Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
That simply isn´t true. Right and wrong vary from culture to culture across the globe. Slavery still exists, with no compunction and is acceptable, good, in the cultures where it exists. Survival has nothing to do with it. Up until a century ago, cannibalism was an acceptable and good part of a number of cultures, the practice being an antihesis to long term survival.
Wikipedia disagrees:
Slavery is culturally accepted in certain muslim country's, it is considered moral. Laws written to appease world governing bodies are irrelevant when slavery is moral according to the rimary determi
Slavery is accepted morally in some country's, because morality isn't determined by laws. 80% of Americans consider late term abortions patently immoral, yet they are legal. In certain muslim country's, to appease the rest of the world, slavery is illegal, yet it is considered moral, because the koran says it is moral. The law is ignored by many.
Conscience is a moral guide only. People can and do ignore it often for any number of reasons because they have free will.
It is irrelevant as to why someone does something. The issue is whether they believe what they do is good or bad.
It's not irrelevant in this discussion because you are blaming their bad behavior on conscience. You are assuming that if they act badly that their conscience misled them.
No, it isn't irrelevant because free will allows people to disregard the guidance they get from conscience.
Is the concept of a cultural bias beyond your understanding? The belief that it is okay to own people as slaves was once a cultural bias that conscience has wiped out.
Finally you make my point. Conscience isn´t organic ,it is malleable thus right and wrong are as well. So your idea that an unbiased jury will judge right fails. They will judge based upon what the law says is right or wrong. The law will reflect what the society that exists determines what is right or wrong. This determination will be made based upon a host of factors. As you stated, mor´es change, the society changes, the law changes. Without a yardstick to measure right and wrong, that reflects the society, that is acceptable to the populace, there is no right or wrong. There is no organic, inherent, inborn sense of right and wrong, except in the most primal sense.
It's not surprising that you don't get it. There's no topic that generates more confusion than Morality.
We simply will have to disagree on this. I have given a number of examples where basic instinct leads to behavior with no practical or moral purpose. Morality is learned, not instinctual. Have you ever read the book, ¨Lord of the Flies¨ ? It illustrates perfectly the breakdown of morality as one reverts to the dictates of instinct. The conscience is not an inbred guide to morality. It too is trained, shaped by learning within the context of family or culture. A Sikh has learned, and believes, that he must wear a turban, it would be immoral for him to cut his hair and not wear it. An Orthodox Jew would die before he ate a ham sandwich, he has been taught and believes to do so is highly immoral. Perhaps you can give me specific acts or refraining from acts that you believe are moral, that you further believe are instinctual. That might focus the discussion. Specifics instead of generalities would help.
Drive by pointing out that late term abortions aren't legal in the majority of the US except in medical emergencies. Those less than ten states which did strike down restrictions did so because the law didnt have a clause for medical emergencies or tried to impose clauses too narrow or not physician determination based.
You don´t understand roe v wade. IF a physician deems a late term abortion prudent, based upon psychological reasons, not a medical emergency, the abortion is legal. Why ? Because the supremes in roe patched together the unenumerated right of privacy, trusting a physician to declare that for health reasons, including mental health, the baby must die. The supremes specifically stated that these babyś, for the purpose of abortion, are not persons and the entire process is screened by the privacy between a physician and patient, i.e, it is nobody´s business t is done. So, a physician in a state that bans late term abortion may follow state law, yet if he/she and the mother decide the mother might be under psychological duress if the pregnancy continues, whatever form that takes, the baby is killed, and the act is protected by the invulnerable wall of privacy So called late term abortion, few a year, but one murdered baby, oops, non person is too much, kills a viable baby, non person, by brutal means, which could be delivered or birthed by C section, quickly with little or no harm to the mother. The object is to kill the baby.
I dont consider psychological issue outside the realm of medical emergency, especially considering how many people are killed by postpartum depression adding to new mental illness or change in mental illness during pregnancy, and other physical complications which can create or exacerbate mental illness. And I think that should be between doctor and patiant rather than courts to determine those criteria. But I digress. Just adding some dimension to the post.
Taking a human life, based upon two peoples desire and opinion is totally contrary to decency, and the concept of justice. Self given excuses made to ignore the horror of this are just that, excuses.