3 ms·

Centuries ago, cultures tended to be far more rigidly defined and centralized along authoritarian (royalist) and religious hierarchies, and deviations from pros

by krapp 2y ago

Centuries ago, cultures tended to be far more rigidly defined and centralized along authoritarian (royalist) and religious hierarchies, and deviations from proscribed norms were punished far more severely. Therefore the premise that morals were more "adaptive" in the past than the present seems specious to me. Also I don't believe the distinction between what the author considers 'moral fashion' and the natural process of moral evolution exists, the former naturally leads to the latter. Yet they seem to believe there is some objective means by which one can judge the quality of morals and predict their long-term adaptability.

illuminant 2y ago
Objective means: protecting those unculpable from violation. Putting to an end the violation of others at every expense of those culpable (even their life to *some extent.) Apart from the OP perspectives, both sides have credibility. An objective empirical measure is available (Reality and how we treat each other,) and we're only "subjectively" qualified to dispense law (those who are not will behave as so, those who are may be negligent or incompetent, and every combination of qualified that is available in a case of for-instance. And I think "moral relativism" has more to do with one local states 18 is the age of consent, in some parts it's 15, and until recently in Japan it was 12. 12 is presumed to be universally morally repugnant by widest spread convention.