This person in history from centuries ago is bad because they did not follow the same moral standards that we have now

>morality is

Are you retarded? Try applying this reasoning to something else, brainlet.

just because Bible was misinterpreted in the past doesn't mean that consistent moral system can be derived from it

>people finding something moral makes it moral

This might just be the stupidest fucking thread opening I've ever seen, and I frequent fucking /v/, jesus christ what a faggot OP is. Understanding of morality is literally THE ONLY BASIS ON WHICH A PERSON IS DEEMED BAD OR GOOD. Why the fuck would someone think a person was good while simultaneously thinking that person did morally wrong things?

>Scientific knowledge is subjective. We used to think smoking was fine now it gives you cancer, proving smoking causing cancer is subjective

Morality literally only exists if people believe in it.

Because people have different moral standards back then compared to now? You don't need to get upset.

No, might doesn't make right

...

If you want to judge historical people "good" or "bad" you should get back to watching children cartoons or Mel Gibson's movies, because reality doesn't work like that.

People judge what is in their mind good or bad based on the information they have. If a redneck villager in medieval was told that having freckles is a sign of devil since he was little kid by everyone around him, then its perfectly logical for him to start believing that people with freckles need to die, even though its considered absurd and immoral based on nowadays standards.

>slavery is bad
nothing is wrong with slavery so long as you don’t abuse your slaves. Also slavery is never criticized in the bible.

>Morality literally only exists if people believe in it.

Not what that means.

No, that only proves that either our ancestors were wrong or we are wrong.

>use Hamitic myth to justify slavery
>now you consider black people inferior
>they actually lose their status as humans and become things
>terrible abuse and horrendous treatment becomes morally justifiable
I never read the Bible, but i was under the impression this is how it went down and this is (partially) why racism started

>misinterpreted
So gay sex and murder aren’t sins

Who said anything about racism? We're only talking about slavery. Even if this was about racism, you're still wrong. Are you by any chance American?

It does not exist outside of the minds of people, it is a construct of the human mind. No amount of mentally disabled cartoons will change that.

>I never read the Bible
>have only very shallow understanding of racism and slavery
No i am not, but enlighten me, please

>It does not exist outside of the minds of people, it is a construct of the human mind.
i'm sure gravity will stop existing if we all just stop believing in it

That's why gravity is real and objective, but morality isn't. I'm really enjoying your MS Paint drawings of your family members.

>That's why gravity is real and objective, but morality isn't.
it must be hard being a brainlet

Oh I get it, you post those pictures to represent yourself. For a second I thought you were trying to call me dumb for drawing a distinction in objectivity between gravity and how you feel about morality.

Good jokes man.

>still can't understand
man you really are stupid, how do you remember to breathe?

There's nothing to understand dude. You're not saying anything, you're just making a mockery of anyone who believes morality isn't just a product of passion.

since morality does not exist in nature, yes people finding something moral is what makes it moral

morality isn't a product of anything brainlet
it's an objective law of the universe just like gravity as defined by God
i shouldn't have had to spell this out for you, but you really are that dumb
>since morality does not exist in nature
pic related applies to you too brainlet

so you would be fine being a slave, where you have no freedom and are forced to work every day of your life for no personal gain, just as long as you weren't abused?

so this is the mentality of someone who saves dozens of brainlet images

what is the morality of the kind of person that saves this many brainlet macros

sorry you got mocked for being uneducated and stupid, maybe next time do a little research before entering a thread

New World race based slavery, and by extension racism, was around far before the Hamitic Hypothesis, which was only based partly on biblical accounts. Slavery also existed without racism far prior to the triangle trade.

yeah because thats the big bad religion now. The Bible. Thats whos blowing up building and murdering cartoonist for drawing pictures of Jesus, all those fucking christians.

Aspergers

t. buttmad brainlet fedoratippers
shouldn't you be shoving bananas up your ass?

Modern people dont follow the bible, they have marxist morals

Christ kid can you just do your homework or something besides ruining this board?

the main thing ruining this board is brainlets like you that have literally no idea what they're talking about, like calling morality subjective
be the change you want to see in the world. if you want this board to be better, leave

The moral standards,if that's what you want to callit, that we have were built on blood and fire. Conquistadors had to wipe out Aztec priest class to end human sacrifice. Romans had to slaughter all Druids. Your civilization that you virtue signal in, and are allowed to do so in, came at a cost. The shedding of blood, dispossessing of people groups, is what "morals" are built on. People like the fruits of modern life, but they kid themselves if they think the labors that came before, did not come by the edge of a sword.

>posted from my iPhone

It's true that it's stupid to judge historical figures by our exact moral standards, but at the same time we shouldn't exaggerate how different they were. I've literally seen retards claim that the concept of genocide being a bad thing was entirely foreign to Germans until after WW2.

Although in general it's a bit childish to paint historical figures as good and evil, but I guess there's value to pointing out the bad in response to people who worship historical figures as heroes.

give us a verifiable and testable experiments to prove the existence of morality as law of the universe

Being gay still is immoral in the biological sense this is not up to interpretation...

The warrior symbol is the same in all cultures, therefore we have a set of standards in all culture to define something, the good father is the same in all cultures the same as the good mother

You really can´t claim that, there is morality even among animals, there are right things and wrong things between every animal that has any resemblance to inteligence

user pls surely you're merely pretending to not know what a formal science is.

>immoral in the biological sense

>Ohhh but they rape each other

Still they have a littler version of morale in each their intelligence can comprehend, adult chimps won´t simply kill the offspring of other animals unless it is an enemy, animals when they play the stronger animals can deliberately choose to lose so they can maintain stable relationships. and play more

It's kind off a missconception that people were much more different than us in terms of morality. There have been always movements against all the shit we are against today. Even in the roman empire there were plenty of abolitionist movements. It also wan't that we all hated women and the concept of love and care for a partner didn't exists. So while you cannot apply modern standards of critique, they weren't literal caveman with no concept of morality.

>Even in the roman empire there were plenty of abolitionist movements
Pretty sure serious criticism of slavery in the ancient Mediterranean stopped at "don't beat them too much" and "maybe give them a break after 20 years".

>morality

Well yea it wasn't such a big concern because they weren't seen as literal subhumans, but the idea of a man owning a man has always brought criticism.

>immoral in the biological sense
is ought you fucking moron

Why isn't wrong for a 20 year old to date a 15 year old? Why is it wrong for me to drink? Why is it wrong for me to masturbate?

Is this that picture of an alien that /pol/ sperged out over a while ago?

It's true though. They are bad by current standards when the claim is currently being made. They were not relatively bad compared to their contemporary peers.

There is nothing wrong with judging others by your own standards. Just that you should be aware that those standards may not have even existed back then and that lack of ignorance and a modern sense of normalcy that might be expected today can not be expected of the past and be understanding and appreciative of the context rather than dismissive, even if you deem them bad people.

Temporal normative moral relativism is just as silly cross-cultural normative moral relativism. It's okay to judge, as long as you understand that your judgement has it's own historical and cultural judgement, just like the people you are judging.

finally ran out of brainlet images, huh?

and be aware that we may be judged harshly by future generations for things we think are completely fine

Yes it fucking does. That's literally the way society works, it is only through force that anything has any value.

>Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
>For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

Gott mitt uns, you filthy anglos.