As to universality, I would say universal principles that factor in local context.
I wouldn't say "decrees", but I'd say conclusions that are universal as described above.
Something I sometimes think about is which is the earliest time in history that a modern secular humanist could have been a successful leader of a major nation? (For me it’s probably 20th c)
On the issue of Burkhas:
Strong honour cultures tended to emerge and persist in harsh environments (mountains, deserts, etc.) with weak governance and where people had to look after themselves.
If you have a very strong honour culture, this impacts many things.
You have to be a man of your word, you have to show hospitality and generosity, you have to harshly answer any perceived disrespect to impose a cost on such things, you had to back up your tribe in such matters, etc.
There are good and bad things involved in these, but not being a man of honour could be near enough a death sentence.
In environments like this, something that tainted the honour of a woman/girl could lead to a deadly blood feud, hence restrictions on women's freedoms served a purpose (and are likely manifestations of some universal values).
While such a view might make no sense in modern NY, at what point does it become wrong in the kind of society it traditionally evolved in?
Yes, we should learn from cultures. But we should also understand that cultures often evolve too slowly to remain the best sources of moral and ethical guidance.
Cultures can certainly sustain harmful values, but conservatism can also prevent the adoption of harmful values.
Fascism, communism, racialism, social Darwinism, etc. we’re all considered progressive, supported by rational, scientific minded people and opposed by (some) religious conservatives, for irrational theological reasons but that turned out to be right.
Progress can be good, as can resistance to “progress”.
But Sam Harris says it way better than I:
Science can answer moral questions
The problem is that people have been looking for scientific morality for 150 years, and it's often been highly illiberal, even fascistic.
All those that propose it seem to think science will support their values, and nothing they propose is remotely a scientific morality (even Harris basically defines science as rational thought about morals).
It strikes me that you guys both feel that it's not useful to discuss problems until possible solutions are presented. Do I have that right?
Not at all.
This is what I was trying to say earlier.
Some problems are unsolvable, and while we may be able to mitigate them to a degree this requires understanding why they are unsolvable.
Humans cannot meaningfully be united as the concept of humanity is theological, not empirical. Once we accept there is no humanity, just different humans with different and often incompatible values, needs and wants it makes little sense to see these differing values, needs and wants as divisive. They are just the natural structure of human society (just a more complex version of other primate societies).
With morality, the problem is unsolvable as we are value pluralistic.
en.m.wikipedia.org
