Examining moral objectivity

[Severus Snape]

The Christian faith preaches a theory of moral objectivity, that is that certain behaviors of humans have always been wrong and will always be wrong in the future. History demonstrates that this thesis is flawed. Let's use human sacrifice as an example. Many cultures throughout history have utilized human sacrifice as a form of religious expression including the Aztecs, Carthaginians, and many south pacific islanders. For the Aztecs in particular, human sacrifice was a central part of their culture and religious way of life. Without going into detail, the Aztecs essentially considered their very existence to be dependant on the mutilation of their sacrificial victims. Cortez, a conquistador, cited the Aztec's 'barbarous practices" as a reason to massacre their people and embezzle their gold.

So, what right does any culture/religion have to label the practices of another as inherently wrong and evil and claim that their own as truth? Someone please to try convince me that moral objectivity is a viable way to view the world and provide examples to support your claims.

[Sage]

Many cultures throughout history have utilized human sacrifice as a form of religious expression including the Aztecs, Carthaginians, and many south pacific islanders.

The Carthaginians practiced human sacrifice? Huh, neat. I just fact checked that and seems it's true. I didn't know that!


So, what right does any culture/religion have to label the practices of another as inherently wrong and evil and claim that their own as truth?

They've every right to claim whatever they like. It's simply up to people to reach their own conclusions and decide for themselves. This is why I'm agnostic, religion is far too messy from a philosophical point of view. But hey, this should be interesting. It's nice to see a thread debating Christianity that goes beyond "LOL SCIENCE SAYS NO".

[Severus Snape]

The Carthaginians practiced human sacrifice? Huh, neat. I just fact checked that and seems it's true. I didn't know that!Ironically, the Romans used it as a major argumentative point when discussing the legitimacy of breaking the treatises they had made with the Carthaginians regarding the start of the second punic war. They just discovered a temple in Tunisia with the bones of something like 180 young boys allegedly killed by the Carthaginians in religious rites. :S

They've every right to claim whatever they like. It's simply up to people to reach their own conclusions and decide for themselves.
But that doesn't make them right.

This is why I'm agnostic, religion is far too messy from a philosophical point of view. But hey, this should be interesting. It's nice to see a thread debating Christianity that goes beyond "LOL SCIENCE SAYS NO".
Especially since science isn't especially at odds with the church, at least not on the over exaggerated level many people claim it to be. That's what happens when you base arguments on Dan Brown novels...

[Sage]

Ironically, the Romans used it as a major argumentative point when discussing the legitimacy of breaking the treatises they had made with the Carthaginians regarding the start of the second punic war. They just discovered a temple in Tunisia with the bones of something like 180 young boys allegedly killed by the Carthaginians in religious rites. :S


That's neat. We didn't go quite into that level of depth with the Punic Wars during my sociology/world history class.


But that doesn't make them right.


I never said they were. But if someone makes a statement that is wrong, I don't throw a big fit and say they have no right to be wrong. I just know they're wrong. Simple as that.

[Severus Snape]

Ancient history is depressingly underutilized on every plane of education. Also, life is a never ending quest for truth, and I can't suffer the ignorantly obstinate type to go stupidly on their way without kicking them in the shin. People need to question norms, not blindly bob their heads in silent recognition of their own mental short sightedness.