Do these two points defeat the "moral argument" for God's existence

[Tom_in_CA]

Isn't government "a thing?"....

A government is a collective voice of "who's", not "what's". Like the difference between an innanimate object (like a rock) and a person(s) , like you and me.

Moral obligations (aka rules, laws) can only come from "who's", not "what's". You do not owe any moral obligation (eg.: don't murder, don't steal, don't rape) to rocks . You are under no "obligation" to obey your evolution. Don't confuse "is" vs "ought". We can describe that evolution makes the "is" of rape, murder, and such (that we "don't" do them). Yet that's not creating an "ought" . Ie.: you OUGHT not rape and murder. "Oughts" are moral obligations. "Is" just describes the way things are.

Again I take you back to the speed limit example: The fact that you and I go 25 mph (and agree that we should) only describes what IS the speed limit. It doesn't tell how the speed limit GOT THERE.

And if you say "government's and their codified rules give us these standards", then presto: The Nazis weren't really wrong. Which, amazingly, you've even admitted to. At least you're honest


I see you've answered some others, but I'm running out the door right now .

 

[Bobby Jo]

Seems we've got some eschatology to unpack as well as some prophetic details to examine.

I've got the time, and the proficiency. How about if we start with the simple, and progress to the complex.

So Dan. 2 provides a sequence of world empires which the commentators INSIST is roughly:

1. Gold, Babylon
2. Silver, Medo/Persia
3. Bronze, Greece
4.a. Iron, Rome
4.b. Clay, Revived Rome​

However, 2:45 provides the sequence: Iron, Bronze, Clay, Silver, Gold = 4,3,5,2,1 = FIVE, for which the FIFTH is a "divided kingdom" exactly as we have today with THREE Superpowers and the United Nations.

And where the dishonest commentators point to Dan. 7 for a regurgitation of the purported FOUR world empires, I see what we all see in modern geopolitics:

Dan. 2
1. Gold, Babylon
2. Silver, Medo/Persia
3. Bronze, Greece
4. Iron, Rome
5. Clay, "divided kingdom"

Dan. 2 & 7
1. Gold, Babylon
2. Silver, Medo/Persia
3. Bronze, Greece
4. Iron, Rome
-- Clay, "divided kingdom"
-- 5. Lion/Eagle, U.K./U.S.
-- 6. Bear, Russia
-- 7. Leopard (actually a TIGER), China
-- 8. "dreadful", United Nations, -- "was and is not" because it has NO Geography, NO Populous, NO Army​

Thus in Rev. 13 the Lion is the MOUTH, because the U.K./U.S. is proficient in Trade, Science, Technology, and Finance; the Leopard (actually a TIGER) is the BODY because China has the most Population; and the Bear is the FEET because Russia has the most land mass, -- 8M vs 3M each for the U.S., Canada, & China. And the ten horns are the FIVE Current PERMANENT MEMBERSHIP of the Security Council, with FIVE MORE which were NOMINATED to PERMANENT MEMBERSHIP of the Security Council:

Current PERMANENT MEMBERSHIP in the Security Council
1. U.S.
2. U.K.
3. France
4. Russia
5. China

Nominated to PERMANENT MEMBERSHIP in the Security Council*
6. Germany -- Economic Power
7. Japan -- Economic Power
8. Brazil -- Regional Representative for S. America
9. Nigeria -- Regional Representative for Africa
10. India -- Regional Representative for the Near East
* “The Road To Reform: Towards A New Clarity,” U.N. Chronicle, UMI, Vol. 30, Issue 4, December 1993, pp. 45-46​

And in Rev. 17, the five that have fallen include the U.S. which has fallen from pre-eminence; Russia "is" when it attacks Israel; China is "yet to come and shall remain a little while" when it spanks Russia; and the "eight that was and is not" is the U.N. which has NO Geography, NO Population, and NO Army, and this "eighth" is the 'beast" in Rev. 13.


Pretty simple and pretty obvious, don't you think?
Bobby Jo

 

[Truth OT]

So I merely took that for a test drive, and showed you where that crashed.

Your multiple attempts to appeal to past atrocities do nothing to weaken the case that morals are not absolutes that come from a deity as opposed to being something that naturally arises due to the fact that human peers coexist.

Why do they / we care what your personal preferences are ?

This is not hard, so I will repeat the point once again. Because we live together as peers in a shared setting or environment and because what I do affects you and vice versa, we are compelled to care about the standards of behavior and protections we each desire for our environment. (Refer to post 59 again please).

