how does one best distinguish between culture-specific taboos and transcendent moral laws?

Question

E.g. eating pork is a culture-specific taboo, not a moral issue. Adultery is an obvious moral issue. Where are the boundaries between the two?

Some great answers so far, keep 'em comin....

Answer 1

One guideline is found in this passage.

Romans 13:8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. 9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

Another guideline is the "special revelation" guide line. That one goes like this. Eating pork or not working on Saturday are not things that would be obvious to people no matter when or where they lived because of cultural differences. It took a special revelation from God for those things to be included in the law that He gave to the Israelites when He was calling out a people from the tribes of this world through whom He would reveal his salvation to the rest of the world.

Answer 2

I don't believe you can. Some religions will claim that what you refer to as culture-specific taboos are actually moral sins, proclaimed by a higher power. These groups may argue that while it may appear to be culture-specific this is simply because other 'cultures' have not embraced the morality of their beliefs. On the other hand some seemingly universal morals are, when examined more closely, not as universal except by arbitrary definition or boundaries. You mentioned as an example adultery. While I am not aware of any society that condones adultery some people consider polygamy or polyandry to be a form of adultery. Another example is murder; while there seemingly exists a universal taboo against murder some societies accept taking another human life in retribution for a previous affront. Others may accept that the killing of an important official (such as a tribal head) is not only not to be condemned but indeed is admirable. While many of these societies do not exist on a massive scale their historical existence implies that universal human morals are not as precise as one might think.

Hope this helps.

Answer 3

One doesn't.

Why do you assert that anything is a transcendent moral law? Such a statement seems to presume something or someone greater than our experience that requires a condition to have a moral value.

Adultery is only a moral issue because societies make it so.

Or, there may be an evolutionary explanation for some moral values. Fidelity in a relationship has a distinct survival value for raising offspring and an aversion to killing your own species likewise.

Similarly, there could well be a survival value, in those countries where it seems to have arisen, in not eating pork.

Perhaps it is these instinctive values that we have expressed as morality. Although they may not be valid at all times in all species.

Some moral values seem to reflect only the prejudice of society.

Answer 4

Good sir, you have stumbled upon the big philosophical question of religion. How does one determine whether the rules of a system of belief correspond to that which is acknowledgable truth? For all you know, God might not have a problem with murder or sleeping around but might abhor the use of contraception. For all we know, Leviticus might have been direct explanation of that which governs how this world works. It is even speculative that our existence is objective virtue. Perhaps humans are a parasite or disease. Then again, perhaps that is the essence of transcendence.

The answer is, simply, that we cannot know. The idea of a transcendent moral law is just that; ideal. It might be true, but we have no way of verifying any of it. Basically, if it is a proposed rule of general application, its origins lie in culture; or, at least, in the idealistic mindset of the individual or community who proposed it.

Now, there are many who believe that there is sufficient evidence to take some such rules as acknowledged axioms, and that these axioms can be used as authority for others. For instance, fidelity is considered virtue because the concenting pairing off tends to result in committed families, and commitment is considered virtue because when we devote ourselves to a task we tend to get things done, and getting things done is considered virtue because it enables the sustention of existence, which we acknowledge is self-evidently good. But we are in no position to make assertions of intrinsic law except in the systems that we ourselves construct. It is in these, and these alone that we have authority to assert.

Answer 5

i don't have faith you are able to. some religions will declare that what you confer with as subculture-particular taboos are quite ethical sins, proclaimed with the aid of a extra physically powerful potential. those communities might argue that on an identical time because it may seem to be subculture-particular this is because of the fact different 'cultures' have not embraced the morality of their ideals. on the different hand some probably conventional morals are, whilst examined extra heavily, not as conventional different than with the aid of arbitrary definition or limitations. You stated as an occasion adultery. on an identical time as i'm not conscious of any society that condones adultery some human beings evaluate polygamy or polyandry to be a style of adultery. yet another occasion is homicide; on an identical time as there probably exists a conventional taboo against homicide some societies settle for taking yet another human existence in retribution for a prior affront. Others might settle for that the killing of an significant respected (alongside with a tribal head) isn't only to not be condemned yet certainly is admirable. on an identical time as lots of those societies do not exist on a great scale their historic existence means that conventional human morals at the instant are not as precise as one ought to think of. desire this facilitates.

Answer 6

Good hermeneutics (interpretation) and the Holy Spirit. It doesnt take a Bible scholar.

Answer 7

Most simply, whether you're causing harm to another sentient being is a pretty good yardstick.

Answer 8

killing seems to be one, though who it's taboo to kill seems to be culture specific, stealing seems to be universally taboo, apart from that its open season.