In this story about a sexual abuse case, Andrew Carey, son of the former Arch Bishop of Canterbury claimed that:

Article - Carey junior’s special pleading “an insult to victims”, says NSS


I have questions about two aspects of this:

1) If something that was once deemed 'right', becomes something deemed to be wrong, was it always wrong? And does that work in reverse, if something once deemed wrong, is now deemed right, were those accused of doing wrong actually not doing something wrong?

2) Since theists claim Objective morality, can 'changing moral attitudes' ever be used as a defence in a case involving moral values? Isn't that a form of Moral Relativism?

1) Yes with certain caveat's which I'm going to avoid / leave for later, for instance on my view slavery was always wrong even though it was socially acceptable at certain times/places historically. Slaveholders and actors in the slave trade were acting wrongly. Conversely many societies consider engaging in homosexual acts as not morally wrong where previously it was believed to be. On my view people engaging in such acts were not acting wrongly despite the society judging them to be.

2) In some cases it is possible to defend the act, rather than the actor, because we judge the actor against their historic social norms/values rather than against contemporary standards. I also don't think this defence works in this case.

2) should read "it is possible to defend the actor, rather than the act.."

Ok, but why? Aren't you claiming here that there are objective moral values?

Then he'd be arguing that his father was more influenced by societal norms of the time, or that he went light on the actual perpetrator for the same reasons, rather than their beliefs that his god is the source of objective morality. Something of a damning statement to be making about an arch bishop and/or a bishop..... Way to undermine their own credibility. Talk about rock and hard place.

Yes I am claiming that there are objective moral values. Or at least I am claiming that there is a plausible case for objective moral values.

He is arguing that his father was influenced by the social norms of the time but I think he's wrong, firstly I think the social norms of the time would find that child abuse was wrong and should be prevented and perpetrators should be punished, and secondly I think it is a poor defence of an arch bishop who should know better even if that was the prevailing norm of the time.

What is it?


Is there biblical condemnation of child sexual abuse?

You've read Rachels? Like the last time I tried to answer this question I had 5000 words.

As for the second question I don't actually recall anything but it's 20 years since I read it, however I don't think the church is restricted to condemning on moral grounds only those things there is biblical condemnation of.

Yes I have. As far as I know there is no compelling argument for objective morality being some intrinsic natural element of the universe, so the only argument I'm aware of that supports objective morality is that there is a deity who is the source of objective moral values.


It just seems contradictory. Like they're saying 'sure this guy believes in god and objective unchanging moral values, but he allowed his actions to be guided by what people thought about it instead...'

I said plausible not compelling. There are non-naturalist accounts of moral facts that do not rely on a deity or suggest that objective morality is some intrinsic natural element of the universe. If you aren't aware of these arguments either my memory of Rachels is flawed or your reading of it is. I'm perfectly happy to accept the latter as my memory of Rachels is vague but the above SEP link is going to cover it better than I can.

I'm not really interested in discussing that particular case, as I've explained I think the defence offered fails. I am interested in the whether it is possible to relativise our judgement of the actor while maintaining the act is objectively wrong.

Sure, me too. Choose any similar case, it's the question that interests me.

The ancient world displays evidence of slavery with especial notice of the Greeks, whose culture was dependent upon slavery.

Though the Greeks had monies and lived within a democracy (Athens, of course) I am struck as to how the Greeks came into possession of other peoples , whether through war or barter of some sort. I've never gone into this but it would be an enlightening study to characterize the roots of slavery in the Greek democracy of Athens.

Closer to home, I see English traders selling peoples brought from Africa to the Americans who by and large were also English. In this case we have the economic or mercantile power of England performing these acts which of course, ended in the loss of 2 million Americans in the war of 1860. The stuff was ameliorated somewhat but there are still echo's of the economics of slavery.

In both cases I would attempt to characterize the cultures and hopefully not snipe though there may be some antipathy to the English which are closer to our times; I don't really want it to look that way and hope to remain as dispassionate as possible.

One point, which stands out to me is the differences in the economic realm between Greece and England. I am led to believe that there is a difference between the Greek approach and that of our near modernity.

Before anyone jumps, I in no way am justifying slavery either during ancient Greece and recent England and its American offshoot. It would be good to clarify the differences and not approach it under one umbrella.

There is one thing I take issue with is the condemnation of a modern peoples (2017) such as the Greeks or English by those who hold the present peoples responsible ; they are not.

Ok, this looks like a rant, but it appears that the human soul is tied into an evolutionary morality to which he is the author and in this no one sits still.