Just as in the same way that you can't look at my bowl of chocolate ice cream and say "that's wrong, and vanila is right ", then so too are you not able to say that the evils you are shaking your fist at are objectively wrong.

This is not an apples to apples comparison and deliberately obfuscates. A personal preference in food choices has little to no affect on the next person, whereas your behavior within a group or society impacts others within the group. Because of this reality, the group has a voice as it pertains to what behaviors are permitted, celebrated, and looked upon as good or ill.

It apparently wasn't [objectively] wrong for the Nazis to murder innocent people.

Moral right or wrong behaviors vary based on cultural and time settings and are invariably ties to human behaviors. With this being the case, how can we consider morals as objective things that exist outside of humanity? Morals are humans concepts created for and by humans that we employ to impact behaviors in homes of creating social living conditions that allow for the human peers within a social setting to go about their lives with minimal threats to their well-being and property from their social peers (other society members).

Don't confuse "is" vs "ought". We can describe that evolution makes the "is" of rape, murder, and such (that we "don't" do them). Yet that's not creating an "ought" . Ie.: you OUGHT not rape and murder. "Oughts" are moral obligations. "Is" just describes the way things are.

'Is' is not relevant to this discussion. If anything I wrote confused you and brought that to your focus that was not my intent. The focus is in fact the 'ought', which I have addressed on various occasions with the term 'the why'. I have addressed and answered all you've posed on multiple occasions.

/////////
So now I ask you, WHY is it that you feel compelled to look outside of humanity for human morality?

 

[Truth OT]

-- 5. Lion/Eagle, U.K./U.S.
-- 6. Bear, Russia
-- 7. Leopard (actually a TIGER), China
-- 8. "dreadful", United Nations, -- "was and is not" because it has NO Geography, NO Populous, NO Army

The Problems With End Times Prophecy

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Yes, you've caught what I was throwing! Individuals and the societies they are a part of determine what is behaviors are acceptable. Those acceptable behaviors have proven to be dynamic thus proving that the moral behavior humans are willing to accept are subjective.

No, this doesn't prove that "morals are subjective and relative". All it proves is that people can twist and break objective moral absolutes.

For example, if my morals are to murder my neighbor and take his stuff, does that mean that : A) Morals are therefore subjective, ? Or B) That I have just broken an objective moral absolute not to murder and steal ?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

..... I'm trying to be......FAIR.... .

..... And? ... .

..... The above is flat out tone-deaf and dishonest. I mean wrong the way I said I meant it.... .

Truth-OT. You have been more than fair. The average person would say "the Nazis were wrong" And they would mean that in the objective sense of REALLY *truly* "wrong". But amazingly, you're inisisting that they were only subjectively wrong (like ice cream flavor preferences).

So I will just let that sink in. And let it speak loudly for itself.

And I would also point out that you went into a long list of evils in the world, as if to insinuate that they are objectively "wrong". But they are no-more-wrong than if those persons preferred a different flavor of ice-cream than you. So why are you complaining about those things you don't like ? Perhaps the other person likes them, so why are you griping ? They have their morals , you have your morals. And yours are no better than theirs, on-your-view.

....Therefore, it is in my best interest to conform to society's regulations else I and by extension those I love will suffer negative consequences.

Yup. Best not to bristle against the system, lest we suffer negative consequences. Which is why Martin Luther King was the immoral one for "bucking against his system". Right ? And which is why if you'd been in Nazi Germany, you would "conformed" to anti-Semitic laws . In each of those cases, that WAS "society's regulations". Got it.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Seems we've got some eschatology to unpack as well as some prophetic details to examine.

truth-OT, I sympathize with you, for when Christians try to point to fulfilled Bible prophecies, as proof of their persuasion. I mean ... yes and no. Yes I agree with you that it's a weak support (for apologetic purposes). So the atheist/agnostic will bristle at those being "proofs". Even though I *DO* feel they were prophetic, yet the problem is this easy defeater that the atheist/agnostic will bring up : That it appears to be nothing more than memory-bias of vague things. No different than, for example, horoscopes which are so vague, that the next day, someone can think that events seem to have lined up.

