Why can’t it be the case that there is an objective answer and we humans are progressing toward getting it right?
On a separate note, I’m no cultural historian, but my understanding is that pretty much every culture has had rules prohibiting murder. The exact parameters of the definition of what constitutes murder have changed from culture to culture, but, for the most part, some core prohibition on killing other people has always been there. Assuming that’s true, isn’t that evidence that there is something baked into the human condition that makes killing another person wrong?
In any event, isn’t your argument conflating illegality with immorality? I get that, at some level, a culture that glorifies human sacrifice, for example, isn’t going to believe it is immoral, but, today, our laws don’t purport to set forth moral edicts. Instead, they are just rules that we have deemed are the best way to govern societal behavior. Again, there is probably some core we wouldn’t do away with based on basic instincts about morality, but, it seems to me anyway, arguing about the elements of self-defense under New York law, for example, isn’t really arguing about morality. Those are just rules that may or may not bear any relation to morality.
Finally, and related to my first question, how does your discription of changing cultural approaches to murder differ from scientific observation? Our scientific theories of today are much different from those 100 years ago, etc. Does that means there is no objective scientific truth? Or does it mean our theories are changing to more accurately grasp the objective reality out there? If the latter, why the different conclusions with respect to science and morality?
By the way, I recognize this is a long post with a lot of questions and I won’t be offended if you don’t answer all or any of them. I have insomnia and your post grabbed my attention in my somnambulant state.