Where does morality come from?

[stevevw]

I am limiting my view of what is "real" to what can be demonstrated.

I don't see why I should accept anything as true if it can not be demonstrated to be true.

Because you are equating two different things that cannot be measured in the same way moral philosophy and science. You are creating a non-sequitur. A "truth" statement about what is morally right or wrong cannot be demonstrated by scientific testing.

Science can tell us what things cause pain, but nothing it can say about particles and nervous systems can tell us that pain is bad. Science can tell us how zygotes develop into embryos and on into foetuses and then into people, but it can't tell us where to draw the line in terms of what counts as a fully-fledged moral agent worthy of a right to life.
No, Science Really Can't Determine Human Values

SCIENCE CANNOT DETERMINE HUMAN VALUES
SCIENCE CANNOT DETERMINE HUMAN VALUES | Think | Cambridge Core

Science and Morals: Can morality be deduced from the facts of science?
The issue should have been settled by David Hume in 1740: the facts of science provide no basis for values. Yet, like some kind of recurrent meme, the idea that science is omnipotent and will sooner or later solve the problem of values seems to resurrect with every generation.
Science and Morals: Can morality be deduced from the facts of science? – The New Behaviorism

Morality Is Not Scientific
“no one in fact, has any idea how enchanted [non-scientifically verifiable, such as souls, etc.] features [such as morality] emerge from scientifically tractable reality.” To put it differently, no one has any idea how we get moral properties from mere matter—chemistry and physics.
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/reviews/science-good/

This sentence does not appear to make sense.

This is what I am saying about moral truths being a proposition about a claim or judgment which is supported by a logical argument rather than a property that is physical and can be measured by scientific methods.

So something can be factually correct and yet contain no truth? What in the world are you saying?

You really don't know this. This is a common understanding of the difference between scientific facts and truth in the philosophical sense of moral values. A scientific fact that evolution is a fact is not associated with being a "truth" statement. Truth doesn't come into it because scientific facts are like 2+2=4. The fact that 2+2=4 has nothing to do with "truth", it is not true that 2+2=4 but a fact. You are mixing two different meanings when you say that morals equate to scientific facts. Objective morality is a "truth" claimed about morality and not a fact.

Oh, would you stop using this old argument! How many times do I have to tell you that our lived experience of morality is SUBJECTIVE?

Do you realize what you are doing here. You are saying that you are right and I am wrong. You are imposing your view onto me and saying that I should give up my position and take on your. You do realize you are taking an objective position that you know and hold the truth in this situation. The fact that you demand me to change to your position is being objective.

Why in the world do you keep trotting out that tired old argument that I call you out on every single time when even you admit that it doesn't count as direct evidence?

You're misrepresenting what I have said. I said that because the moral argument cannot be measured by facts as in scientific measuring that we can still measure their "truth" value through propositions which can give them support for being true. But that we can also as part of the support measure the indirect support.

So I am not saying that the support comes solely from the indirect support and that the proposition alone is enough support. That science uses indirect support like with Dark matter and they still claim it to be enough support. I am saying there is support for objective morality on by more than one method.

And all you are doing is using your subjective opinion about a subjective experience as indirect evidence that morality is objective? How do you not see that this reason DOESN'T WORK?

No, you are misrepresenting the evidence. It is not based on subjective opinion but measurement of the indirect effects of human behavior that shows that people act/react objectively. There is no personal opinion involved at all. When an organization, company, or society imposes a strict set of rules underpinned by moral values that says people must follow these morals and that there is no room for a subjective personal opinion there are taking an objective position. There is no personal opinion about that at all.

When an individual as you have done with insisting that I am wrong and you are right and I must conform to your way of thinking about the objective/subjective moral argument they are taking an objective position/stand. This can be measured in the way people express that position. Its there is black and white and there is no personal opinion involved.

Otherwise, you would have to acknowledge that you are mistaken in insisting in taking a position that I am wrong and should take a step back and say "it is only your opinion that I am wrong and that I could be right" But you don't and therefore lend support for what I am saying.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

...I've explained countless times why that is wrong.

And yet you seem to keep doing it for some reason...

 

[Kylie]

Because you are equating two different things that cannot be measured in the same way moral philosophy and science. You are creating a non-sequitur. A "truth" statement about what is morally right or wrong cannot be demonstrated by scientific testing.