While I don't think this defeater works for all of the prophecies, yet the basic alleged "wish-fulfillment " psychology , and p*ssing match that ensues about the before & after events, make me not use prophecy as an apologetic tool. NOT that I don't believe that prophecies were fulfilled, but it's just that the "end-runs " and "alternate explanations" that the atheist can give, end up making it a p*ssing match, for purposes of proof of God, or proof of the Bible.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... When we look back at what our code was lacking or included initially and compare it to now, we might very likely say that we WERE WRONG in our past position,....

Do you mean REALLY TRULY OBJECTIVELY wrong ? Or just subjectively wrong ?

If you meant REALLY TRULY OBJECTIVELY wrong, then congratulations ! You have just admitted that objective moral standards exist OUTSIDE of what a society thinks. The fact that you can look back in time and say that societal norms like slavery was objectively truly "wrong", means that you are saying that IT DIDN'T MATTER WHAT THEIR SOCIETY THOUGHT. They were still wrong, despite what they thought and voted on.

Presto, you are now admitting objective moral standards exist. Now that you've lost the $100 bet, please kindly pay me the $100 . I accept paypal

....
It seems that you are making a bad point that you are trying to slip in unnoticed that it is immoral to disagree with the moral position of the society you are a part of. Real slick, but inaccurate. Dissent is not necessarily immoral in a society unless coded as such by the society.

What ? YOU are the one saying society (the collective "we") is what defines moral good and bads. Yet now you are turning around and saying that it's not immoral to disagree with your society ? That dissent is sometimes moral ? Don't you see the contradiction ? You JUST got done making a big case for society-being-the-standard for moral code. If so, then dissent and disagreement would be immoral, by your own definition.

But let's just cut to the chase: Here's why you're saying that it's sometimes ok to protest and dissent against society : Because you are calling on a standard that is OUTSIDE of the society. You are saying "society is wrong " about some particular law or practice. Therefore you are implying an objective moral code that is OUTSIDE of society. Therefore society-alone can NOT be the measuring scoring card for morals, as your very dissent indicates. See ? Ok, I'll expect to see that $100 wager bet in my paypal account now

 

[Tom_in_CA]

....What it seems you're genuinely grasping for is a why. Why should someone hold that anything is right or wrong .....

Truth OT, again and for the umpteenth time: This statement of yours is confusing epistemology and ontology .

Like two people arguing about the neighborhood speed limit . The one person (Tom_in_CA) is pondering "who made the speed limit ?" And the other person (Truth-OT) keeps saying : "why should I hold that the speed limit is right ? I can obviously see that the speed limit is 35, since it's right there on the sign. Nor do I disagree with the logic of it". But it's not answering the bigger question of "who made the speed limit". Not "is it a good idea" or "do we agree with it" or "do we both keep it", etc.....

You are saying "society" makes the moral rules. And then you have been more than fair to say that Hitler wasn't objectively wrong. Yet you are still "bumping into reality" every time you say some other past-or-present societies social evils are "wrong". Because even though, when pressed, you will *say* that you mean only subjectively wrong, yet the tone of the use of the word bellies that you mean objectively wrong.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

No mention of evolution of species, just the ever changing beliefs of what is and is not right as depicted on our collective moral scorecards.

And who is the "our", in your above quote ? What country ? What era ? etc.....

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Tom, please objectively define wrong outside of saying it's contrary to the andates of the authority.
....

Truth-OT, this is your 2nd attempt to take yourself off the hot-plate. But here's what I'm afraid of : If you haven't seen the test-drive-failure of your own views, via our conversation so far, then any attempt I give to "ground morals", then you can summarily dismiss them, and run back to your grounding of morals.

I almost got ready to go ahead and put my views out there for you (knowing that you'll beat up on them, which is fine). And the reason I thought it was my turn to get quizzed, was because you have been more than fair in admitting that the Nazis weren't objectively wrong. So it would seem to be my turn now, to give my alternate explanation of the reality we see around us. Eh ?

HOWEVER, I am still not convinced that it's my turn. Here's why : Because in your very next breaths you said that you *could* look back on an earlier era of American society, and say "they were wrong". And from the tone of that, it *seemed* you meant "really truly wrong" (not just your current society's subjective preference). So I need clarification from you : Did you mean wrong "objectively" or "subjectively" there ? If you meant "subjectively", then sure, it's my turn. But if you meant "objectively", then no, we have un-finished business. That would mean you're currently still trapped in a contradiction . And thus currently still have a fall-back position (albeit contradictory) to run back to.

