If anything religion should be a paragon of morality, standing up for what is moral and stamping out what isn't. Such as? Pornography for example, something that many believe not only degrades women but is a source for people to find ideas to try out in real life. That arguement is similar to the one on video games and films. I'm not quite sure how this works but there's even the thinking that people who look for more material look for something harder, even illegal, and not only that but part of the desire is because the material cannot hurt them, and they think the women can't hurt them either, and apparently this leads them to targeting children because they are not a threat. Now if half of this is true it is a very moral thing to act against it, something that religion does militantly.

 

People will bring up immorality in religion, Bush acting on orders from God for example, or the belief true believers should kill those who do not follow their religion. These people as simply as I can put it cannot see the forest for the trees. They see intolerance and war against others as the be all and end all, ignoring everything else.

[Achilles]

Morality and religion? If anything religion should be a paragon of morality

Which one?

 

standing up for what is moral and stamping out what isn't.

Based on who's version of which standards?

 

Such as? Pornography for example, something that many believe not only degrades women but is a source for people to find ideas to try out in real life.

And what about those women that argue that pornography is empowering? What about men that think that pornography is degrading towards men (appealing to us as nothing more than cavemen)?

 

I suppose there is an argument that pornography tends to objectify women, but I think religion has been promoting that for quite some time.

 

That arguement is similar to the one on video games and films. I'm not quite sure how this works but there's even the thinking that people who look for more material look for something harder, even illegal, and not only that but part of the desire is because the material cannot hurt them, and they think the women can't hurt them either, and apparently this leads them to targeting children because they are not a threat. Now if half of this is true it is a very moral thing to act against it, something that religion does militantly.

Very interesting speculations. Thank you for sharing them.

 

People will bring up immorality in religion, Bush acting on orders from God for example, or the belief true believers should kill those who do not follow their religion. These people as simply as I can put it cannot see the forest for the trees.

What does this mean?

 

They see intolerance and war against others as the be all and end all, ignoring everything else.

People that point out that religion promote violence and intolerance are hate-mongers? Am I following this correctly?

 

Thanks for your response.

[Nancy Allen``]

Which one?

 

Take your pick from Christianity, Judism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddism, ect. Each in their own way is meant to be moral.

 

And what about those women that argue that pornography is empowering? What about men that think that pornography is degrading towards men (appealing to us as nothing more than cavemen)?

 

Leaving religion aside I would agree with the notion of how women are negatively seen in the adult industry, men too. Christianity chief among them has taken up arms against such immorality.

 

What does this mean?

 

Taking Christianity as an example, people read about condemning homosexuals so they condemn homosexuals, which is what? Mentioned two times? They either don't read the parts about forgiveness, redemption, the story of Jesus and the importance of the lessons of which makes up the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and are discussed in Acts, Corinthians, Galations, ect, ect or simply disregard it.

 

People that point out that religion promote violence and intolerance are hate-mongers? Am I following this correctly?

 

Those who set out to upset theists, those who are intolerant of religion, yes.

[Achilles]

Take your pick from Christianity, Judism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddism, ect. Each in their own way is meant to be moral.

Your statement was, "If anything religion should be a paragon of morality".

From Merriam-Webster's, paragon means a model of excellence or perfection. So which one of these flavors of religion is the paragon? They can't all be the paragon, considering many contradict one another. If you are going to change your argument so that they can all be equally valid, then I should think that objective moral systems should be included.

 

Taking Christianity as an example, people read about condemning homosexuals so they condemn homosexuals, which is what? Mentioned two times? They either don't read the parts about forgiveness, redemption, the story of Jesus and the importance of the lessons of which makes up the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and are discussed in Acts, Corinthians, Galations, ect, ect or simply disregard it.

How many times should god (or paul) have to say that homosexuality is wrong? Apparently you think that twice is insufficient. Others feel that once was clear enough. So what is the magic number?

 

Yes, I would agree that the parts regarding forgiveness, etc present quite the contradiction. No wonder there isn't one clear interpretation of religion. So many contradictions!

 

Those who set out to upset theists, those who are intolerant of religion, yes.

This would seem to be a very different point from what you attempting to make earlier. No matter.

[Nancy Allen``]

Your statement was, "If anything religion should be a paragon of morality".

 

Each are meant to be a model or pattern of excellebce or of a particular excellence.

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/paragon

 

How many times should god (or paul) have to say that homosexuality is wrong?

 

The repetition of forgiveness and tolerance suggests it is more important than homosexuality being wrong.

 

This would seem to be a very different point from what you attempting to make earlier. No matter.

 

Because you wished to know about something unrelated to what I was saying.

[Achilles]

Each are meant to be a model or pattern of excellebce or of a particular excellence.

Hehe. Didn't I just get finished providing the definition of the word? And then you turn around and provide it again as though I didn't know what it was. Wonderful.

 

Many religions have a different message. Most religions contradict each other. Many religious messages contradict other religious messages, within the same religion. So "religion" cannot possibly be the paragon for morality. Unless we're we're willing to accept that we can have dozens of "truths" which are all equally valid. This is also known as moral relativism. Are you arguing for moral relativism?

 

The repetition of forgiveness and tolerance suggests it is more important than homosexuality being wrong.

Ah, so it's your interpretation then. Therefore, whether your interpretation is any more or any less valid that any other interpretation is entirely subjective.

 

So using the logic in your argument, if we found the commandment to kill was more prevalent than the commandment not to kill, we could then determine that killing would be more correct than not killing, right?

 

Because you wished to know about something unrelated to what I was saying.

Actually, no. I was simply trying to clarify since I didn't understand your point. Perhaps you'd be willing to try again?

 

Thanks.

[Jae Onasi]

History-related posts were split off from this thread and merged with the Ancient-Renaissance, Modern Cultural Decline, etc thread. Carry on.

[Nancy Allen``]

Many religions have a different message. Most religions contradict each other. Many religious messages contradict other religious messages, within the same religion. So "religion" cannot possibly be the paragon for morality. Unless we're we're willing to accept that we can have dozens of "truths" which are all equally valid. This is also known as moral relativism. Are you arguing for moral relativism?

 

It's not something that's worth losing sleep over.

 

So using the logic in your argument, if we found the commandment to kill was more prevalent than the commandment not to kill, we could then determine that killing would be more correct than not killing, right?

 

These were times when hands were sliced off for robbery, killing was in accordance with the times.

 

Actually, no. I was simply trying to clarify since I didn't understand your point. Perhaps you'd be willing to try again?

 

Fundamentalists and antitheists are the problem with the world. As well as those who use it as a basis for attacking others.

[Achilles]

It's not something that's worth losing sleep over.

For you that may be true. For those that are concerned with morality and moral behavior, the distinction might be an important one.

 

These were times when hands were sliced off for robbery, killing was in accordance with the times.

You didn't answer the question.

 

Fundamentalists and antitheists are the problem with the world. As well as those who use it as a basis for attacking others.

Well then it would seem that my attempt to clarify was related after all. You certainly do make it difficult to keep up.