Science can tell us what things cause pain, but nothing it can say about particles and nervous systems can tell us that pain is bad. Science can tell us how zygotes develop into embryos and on into foetuses and then into people, but it can't tell us where to draw the line in terms of what counts as a fully-fledged moral agent worthy of a right to life.
No, Science Really Can't Determine Human Values

SCIENCE CANNOT DETERMINE HUMAN VALUES
SCIENCE CANNOT DETERMINE HUMAN VALUES | Think | Cambridge Core

Science and Morals: Can morality be deduced from the facts of science?
The issue should have been settled by David Hume in 1740: the facts of science provide no basis for values. Yet, like some kind of recurrent meme, the idea that science is omnipotent and will sooner or later solve the problem of values seems to resurrect with every generation.
Science and Morals: Can morality be deduced from the facts of science? – The New Behaviorism

Morality Is Not Scientific
“no one in fact, has any idea how enchanted [non-scientifically verifiable, such as souls, etc.] features [such as morality] emerge from scientifically tractable reality.” To put it differently, no one has any idea how we get moral properties from mere matter—chemistry and physics.
Morality Is Not Scientific

Maybe because science deals with objective things and morality isn't objective?

This is what I am saying about moral truths being a proposition about a claim or judgment which is supported by a logical argument rather than a property that is physical and can be measured by scientific methods.

Just because an argument is logically sound does not mean it is true.

You really don't know this. This is a common understanding of the difference between scientific facts and truth in the philosophical sense of moral values. A scientific fact that evolution is a fact is not associated with being a "truth" statement. Truth doesn't come into it because scientific facts are like 2+2=4. The fact that 2+2=4 has nothing to do with "truth", it is not true that 2+2=4 but a fact. You are mixing two different meanings when you say that morals equate to scientific facts. Objective morality is a "truth" claimed about morality and not a fact.

Then how about you start by defining what you mean when you use "truth" in this context?

Do you realize what you are doing here. You are saying that you are right and I am wrong. You are imposing your view onto me and saying that I should give up my position and take on your. You do realize you are taking an objective position that you know and hold the truth in this situation. The fact that you demand me to change to your position is being objective.

The position that morality is subjective is NOT a moral position.

Do you really think I'm saying everything is subjective? Of course not. There are lots of subjective things, and there are lots of objective things.

I am saying that morality is in the list of SUBJECTIVE things.

It seems to me that anyone could see this. Why can't you?

You're misrepresenting what I have said. I said that because the moral argument cannot be measured by facts as in scientific measuring that we can still measure their "truth" value through propositions which can give them support for being true. But that we can also as part of the support measure the indirect support.

So I am not saying that the support comes solely from the indirect support and that the proposition alone is enough support. That science uses indirect support like with Dark matter and they still claim it to be enough support. I am saying there is support for objective morality on by more than one method.

For someone who admits that this "lives personal experience" is not direct evidence for objective morality, you sure seem to bring it up a lot. Are you not capable of using some actual direct evidence?

No, you are misrepresenting the evidence. It is not based on subjective opinion but measurement of the indirect effects of human behavior that shows that people act/react objectively. There is no personal opinion involved at all. When an organization, company, or society imposes a strict set of rules underpinned by moral values that says people must follow these morals and that there is no room for a subjective personal opinion there are taking an objective position. There is no personal opinion about that at all.

When an individual as you have done with insisting that I am wrong and you are right and I must conform to your way of thinking about the objective/subjective moral argument they are taking an objective position/stand. This can be measured in the way people express that position. Its there is black and white and there is no personal opinion involved.

Otherwise, you would have to acknowledge that you are mistaken in insisting in taking a position that I am wrong and should take a step back and say "it is only your opinion that I am wrong and that I could be right" But you don't and therefore lend support for what I am saying.

Don't tell me that it's not based on subjective opinion. This "lived personal experience" is by definmition subjective!

***

Also, I noticed that you completely failed to address several of my points. Assuming that you simply missed them, I shall repeat that part of my post. Of course, if you didn't address them because I was unclear in any of these, let me know and I will try to be clearer. Or if you didn't address them because you were unable to respond to them, please lket me know so I can chalk that up to a win on my part.

So though there is no evidence like scientific testing of a physical object there are philosophical propositions and indirect support which are sufficient to rely on and this is something philosophers and even scientists often use to support non-material claims about life.

Please show me something that is viewed as an objective fact that does not rely on any scientific description.