In other words, IT WON'T MATTER what I offer you as the way to ground morals. No matter HOW concrete of a case I can make for it, you have the fall-back position of your own system. So until you clarify what you meant when you said you could-indeed look back at your society's past, and say "that was wrong", I can't proceed. Did you mean that subjectively or objectively ?

... The facts that the concepts exist doesn't mean they are objective....

Dude, read what you just read S-L-O-W-L-Y. Now read it again slowly. Are you seeing the contradiction ? If something "exists", then it objectively exists. For example, if I put an apple on the table, and it is TRULY REALLY there, that we are both observing, then here's the difference between subjective and objective in that case : If someone else comes along and DOESN'T believe it's there, then it's not there. Since, of course, it's subject-to-the-individual (hence the word "subjective"). But wait, if the apple is truly there, then that makes the non-believer of the apple to be wrong. Their opinion on the apple's existence doesn't matter, since in that case, the apple was truly there. It was there objectively, whether or not someone else disbelieved that.

So too when you say "the facts and concepts exist" MAKES THAT AN OBJECTIVE STATEMENT ! See ?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

....If you buy into divine command setting up immutable morals, isn't might makes right EXACTLY what you are advocating?....

What's wrong with might-makes-right ? Who cares where the "authority" came from ? Whether it be collective society that codifies laws, or a God up there somewhere. Either way, we both agree on these moral laws (don't murder, don't rape, etc....). We're just trying to discover what best explains the moral laws we intuitively know exists.

And if it were "God" as the grounding of morals, that doesn't make him a "bully" . No more so than when you have children , you lay down house rules. Eg.: no playing with your food, don't pull your sister's pony-tails, don't touch the hot iron, do your homework , blah blah. Parents know what's best for their kids. So why would it be any different for if there was a God who made us ?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Isn't government "a thing?"

Wrong. Governments can.

Laws for people's supposed well-being and for what people can and cannot do are made by people. No need for any agency that is not of this world is required.

Look closely at the post here (might have to cross-reference to what you were answering in the first place, but let's give it a try anyhow) :

When you asked "Isn't government a "thing" ?, you were referring back to when I said that moral obligations and laws can only come from "whos", not "whats or things" (eg.: rocks, etc...). So now you're asking "Isn't government a thing ?" And in context, that would be, as opposed to a "who".

But now look at what you are saying here in this quote : You're saying that laws are "made by people". So you answered YOURSELF that government is not a "thing". It is "people". Don't you see yourself falling all over yourself with perpetual contradictions yet ?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

....In my view, it SHOULD have been wrong to them just as it is wrong to me, but it apparently wasn't. Why? Subjectivity.....

No, in each case, it was objectively wrong. The fact that those societies did differently, does not mean "morals are subjective", it merely means: We humans can break the objective code".

....You swing and miss yet again. I could have just as I can now look back and say that though they thought slavery was morally justifiable under the circumstances they initiated the practice, I sure think they are/were wrong and immoral for doing that and for even thinking that way. Society could force me to comply with their norms, but they can't make be believe they are moral and right. That belief is a personal one based on a myriad of factors included but not limited to life experiences, upbringing, personal values, etc.

Wow, let's unpack this : So you're no longer saying that "society [and their laws, etc...] create moral good and bads. NOW YOU'RE SAYING that it's a person's personal beliefs. Wow, let's let that sink in. So this is grounds for anarchy. Where EVERYONE can simply do what they want (as long as they're not caught). It's no longer on a societal level of "what makes a moral right or wrong", now it's down to the individual level. You are a fascinating feller Truth-OT .

So rape is only wrong for you. It might be right for the next guy.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

..... Because we live together as peers in a shared setting or environment and because what I do affects you and vice versa, we are compelled to care about the standards of behavior and protections we each desire for our environment. ...

Ok, so when I asked "why should anyone care what you think ?" I guess that was poorly worded. What I meant was more along the lines of : What makes you right, and them wrong ?

.... This is not an apples to apples comparison and deliberately obfuscates. A personal preference in food choices has little to no affect on the next person, whereas your behavior within a group or society impacts others within the group. Because of this reality, the group has a voice as it pertains to what behaviors are permitted, celebrated, and looked upon as good or ill....

No, I was not purposefully trying to obfuscate. You bring up a good point, when you detail the difference between "choices that are mere preference" (like ice cream flavors) versus choices that affect the guy next to you. Good job Truth-OT. I'm going to have to think about that one. Score one for truth-OT. It's not addressing our bigger discussion, but ... have to admit, ... it made me think

But as for the rest of your quote here above : Yes, and the Nazi society had their voice as to what behaviors are permitted, celebrated, etc.... And trust me, some of those things "affected their fellow man".

