Morality of any sacred text does not surpass teh morality of people of the time, it was written.
This statement is of athiest, do you agree or disagree?
Re: Morality Of Scriptures
this is moral/cultural relativism in a slightly unfamiliar form. its a vast topic that has been studied by people much more qualified than myself.
i personally disagree with the statement. I also believe that it is not a point that can be rationally argued.
Re: Morality Of Scriptures
^Can you tell me about some literature on this topic?
Re: Morality Of Scriptures
yar I really have a very basic grasp on the topic. To quote wiki
Theres cultural/ethical relativism that has very similar meaning and debates to moral relativism. I dont know if there is a difference, but i think for you and me there wouldnt be.
My own knowledge comes from a lecture series I took way back when, so I cant point you to particular literature. But the wikipage has a rather broad writeup on it.
also this is a topic in any foundational course in ethics, so every academic department will have text on the topic. Heres a good google search for you
(ethical OR moral OR cultural) relativism site:.edu - Google Search](Google Search)
Re: Morality Of Scriptures
Ravage, i think moral relativism is something different.
The point that the athiest is trying to make is that scriptures/sacred texts endorse the immoralities of the time in which they were written and hence do not come from an all knowing, God Almighty. The point is that is this is true then it makes the scriptures a human phenomenon. Liek for example, killing of kids in old testament is bcoz exterminating the enemy tribe was important for survival, similarly issus about slavery etc.
Re: Morality Of Scriptures
If you take out the question of the source (God almighty vs man-made), the question becomes whether or not religious texts are constrained by the morality of the time. if you go into a specific religion, i.e. does Judaism or Islam justify slavery because it was prevalent, it is not a moral relativism question. If we wish to discuss general rules, i.e. all religions are necessarily constrained by the morality of their time, that is a moral relativism question.
if you look at cultural relativism debates you will see exactly the same thing. People use instances, such as the fact that eskimos see nothing wrong with infanticide whereas we do therefore the morality of the issue is relative to culture. The opponents of this view argue that yes some things are relative but some important structures exist in all cultures/ethics/moralities etc.
If you are on the non-relative side, as I believe you are, you would hunt out some of the absolutes (one is the golden rule: do unto others as you would done unto you.. or in Islam none of you is a Muslim until you want for your brother what you want for yourself).. and then argue that these could from God, what is relative might not or might be unimportant. There was a conference in the 90s that came up with a set of common laws for the major world religions, one can cite that. The golden rule was common in all religions (i.e. there was a reference for that bit of wisdom in all major religions). There are other arguments against moral relativism, this is one instance.
Re: Morality Of Scriptures
The opponents often argue that these rules were designed to make the religious community mutually cohesive. As in certain cases in Judaism and Islam the prinicipal is not extended to those who do not folow that particular religion. Such as, in Torah, jews were punised if they comitted adultery with a jewish woman but not if they comitted adultery with woman of an other tribe or religion. Similarly the principle in Islam that a muslim will not be killed for taking life of a non-muslim.
Re: Morality Of Scriptures
its really quite difficult to argue that such things apply to all religions. the opponents in this case are picking instances that support their arguments.
furthermore if we believe a mutually cohesive community to have positive moral significance and all religions have this property, then atleast one moral law seems to transcend historical context, does it not?