As I said there are different ways to support something. Do you honestly think that no one can make truth claims or support non-physical aspects of life? You need to read some Aristotle’s logic, especially his theory of the syllogism. If we disallowed logical propositions then no one could make any truth statements based on logic.

A logical proposition is any proposition that can be reduced by replacement of its constituent terms to a proposition expressing a logical truth—e.g., to a proposition such as “If p and q, then p.”
Logical proposition | philosophy

Likewise, do you think that even in science that the evidence for all claims and ideas are based on concrete support? What about the theories that are purely based on mathematical equations like relativity or gravity. We can't see or measure anything concrete. We only have indirect evidence just like we do with objective morality.

What you forget is that objective morality is the perceived status quo for morality and not the other way around. Most philosophers and people believe there are moral truths. So it is up to the skeptic to show this is wrong. That is come up with a defeater of our lived moral experience.

Logic can be explained in almost mathematical like language.

Please do the same for morality.

If you can do that, I'll believe you.

That's a "either and or" logical fallacy and also a "non-sequitur". This assumes that we should measure morality like it has a physical measurement when it is moral about a "truth" statement. It also limits the evidence to certain options because of this assumption.

Nah, I'm talking about a peoples lived experience of putting their hands on hot stoves.

Surely you of all people understand how a person's lived experience can be evidence of something objective, right?

The point is if you look at the way people react you will find that most do react the same way when you peel away the differences in understanding with nations and cultures. But just because there may be objective morals doesn't mean people will follow them.

So you go from saying that people act like there are objective morals, and yet now you say that sometimes people DON'T act like there are objective morals?

You're just all over the place here, aren't you?

People can also deny the truth and avoid the truth. But that doesn't mean the truth is not there. We are not robots and have free will. We all know there is truth and that the truth can be covered up. But in the end, it comes out in one way or another.

When the person who is telling me that I am avoiding the truth is also incapable of showing me that truth, I don't find their claims very convincing.

 

[Kylie]

And yet you seem to keep doing it for some reason...

I keep explaining why it is wrong because it keeps getting presented as evidence. Is that not sufficient reason?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I keep explaining why it is wrong because it keeps getting presented as evidence. Is that not sufficient reason?

This thread is more than 2500 posts. He hasn’t understood your arguments. And if the thread reaches 5000 posts, he still won’t understand your arguments.

 

[Kylie]

This thread is more than 2500 posts. He hasn’t understood your arguments. And if the thread reaches 5000 posts, he still won’t understand your arguments.

True, but if I say nothing, others will see his arguments and they may think they are valid. Me responding isn't just an attempt to explain to him why they are invalid, but also an attempt to show others before they start accepting those flawed arguments as true.

 

[stevevw]

Please show me something that is viewed as an objective fact that does not rely on any scientific description.

You do realize that a scientific description says nothing about the truth of something. Science can describe dark matter but that doesn't mean it has also verified that it is true.

But you're still confusing two different things in the way you even form this question. A scientific explanation says nothing about moral values and moral values do not equate to scientific facts as I have shown in the last post. For example, science can explain how the universe began but not why it began. The why questions including why something is right or wrong are philosophical questions and beyond science but are still important questions that people want answers to.

The truth about why questions are usually made by logical propositions such as syllogism which can be self-supporting and offer evidence of a claim. Like Aristotle's "All men are mortal; Aristotle is a man; therefore, Aristotle is mortal.” The moral argument for objective morality is primarily made by a proposition for example moral truths and duties cannot exist within humans, they need to be personal as morality implies an obligation to a person, therefore objective moral values and duties need to be grounded in a transcendent being.

This is self-supporting as people agree that an objective moral has to come from beyond humans (the subject) and that morals can only apply to persons (a rock or animal cannot be a moral agent).

Logic can be explained in almost mathematical like language.

But where is the physical thing that we can measure as a fact to show directly that what a mathematical equation shows exist? Mathematical equations are only theories on paper, they are not always physical objects we can measure and test.

Please do the same for morality.
If you can do that, I'll believe you.

I just did with the logical proposition.

Nah, I'm talking about a peoples lived experience of putting their hands on hot stoves.

Surely you of all people understand how a person's lived experience can be evidence of something objective, right?

It is a wrong example because 1st) morals don't equate to pain and pleasure as shown by the evidence against people like Sam Harris who uses human wellbeing as the measure for morality. If you want to use pain as a moral measure then sometimes a moral choice brings pleasure and good feelings and not pain. Sometimes the right thing to do causes some suffering (pain). You are limiting morality to an unreal measure that doesn't work.

