All My Exes Live in Texas

Depends on how you define moral laws. Morality is usually defined as shared values within a community, in this case the State of Texas. A majority of people in the state of Texas through their elected representatives have decided that this should be a crime. Individual morality doesn't exist. As an individual, I could decide that anything is moral including murder if it profitted me or any other act that I could justify as an individual. Just because we as individuals don't agree with something, doesn't make it immoral.

Holy Crapoli!! Now morality is simply consensus. So it was "moral" to own slaves, because that was the consensus during those times, huh?

Moral propositions CAN come from one individual, as you state, if they can justify the proposition. You could try to rationalize murder, but you couldn't justify it using sound reasoning.

Double post, misread your post the first time. Immoral to condone immoral laws makes sense.

Ah, you have hit the nail on the head. Almost all of civilization was built through slavery, prior to the industrial period. Agriculture to feed the people of one's country required very extensive manpower requirements. To free others to create the infrastructure of nation's required that others were enslaved to provide the manpower necessary to feed nation's. For thousands of years, all of the great civilizations employed slavery. Even though it wasn't called slavery, in Europe during the years that Kings ruled by divine right, the serfs and peasants belonged to the nobility that owned the land and could not leave the land.

Only after the Christians started the concept that man was created with certain god given rights, which only originally applied to certain groups then was extended to all, did it start to be questioned whether slavery was immoral or not. So, yes, as society evolves so does morality. We condemn the history of slavery through the prism of our current morality. No one in the Roman Empire would have said slavery was immoral, no one in ancient Egypt would have said that enslaving the Hebrews was immoral, and only a few northern Protestants thought slavery immoral at the time of the Armerican Revolution. There are parts of the world today where slavery is still practiced and it is not thought immoral in those cultures.

Only after the Christians started the concept that man was created with certain god given rights, which only originally applied to certain groups then was extended to all, did it start to be questioned whether slavery was immoral or not. So, yes, as society evolves so does morality. We condemn the history of slavery through the prism of our current morality. No one in the Roman Empire would have said slavery was immoral, no one in ancient Egypt would have said that enslaving the Hebrews was immoral, and only a few northern Protestants thought slavery immoral at the time of the Armerican Revolution. There are parts of the world today where slavery is still practiced and it is not thought immoral in those cultures.

And yes morality is consensus within society. If we get Gay marriage as a country it will be because the consensus of the community has decided that it is no longer immoral. Therefore, the common morality will have shifted.

Of course morality is a matter of consensus- you may of heard that there was a big war in the US concerning the consensus of the morality of slavery. Showed that ya kinda need a consensus to compel some thing or prevent them.

Your first post confuses fact with necessity. Because man DID act in such a manner does not logically follow that he HAD to act so. You rationalize slavery on economic grounds, yet we know that it is highly inefficient. Free enterprise, based on defined property rights, runs circles around command economies. And even if we accept this position, it begs the question: why was this goal (civilization) superior to the rights of the individuals who were enslaved?

"Only after the Christians started the concept that man was created with certain god given rights, which only originally applied to certain groups then was extended to all, did it start to be questioned whether slavery was immoral or not. So, yes, as society evolves so does morality."

You don't even see the flaw in your relativist theory. If moral propositions are not true or false, but merely opinion of the masses, by what logical criteria could society "question whether slavery was immoral or not"? By your theory, there is simply a shift in opinion, not true or false, just a shift, and moral becomes immoral and vice versa.

Ancient thinkers grasped the immorality of slavery, they simply did not extend their theories to their logical ends. Aristotle: "Tyranny is against the law of nature".

"So, yes, as society evolves so does morality. We condemn the history of slavery through the prism of our current morality. No one in the Roman Empire would have said slavery was immoral, no one in ancient Egypt would have said that enslaving the Hebrews was immoral, and only a few northern Protestants thought slavery immoral at the time of the Armerican Revolution."

So, IS slavery wrong or just currently not en vogue? Because those in power and benefitting from slavery claim it's OK is not a compelling argument.

gsw, so was slavery immoral BEFORE consensus changed?

I thought I told you - but once again - about 50% of the people thought it was and 50% thoughy it wasn't - there was this big war and the side that thought it was won. As a result the opinion of those who thought it wasn't didn't matter. Before that big war thing there was no consensus and the lack of it was a big reason for the big war. You sure you won't be covering this next year in the 6th grade?

Its not wrong to be ignorant, gsw, but it is wrong to be proud of it as in your case.

"Immoral to oppose immoral laws? Not sure I follow you on that one."

He wrote immoral to CONDONE. Are your reading skills as weak as your ethics?

You just can't show your ignorance naw, and then claim it's ok to be wrong. Not right. And,I will try to show as much pride in you as I can - promise!

Where am I wrong, gsw? You haven't presented it. Your post above was gibberish at best, not even close to a reasoned examination of morality. "Hey, some people believe x and some people believe y, so they fight until one wins. That's morality."