..... 'Is' is not relevant to this discussion.....

Why not ? If 2 people were staring at the speed limit sign, and the person who doesn't believe there is a city council (that sets speed limits), can do the same thing you are doing : He can say : "All we need to do is be discussing the fact that the speed limit is 35 thus we ought to keep it" . And if the other person who DOES believe there's a city council tries to point out the "is" vs "ought" discrepancy, the non-believer can just continue to go on and on about how the speed limit is already there.

Hence the "is" part of the discussion (whether or not a city council exists) IS very relevant to the discussion.

.....
So now I ask you, WHY is it that you feel compelled to look outside of humanity for human morality?

I am prepared to answer that, when you first answer the question of : When you said that you could indeed look back in time on your society's past, and say "they were wrong ", did you mean that objectively or subjectively ?

 

[Truth OT]

All it proves is that people can twist and break objective moral absolutes.

Please demonstrate that objective moral absolutes exist.

For example, if my morals are to murder my neighbor and take his stuff, does that mean that : A) Morals are therefore subjective, ? Or B) That I have just broken an objective moral absolute not to murder and steal ?

You're attempting to create a false dichotomy by insisting that the answer has to be your A and B.

So why are you complaining about those things you don't like ? Perhaps the other person likes them, so why are you griping ? They have their morals , you have your morals. And yours are no better than theirs, on-your-view.

The fact that you keep repeating the above is head-scratchingly frustrating. I explained on several occasion why what I do or what others do in a shared environment matters. So again, let me summarize by restating that it matters because people coexist. It's literally that simple.

Which is why Martin Luther King was the immoral one for "bucking against his system". Right ?

Your words, not mine. Stop it with the spin. As I stated previously, disagreeing with the establishment and immoral behavior are not one and the same. The case can be made that going against a system one deems to be immoral is the moral thing to do.
(Please don't attempt to raise an argument that someone might make the case that a system that DOES NOT ABUSE its citizens would be an immoral system).

Do you mean REALLY TRULY OBJECTIVELY wrong ? Or just subjectively wrong ?

I mean wrong as HUMANS define wrong at whatever time they are reviewing the history.

Yet now you are turning around and saying that it's not immoral to disagree with your society ? That dissent is sometimes moral ? Don't you see the contradiction ?

Let's circle back once again shall we. (and yes, dissent can be moral, especially if the dissent offers up better solutions for a society. Examples include: 1. We should do more, 2. We can improve by doing ___ Disagreement with the tenets of morality emphasized by a society and working to change that which you feel is amiss is not immoral. What would be considered immoral would be violating the moral guidelines.

But let's just cut to the chase: Here's why you're saying that it's sometimes ok to protest and dissent against society : Because you are calling on a standard that is OUTSIDE of the society. You are saying "society is wrong " about some particular law or practice. Therefore you are implying an objective moral code that is OUTSIDE of society. Therefore society-alone can NOT be the measuring scoring card for morals, as your very dissent indicates. See ?

Why do you attempt to make the moral standard an immutable one? Our collective moral compasses are ever evolving (or devolving depending on who you ask). Moral values change because morals come from people who change. It's pretty simple.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Please demonstrate that objective moral absolutes exist.....

As soon as you state whether or not your stated ability to look-back-in-the-past, at your own society, and say some behavior of theirs was "wrong". Was "absolutely" wrong vs only "subjectively" wrong ?

.... You're attempting to create a false dichotomy by insisting that the answer has to be your A and B.....

Great ! Then by all means , we're all waiting on the edge of our seats waiting for you to tell us what option # C is.

.... The fact that you keep repeating the above is head-scratchingly frustrating. I explained on several occasion why what I do or what others do in a shared environment matters. So again, let me summarize by restating that it matters because people coexist. It's literally that simple....

RIGHT ! And it's "literally that simple" that so too did the Nazis have a "shared environment" and felt their laws allowed them to "co-exist". Hence you can't wag your finger at them either ! Got it !

In fact, you've even gone so far as to admit this . Hence we'll let that "sink in" . For the casual observer/reader to digest that : Truth-OT can't say, objectively, that the Nazis were truly *wrong*. They were only subjectively wrong. Uhhh, ok.

