Honestly, how can ANYONE deny that morality is subjective to the time place and culture one lives in?

Question

If you take a look at history its just an undeniable fact. Hell I have watched it change simply in the short time I have been alive. Now I know there are going to be those of you that make the claim that it has simply degraded or what have you but I dare say members of your own faith 200 years ago would more than likely not even recognize the faith you now belong too were they alive today.

So... ya if you disagree PROVE IT
back it up with some evidence

Answer 1

Immorality: the morality of those who are having a better time.

Answer 2

Relativity answered the question, "What is truth", pretty well. Morality is on issue the major religions of the world have a surprising agreement on. The application varies, but our own laws on using minimal force on a burglar, for instance, seems reasonable to most people when you think about it. Shooting them in the legs so they can't escape and can face trial is more humane than killing a dumb kid who might become your benefactor one day somehow, Ayn Rands rational self interest. What if it was your kid? Peter Kreeft says that theological truths are where they most disagree. I see where they could all come together for all practical purposes, but reality is always being enlarged on and religion, like science, isn't really supposed to be static. The problem is more with the traditions handed down about sacred texts then the texts that they are based on. The other porblem is with the wise application, or as someone said, a bad plan works better than a good one if everyone gets behind it. Stupid people can't even make a good plan work. Being too literal is one example. The letter kills, love fulfills the law. Peter said that all things are lawful, but not all things are profitable and that quote in Isaiah, wasn't it, their's a time for everything under the sun. Personaly it's my opinion we aren't much better than grown up children. If I were a scientist I would never have given the bomb to governments, it's like giving a gun to a four year old, not always wise. The solution to the whole thing is to learn to discern your intuiiton from your thoughts and follow your intuition. Any data you can feed it will give it something to work with. Religion has been the serious study of scholars for a long time and they have at least asked the important questions and to ignore any discipline seems escapist, to me. The ten categories in the library are a good guide to learn the basics of each. Every door we close that's less information we have. The way the mind works it uses all data without bias and usually if you do that you can see the answer from the facts. Why wouldn't a study of ethics be good. Herbert Spencer's "Data On Ethics" is an enduring classic that seems entirely rational. To draw conclusions without looking is defeatist. I think we have a responsibility to ourselves to at least apply something like that. On religion, they are so messed up, the best you can do is the basic thoughts in the New Testament to keep it brief. Like love your neighbor is more for you then them. It's the key to your own happiness and not to judge. The subconscious is unbiased, it will judge you and believe me you will not come off good. It's better to judge idea as if they're bad you won't do them. That's how the mind works and it hasn't changed much, at least for optimal efficiency, no matter how much we may try to twist the truth. I hope that makes some sense, because it's sort'a like that.

Answer 3

Morality's definitely changed a with time, though followers of some of the more vocal faiths would like to bring back the good old ways.

It's been a while since anyone's been burned at the stake, or tortured to death for heresy.

You don't hear much about people anywhere stoning adulterers to death anymore

There's more latitude in matters of masturbation.

It's also sort of nice we don't have to marry the widow of our brother if something happens to him.

It's a lot less acceptable these days for a man to give his wife a good beating in the interests of helping her improve.

I'd say, whether or not 'morality' is subjective, mores have a way of evolving. However, unless a person's willing to believe history and accept the evidence of it, probably there's no way of proving morality's subjective.

But as another answerer's pointed out, such changes are certainly the work of Satan.

Answer 4

Its seems that you are arguing for moral relativism, the idea the any moral belief is as good as any other: that morality is baseless. You recognize that people in different time periods and cultures have had different beliefs. Of course, this doesn't mean that these beliefs are equally valid. It is impossible to prove with certainty that a particular moral belief or framework is correct. If this is enough to convince you that morality is relative, then you might also begin to wonder about beliefs about science or medicine.

Medicine, like morality, has a large theoretical component and has been practiced quite differently in different contexts. Modern Medicine is based on the "theory of diseases", the idea that a disease has reality independent of the person who has "it", and can be fully understood outside of the context in which it occurs. This theoretical framework has led science to develop many good treatments for infectious agents (antibiotics, etc) but has largely neglected the role of the host in contributing to the manifestations of disease (neglecting the persons nutritional status and balance of healthy microorganisms, for example). The current mainstream framework, in other words has advantages and disadvantages. More traditional frameworks approach sickness as a problem of disharmony between the individuals and his environment. This approach takes the individuals diet, relationships and environmental context into account more than modern medicine, but suffers from the deficiency that it neglects the pernicious role that infectious agents can play. Once again, advantages and disadvantages.

Instead of saying that the practice of medicine is subjective to the time period and culture is was practiced in, we would be better off understanding the context, identifying strengths and limitations of different practices, and seeing how we could draw from them to further our own understanding. Why couldn't we take an approach like this when dealing with morality?

If your desire is to come across an irrefutable, unchanging proof of absolute certainty, then you are going to be quite frustrated by the real world, whether you are investigating morality, science or any other subject other than logical tautalogies lke "A=A" and "All bachelors are unmarried males".

If you are interested in this subject, I would most recommend reading Martha Nussbaums "Women and Human Development", which responds in greater detail to the concerns you are raising.

Answer 5

I'm not really looking to argue with you, in the broad terms of any group as a whole what you're saying is true, but there have always been those individuals who were either more or less moral than their contemporaries. I personally believe that morality is defined by the amount of humanity in a person, rather than as being the mere product of their environment. I prefer to believe that individuals have the ability toeither improve or degrade themselves and their sense of morality.
Certainly there is cultural norm from which to base an individual's progress or lack there of. But it's like saying the average American has 1.3 pets or something like that.

Answer 6

particular, morality could be formed via the time, place or subculture one lives in. That became exceptionally obvious in the past the Revelation at Mt. Sinai. In occasion, the Code of Hammurabi became a code of regulation alongside with utilitarian policies, yet with out ethical policies. After the Revelation at Mt. Sinai, nevertheless, mankind has an purpose usually going on of Morality. in case you're a individual knowledgeable in ethical monotheism, no excuses for immoral habit, then.

Answer 7

morality can never be subjective .Either it is there or not . Morality is imbibed from the parents and child hood buddies and of all important school teachers . Morality never changes .Only the moral values change and that is quite different from the morality which is a concept and moral value is the happening of time .

Answer 8

Only a fool would disagree.

Love and blessings Don

Answer 9

I think you are right but that shouldn't be the case. morale should be the same no matter where we live or what's going on around us. Satan is the same no matter where we go.

Answer 10

no-one can