Verified answer

No.

No moral relativist would accept that because it points to an objective moral standard.

I don't get it. Aren't the changing morals of society actually instead fatal to the "objective morals" -position? If morals have changed, then how can they be objective?

Yes, I think societies have evolved and adapted better ideas of right conduct. But so what? That I find the development pleasing in no way points to the existence of objective morals.

I do believe that some segments of society are moving closer to love and understanding while other portions are moving farther away. If man continues to learn from his mistakes he will improve and revise his conduct and society as a whole.

Knowledge is always relative to experience. Our knowledge of early societies is based in assumptions if we believe all early societies kept slaves. This would be incorrect. Right conduct is not necessarily tied to the evolution of behavior but it certainly can be tied to a learning pattern based here.

Your arguement falls apart with the concept of better ideas of right conduct--there is no absolute right conduct-societies that work towards optimization discard the practices that retard it from moving in that direction. Right conduct, justice, injustice are words we use to describe the effects of these processess. 1000 years ago, women were chattel in accordance to many religious beliefs. In eras when the first born son inherited--and no way to determine parentage it was extremely important for society to develop rules against a woman sleeping with someone not her husband--while it was okay in biblical culture for example-for a man to have concubines (unmarried women he used for sex). Reason for this is any children from the concubines were known not to be the child of the marriage and therefore not in line to inherit. This is the genesis (lol) of the double standard--and the shutting women away from the world. In our industrial society--especially where parentage can be proved--this double standard retards society from utilizing the people in it--hence the move to womens rights--etc. Social evolution doesn't target justice and "right and moral" behavior--social evolution targets what helps society to function at it's optimum over long periods of time. (This is also why Hitlers germany and Joe Stalins USSR didn't last long---if you look at it from a social evolutionary standpoint--it was obvious they wouldn't last long).

Your first paragraph has some inaccuracies. Reductive materialists only assert that on account that we've not got observational get admission to to geographical regions different than the textile we've not have been given any justification in making claims approximately those geographical regions. And the "regularly occurring atheist" does not see this worldwide as "random, out of control, pushed via using intercourse desire." i'm a typical atheist and that i think that the worldwide is ordered by using a collection of rules, and that motives for movements are some distance too complicated to be decreased to a unmarried desire. EDIT: Your declare that relativists can no longer understand permanence via fact they do no longer have confidence in absolutes is likewise erroneous. with out any argument or data demonstrating the validity of this form of declare, you're unjustified in making it. the thought that the ethical foundation of somebody reductive materialist is probable to alter is likewise unsuitable. The societies wherein we live (which includes the international society) are the subjective determinants of morality. on account that this form of society does not significantly overhaul its morals in short sessions of time, it fairly is unreasonable to assert that somebody's ethical foundation is probable to alter.

Sorry to chime in, not being a relativist, but the ONLY way morality is possible at all is if there is an objective higher standard to appeal to. Without that all morality dissolves into nothing. People keep saying "for the greater good" but what is good? Everyone's opinions differ. Or how about appeal to majority? Doesn't work either: we all know what the majority thought inside of Nazi Germany.

A society that recognizes slavery as an injustice is closer to my own views than one that does not.

However, if you went back to societies that supported slavery, they would tell you that our culture has it wrong. In most cases, they would also be moral absolutists.

"Do you accept that societies have evolved and adapted "better" ideas of right conduct."

Better according to who? You, me? Our children? Our great-grand-children? Our ancestors? All products of our society. Are your taking your own moral views as sort of an endpoint, a perceived ideal, and then applying them to previous periods? It's very attractive, many have done so over the years, but does it make sense?

Since I value fairness and equal rights and freedom, I can decide how "good" our morals have become.

For instance, when the US was founded, the words "all men are created equal" meant a lot less than it does today, and it's better now that it's more inclusive.

With technology, we have more capacity for both harm and beneficial action. Societies must inflict some harm on some members. These necessary harms committed by society grow smaller with increasing technological capacity.