Second, you would have to show me how people subjectively believe that a hot stove is not really hot to equate to the moral situation. Because to establish that people react in a similar way to a moral situation despite their subjective view we have to decern an objective position from the subjective one. In your example, it only allows one option in that people know that the stove will produce one outcome "pain". Otherwise, people would be insane to think that the stove is not hot in their subjective view. Whereas with subjective morality they can view moral alternatives rationally.

So you go from saying that people act like there are objective morals, and yet now you say that sometimes people DON'T act like there are objective morals?
You're just all over the place here, aren't you?

How am I all over the place. You are reading stuff into what I am saying that isn't there. I said that just because there are objective morals doesn't mean people have to follow them. Following an objective morality is different from reacting objectively in a situation despite not following objective morality.

When the person who is telling me that I am avoiding the truth is also incapable of showing me that truth, I don't find their claims very convincing.

Its a simple concept. I am saying there are moral truths. Do you believe there are moral truths that apply to all people with certain moral acts?

 

[stevevw]

True, but if I say nothing, others will see his arguments and they may think they are valid. Me responding isn't just an attempt to explain to him why they are invalid, but also an attempt to show others before they start accepting those flawed arguments as true.

So you are saying you hold the truth to whether there are objective moral values or not. You are the truth-bearer that will point people to the truth in this debate. That just adds support for what I am saying that people act like there are moral truths despite claiming they are subjective.

Tell me why does the majority of people including philosophers support objective morality.

 

[Ken-1122]

Hahaha, you are a funny (white) man.

You don't know me well enough to make such an absurd statement. Do yourself a favor; stop the bigotry and stick to what you know.

 

[stevevw]

No. I have said that under a subjective position, people can make claims that they THINK are objective but are still actually subjective.

So if you are in an argument with someone about say abuse of women or making a protest in a march in public your position is you only think it is wrong to abuse women and that other may think it is morally good and that is OK with you. You are not really confident in your moral position as its just an opinion you think may be right.

How is it not proof? Because subjective experiences are NEVER counted as objective proof, and yet you repeatedly invoke them as such.

What I am saying is there is no other way to support objective morality but for the way, people act/react like there is objective morality. That is how all philosophers and ethicists declare there are objective morals. Yet you are saying these experts are wrong. Even atheists agree there are objective morals. I have posted the support for this.

Did you REALLY think that was a good argument to use? The old, "If we're animals, we might as well act like animals," argument?
REALLY?

But you are the one that used animals as an example of how they also act morally to support subjective morality. I am only using your argument against you. IE
Kylie said
You haven't spent much time studying animals then, have you? Animals display a huge variety of emotion, why do you think they are incapable of morality?

If you want to say that we are like animals or animals are like us morally then you have to accept the acts that we would call immoral like infanticide as an acceptable moral act.

You use it every single time you make the "People's lived experiences are evidence for objective morality" argument. How many times have I responded to that? I've lost count.

That's because all the experts use the same argument and according to the majority of ethical experts objective morality is real. So as long as the experts support this I will continue to agree with them and promote that. You need to show how the experts are wrong. I mean even people on your side of the argument on this thread are agreeing that there are objective morals.

No. Subjective morality doesn't mean you can convince people to just arbitrarily change their moral positions.

Under subjective morality, there is no grounding for morality outside humans agreed. So I am not saying they can arbitrarily change morality. I am saying that morality is subject to change and the measure for that change is arbitrary. Otherwise please tell me what the reference point is outside of humans. If the measure point is within humans then whatever and whoever can make a good argument for what is right and wrong will be the measure. That could be almost anything and we have seen this in society.

We have seen positions that have said killing in war is morally good, putting money before the environment and people are good. Teen sex and access to porn on the WWW is morally OK. Remember that moral positions don't have to be explicit but can be implicit in that society supports the system that OKs censorship laws that allow porn or violence in the media. Society basically supports subjective morality.

According to a subjective moral position, morals were developed through evolution. Evolution is based on changing environments. What we deem as morally OK now is according to the environment we have now. But in the past morality was different according to the subjective moral position so in the future morality will change according to changing environments. Because morality is equated to sociobiological processes relating to survival there could be a time where rape or killing is morally OK if it means it helps humans survive.

And most people would reject it because they understand rape is a horrible thing to do to a person.

