tonyenglish7 wrote:What does morality evolving mean? How would we know that a society is getting more moral? Based upon what standard?
An evolving morality is one that changes, over time, in response to factors within the environment. Look to your good book for an example - polygamy. Old testament, polygamy good (moral). New testament, polygamy bad (immoral). Another example: Pre-Civil War America, slavery moral. Post-Civil War America, slavery immoral. Now to say that we found the "slavery bad" moral is simplistic and misleading, implying that all humans simultaneously discovered that slavery was immoral. It evolved over centuries of observation, experience, thought and debate.
Asking how we know that a society is getting more moral is a misleading question. If I asked you to tell me which society is more moral, ancient Israel or the modern United States, your answer would be completely subjective, based on your own view of "good morals." People from each of these cultures would argue that theirs is the more moral society, and they could both objectively be right because of differences in values and priorities. So, I could ask which society's morality was more conducive to individual liberty and prosperity. But to ask which society is more moral is like asking which ice cream flavor is more flavorful, chocolate or vanilla. The answer depends on who you are asking.
A modern example. Ask any American whether they think the US is a more moral society than Iran. Most would likely answer yes, citing the Iranian subjugation of women and the barbaric practice of stoning people, among other things. Ask the same question of an Iranian and you'll get a different answer. Their citizens would likely cite the immodesty of American women and our blasphemous culture. Now, can you honestly say that one society is more moral than another?
I assume your response to this is going to be, "Well then how do we know who's right and who's wrong if it's all subjective?" Not an unfair question, but the answer is simple: understanding and dialogue. Travel guide Rick Steves did a show in which he traveled to Iran and met many ordinary people there. The differences in culture were striking, and yet he was profoundly moved by the commonalities and learned that ordinary Iranians want much the same as we want out of life. Peace, security, happiness, etc.
Since morals are a human invention, there IS a standard. It is the human standard, and it is evolving through us every day.
tonyenglish7 wrote:They only way to have social progress in reality is if there is an objective moral standard by which to aspire. All other options leave us cold and open to evolution taking us in any direction. Are Morals someting we find? or something we create? If the later, then who knows what is coming? If the former, then and only then does your above list of goals have any hope of being attained.
The only way to have social progress is to challenge the "objective moral standard" or status quo. If no one in our society had stood up to the standard of the day and declared slavery immoral, we would still be trading negroes. What you describe as cold and directionless, I describe as vital to the perpetuation and benefit of the human race, and to life as we know it.
I'll close with a paraphrase of something Emery said on one of the morality podcasts. Tony, if God opened up the heavens, descended to Earth in a blaze of glory and announced to everyone that the commandment against murder was null and void, would you suddenly be OK with someone decapitating your Grandma? I didn't think so.
What's God got to do with it?