..... As I stated previously, disagreeing with the establishment and immoral behavior are not one and the same.....

But wait a moment : You have gone to great pains to say/establish that morals are set by the establishment. Then on that view, therefore for anyone who thereafter bristles (disagrees) with the establishment *IS* to the one who is immoral. This is common sense grammatical logic.

... I mean wrong as HUMANS define wrong at whatever time they are reviewing the history.....

Great ! Then you can't look back at USA slavery or Jim Crow laws (or the entire world in the 1700s slavery notions) and say "that was wrong". Because in-their-time, they didn't believe that was wrong. You are doing a good job at sticking to your world-view. However, you always give-it-away in the very next breath when you pronounce those things "wrong". Hhhhhmmmm.

... yes, dissent can be moral, especially if the dissent offers up better solutions for a society....

"Better solutions" ? Did I just hear you say "better" solutions ? Ah, there you go again Truth-OT : Smuggling objective morality in "through the back -door". Don't you see it ? You say "better solutions". As if you have a moral objective scoring card on which-to-call from THAT ADJUDICATES and decides what is a "better solution" . See ? Ok, then are you now willing to admit that objective moral standards exist ?


This is the funny scenario when debating those that think that morals are subjective and relative. It's always easy : All you have to do is watch what they say with their own words. And guaranteed: Within 2 or 3 breaths they will give their position the thumbs down BY THEIR VERY OWN WORDS.

....I mean wrong as HUMANS define wrong at whatever time they are reviewing the history....

Great. Then that's subjective and not objective.

....Why do you attempt to make the moral standard an immutable one? Our collective moral compasses are ever evolving (or devolving depending on who you ask). Moral values change because morals come from people who change. It's pretty simple. ....

Perfect. Then stop looking back on your own USA past and saying they were "wrong". Ok ?

But the problem is : YOU'VE ALREADY DONE THAT . If you doubt me, I'll cite you chapter and verse. HHhhmm, another truth-OT contradiction. And when you say "wrong" in those cases, you are using the word objectively, not subjectively. You mean "really wrong". It's un-mistakable in your usage.

 

[Truth OT]

And who is the "our", in your above quote ? What country ? What era ? etc.....

Our = individuals, communities, societies, or locales in both space and time.

 

[Truth OT]

Dude, read what you just read S-L-O-W-L-Y. Now read it again slowly. Are you seeing the contradiction ? If something "exists", then it objectively exists.

A concept can exist objectively but it's meaning can be subjective. Example being the concept of tall. Tallness exists as a concept objectively, but what is tall is subjective. A six foot 2 inch person might be considered tall in a setting of middle school kids while that same person would not be considered tall in a setting of professional basketball players. The Concept exists objectively, but the meaning and application can be highly subjective.

 

[Truth OT]

What's wrong with might-makes-right ? Who cares where the "authority" came from ? Whether it be collective society that codifies laws, or a God up there somewhere.

What can be wrong with the idea of might makes right is the potential lack of equity for those who are not among or on the side of the mighty. I'm honestly not sure how this condition could ever be so that it would please and feel equitable to all affected parties. No perfect system has been proven to exist yet.

Either way, we both agree on these moral laws (don't murder, don't rape, etc....). We're just trying to discover what best explains the moral laws we intuitively know exists.

Yes, the WHY that I have addressed numerous times.

"Better solutions" ? Did I just hear you say "better" solutions ? Ah, there you go again Truth-OT : Smuggling objective morality in "through the back -door". Don't you see it ? You say "better solutions". As if you have a moral objective scoring card on which-to-call from THAT ADJUDICATES and decides what is a "better solution" . See ? Ok, then are you now willing to admit that objective moral standards exist ?

The concept of 'better' has a level of subjectivity to it. However, it also has a measurable component to it depending on how it's applied that brings objectivity. If I say, "X" activity is better for a society, that may or may not speak to the morality of that activity as it only speaks to the utility of the activity for things that may be measured like life expectancy, standard of living, collective average happiness level, societal health, etc.

Perfect. Then stop looking back on your own USA past and saying they were "wrong". Ok ?

But the problem is : YOU'VE ALREADY DONE THAT . If you doubt me, I'll cite you chapter and verse. HHhhmm, another truth-OT contradiction. And when you say "wrong" in those cases, you are using the word objectively, not subjectively. You mean "really wrong". It's un-mistakable in your usage.

Why do you assume we cannot consider something in the past wrong based on an understanding we have in the present?