And for the majority of history, many cultures had ideas about food that resulted in scurvy, rickets, and other damaging health effects.
The difference is that ideas about food are correct or not. That is, either a lack of certain nutrients tends to lead to health problems of specific types or it does not. The link between physical health and biology is nothing like the link between emotional/mental well-being and biology.
By a similar process, we can say that those cultures that subjugated women had deficient societal codes, morally speaking.
We can, it's just based solely on one's opinion. There is nothing deficient about it unless you start with the assumption that women should have all the rights men do.
First off, I think we need to recognize that we're dealing with "Atkins vs. vegan"-type nuances here.
In general, the thread has been that way. But then I disagree with most on this. This is, after all, very much related to what I study (indoctrination, that is). Cognitive universals vs. culturally-based values are vital to understanding how the mind works. From what I can see (what the evidence suggests) people in the West tend to
1) assume that values, judgments, cognitive processes, etc., are more universal than they are
&
2) underestimate just how vast cultural differences can be and how little the most logical argument can make to millions of people alive today who disagree with the fundamental values common to most Western cultures
I see how thoroughly being raised speaking English vs. certain other languages can make a difference, let alone the differences between e.g., cultures where the moral system is based on opprobrium and a communal "self". I don't see religion as that different from the necessary indoctrination that occurs. It can be severe but it need not be and everything from political beliefs to moral beliefs are just as much a matter of indoctrination.
Basically, starting from the view that there is an objective morality is about as religious as it gets.
This whole question, as I see it, is about the relative value
To refer to relative value is basically a way to refer to say "given that what I see as valuable and important for society, what about the stuff I don't particularly care for?" All value is relative and within each value system the relative value of x is greater or lesser than y based on a subjective criteria.
the autonomy of the child
Children simply aren't autonomous. I believe it is better to try to encourage this, but I acknowledge this has a lot to do with how I was raised: I was encouraged to embrace Catholicism but taught to question and think critically. I cannot determine how I would think differently were I raised differently and neither can anyone else. Why? Because to raise children is to indoctrinate them.
I think a fair bit of this debate comes down to factual disputes where not all viewpoints are equal
Interesting. I didn't even think of it that way. I am so used to despairing that anything can be determined regarding such disputes given how much the "factual" parts can't themselves be determined I don't even consider the factual part anymore. There's no point.
I'm arguing that morality is defined in terms of the well-being of individuals
How would you define this and what makes it non-subjective? For example, if one thinks believe that women shouldn't have a voice and should be ruled by men because that is in their best interest, then how does one argue with this? This is the fundamental issue with using logic to debate moral issues. It works only insofar as one can agree on the premises. And there is too much disagreement here.
Two of the big ones would be that, all else being equal, life is preferable to death and lack of pain is preferable to pain.
All else is not equal, though. My go to example is pharmaceutical companies trying to market drugs like antidepressants in places like china where a fundamental cultural precept is "life is suffering". How do you sell drugs to make someone feel better in life and about life when they believe that life is about suffering and that one must embrace this suffering? Not well.