Yes that is according to the current understanding of subjective morality. But as you know there are cultures where rape and abuse of women are OK. So under a subjective/relative system you would have to accept those different subjective views as OK. You could not expect them to be forced to conform to what you think is right, could you? Otherwise, you would be taking an objective stand.

And what happens in the future is it gets to a point where humans need to reproduce but women refuse to. Morality could change in that rape would become acceptable and people would not feel the same way they do today because rape would be an important part of helping the human species survive and women who refuse to cooperate would be seen as the immoral ones. That's because there is no independent measure and what is right and wrong depends on an arbitrary measure that depends on circumstances of survival.

Huh?
You say that Person A makes a claim, and Person B can provide several possible explanations why Person A's claim is wrong. And then you conclude that the people who disagree with Person A are therefore wrong?
How does that work?

Once again you are misrepresenting what I said. We were talking about the "Hard Problem" of consciousness and that explanations could come from a number of ideas that lie within or beyond the materialist scientific explanation. I am saying that the scientific materialist view is just one assumptive view that may not be right in the overall scheme of things. people only assume that reality is only based on a material view. For all, we know there may be more to reality than just physical reality.

Occam's Razor. We should not conclude there is something other than the detectable universe until we have evidence for it. To invoke it now without evidence is fallacious.

How does this apply to reality? Reality is something different. Even scientists say that there may be more to reality than what we see. Also, don't some scientists insist there is a multiverse?

 

[Speedwell]

Tell me why does the majority of people including philosophers support objective morality.

Do they really? Or do they just believe that there are shared moral precepts which transcend conscious rational deliberation?

Do you believe there are moral truths that apply to all people with certain moral acts?

Yes, but that does not prove that they are objective.

 

[stevevw]

There is a lot of evidence for Dark matter.

And there is a lot of evidence against it. There is no direct evidence for it. Yet something we cannot see directly is still presented as a fact. Isn't that the same for objective morality. We cannot see it directly but we can measure the indirect results from peoples reactions to moral situations when they act like morals are objective.

And yes, scientists do get things wrong. But when they do, they are ALWAYS replaced with better science. To suggest that a theory be replaced with something else when there is no current scientific reason to do so is at the very least premature.

And all I am saying is that until something better comes along that can explain morality then we are justified to believe that based on our morally lived experience there is objective morality. What else can explain that we act objectively in moral situations? Evolution, human wellbeing and natural moral laws have been shown to be insufficient explanations. There are no other explanations that are better.

Can you provide a link to the post where you did so, please?

Here it is. It has the same paper as the ones I just reposted in my last post. May 30, 2020#2444

Nother in there about isolation being required.

Then you haven't read the article properly. When I say Isolation I mean that the belief about that experience of perception has a direct link to what it is a person is claiming. There are no linked beliefs that are needed to help prop up that belief to make it a properly basic belief. It stands on its own and therefore is a properly basic belief about something.

In any case, it seems that you are suggesting that we take morality being objective as an axiom. I see no reason to do this.

No,it has nothing to do with an axiom. It is about justifying a belief about something based on our perceptual experiences.

Is there a specific part of that paper which you think shows that it is reasonable to conclude that there is an objective morality? If so, can you tell me which part?

The paper isn't about objective morality. It is about how we can form justified beliefs about something based on our lived experience. That is what I am trying to explain to you that morality cannot be measured by science or physical concrete measures. But we can make claims based on justified beliefs about something.

It is not just an unsubstantiated claim but rather is based on a process that determines that a belief about our perceptual experiences can be justified if it meets certain measuring criteria. So the papers I have posted help you understand that measuring criteria to show how it's not just some unsupported claim.

Yeah, I'm not going to register on a site just to read that article.

yes,the registration is free and it will give you access to other papers. Then you will understand.

So you are claiming your belief that morality is objective is a basic belief because it is not based on other beliefs but by your experience of the world?

Yes it is a direct belief of how people see and experience morality. There are no other beliefs that are needed to justify that belief because we have a direct association with that experience. This is the sam3e criteria that ethicists and philosophers use to verify objective morality.

My experience is that morality is subjective.

It could be that your belief that how you perceive morality is subjective is based on other beliefs. For example,it may be that you have personal experiences which bias your views and cause you to see things that way. As subjectivism is influenced by personal life experiences it is more likely that your beliefs are dependent or influenced by other beliefs you have that taint the way you see things.

Obviously we can not both be right. So you must ask yourself if your belief that morality is objective is based on any underlying beliefs. I'd say yes - your belief that morality comes from God.

Objective morality is based on intuition. It is an inner knowledge and belief about something. people respond/react to situations objectively without even thinking about how they feel or think about it as if they know already what is the case. When you see women being abused you don't stop and think the act could be subjectively OK because there are no objective rights and wrongs. All reasonable people will immediately know its wrong and to say it's an OK act doesn't sit well. Everyone reacts this way whether religious or atheist unless they are unsound or unfair about things.

But that doesn't show that it is objectively true that we are not living in a hologram. It just shows that people don't act like we are in a hologram. And as I've said before, a person's experience isn't evidence for an objective fact.

But its the only way we can determine if our physical world is real and that objective morals are real by the way we interact with these things. There is no other way. So therefore because there is no other way this is a valid way to determine non-physical beliefs about something.

If we act likes it's real, talk like its real, think likes it's real then it is real and until something else comes along to show us it's not real then that's all we have. Otherwise,we could not function at all because we would be forever not sure that what we are experiencing is real. But because we just on something and use it, interact with it we are showing that we are justified to believe it is real and not some virtual reality.

The same with morality. Because we talk, act, react, implement laws, rules regulations, impose morals on others act like morality is objective then we can be justified until some other explanation comes along to believe that morality is objective.

The once again you are saying that a person's lived experience is objective, not subjective, and I've explained countless times why that is wrong.

And I've explained how it is the right way to determine objective morality. Not because I say so but because the experts say so. I would say they know what they are talking about more than anyone else.

 

[stevevw]

Do they really? Or do they just believe that there are shared moral precepts which transcend conscious rational deliberation?

What's the difference. Either way, they transcend human subjective opinions.

Yes, but that does not prove that they are objective.

Objective morality means that morals apply to everyone universally.
So I guess that supports objective morality.

 

[Speedwell]

What's the difference. Either way, they transcend human subjective opinions. Objective morality means that morals apply to everyone universally.
So I guess that supports objective morality.

Are you sure you want to go there? You have just effectively changed your definition of "objective morality" such that it no longer needs a transcendent intelligence as a source.

 

[stevevw]

This thread is more than 2500 posts. He hasn’t understood your arguments. And if the thread reaches 5000 posts, he still won’t understand your arguments.

Don't worry I understand Kylie's argument. I just don't agree with it and neither do most people especially the experts.

 

[VirOptimus]

What's the difference. Either way, they transcend human subjective opinions. Objective morality means that morals apply to everyone universally.
So I guess that supports objective morality.

But its clear that people have different views on morality, further, where and when in time people have lived the morals have been different.

So no, your argument about ”lived morals” do not support a ”objective morality”.

 

[VirOptimus]

Don't worry I understand Kylie's argument. I just don't agree with it and neither do most people especially the experts.

No you do not understand. And neither do you understand ”the experts”.

 

[Speedwell]

No you do not understand. And neither do you understand ”the experts”.

He hasn't even understood his own definitions of "objective" and "subjective" morality.

 

[VirOptimus]

He hasn't even understood his own definitions of "objective" and "subjective" morality.

His position is deeply flawed and confused.

But he is here to preach and thats all that matters.

 

[stevevw]

But its clear that people have different views on morality, further, where and when in time people have lived the morals have been different.

So no, your argument about ”lived morals” do not support a ”objective morality”.

First it's a logical fallacy to say that because there are different views on morality that means there are no objective morals. Second, if you peel away the different understandings that different cultures and times have then morality is remarkably similar to everyone.

For example, people use to think slavery was OK in the 1800s. That wasn't because they had different morals but rather because people use to think black people were not human or a lesser type of human. But they still agreed with us today and respected and treated human life as important. But when they came to realize that blacks were human they changed and stopped slavery.

The same as when they use to burn witches. They believed that witches were killers because they cast spells on people to kill them. So they were only doing what we do today in executing killers. But when they came to understand that there were no real witches they stopped killing women they thought were witches. So they really had the same morals as us today.

The same with different cultures. Different cultures have different understandings of how to greet someone. Some bow, some rub noses, some embrace or kiss and some shake hands. Some cultures may find kissing or embracing morally offensive. But all cultures believe that greeting someone with kindness and respect is morally right.

So it is often the different understandings that people confuse as different morals and when you peel these away everyone's moral values and duties are much the same.