Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2023 1:12 pm
Not only are they out if date, they have always been inadequate for purpose.
They represent a continuing piece of evidence against any claims of objectivity in moralising. Moses was a revisionist, and various sects and cults of Christianity have chose to interpret them in any way they chose.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-63cTYJDCA
Your above is fallacious thinking.
Your sense of what is objectivity [absolute mind-independence] is delusional as grounded on an illusion.
There are Two Senses of 'Objectivity' [one of them is delusional]
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326
As in any field of knowledge, what is critical is the focus on each individual claim within the field of knowledge then whole field.
For example, within science, if a claim is questionable, it is not science itself that is to be questioned, but whether the claim is valid within the human-based scientific FSK.
Therefore it is too hasty [fallacious] to lump of the whole to the Ten Commandments and critique morality within the Bible as whole to conclude Morality as a whole cannot be objective.
Effectively we need to treat each of the ten commandments as individual moral elements and rank them in terms of their moral_ness within a morality FSK.
Intuitively, 'Thou Shall Not Kill' would be rated with a 0.9/1 weighting in terms of morality while the other commandments are insignificant morally.
Anything that is conditioned upon a human-based FSK is objective of varying degrees.
Therefore 'Thou Shall Not Kill' as conditioned with the Theological FSK is objective, albeit of negligible degree of objectivity in contrast to the scientific FSK as the standard.
The ten commandments are not contractual within Christianity [re Gospels only] but 'Thou Shall Not Kill' in implied within the pacifist maxim, 'love all even enemies' in the Gospels.
On an individual moral element basis 'the oughtnotness to kill humans' [same with Thou Shall Not Kill'] is also weighted highly [say 0.8/1.0] within morality-in-general which is conditioned upon a moral-proper-FSK, which has a certain reasonable degree of objectivity.
Morality is objective because it is conditioned upon a FSK.
What is most critical with morality is whether it has contributed to the overall well-being of the individuals and that of humanity.
All humans are "programmed" with the oughtness to kill [for food, self-defense, etc.] but this impulse could be turned to other humans. [1]
So a 'the oughtnotness to kill humans' inhibitor is evolved to modulate 1 above to ensure the preservation of the human species.
It is very evidence the commandment, "thou shall not kill" [with a threat of hell from God] has been very effective in modulating [stopped] the majority [non-psychopaths or the brainwashed] to avoid to killing humans when they were triggered with the impulse to kill humans from whatever reasons [anger, passion, jealousy, revenge, etc.]
Sink this in! The resultant of the effectiveness of the objective moral fact of "thou shall not kill" is the current 8 billion humans from
a few.
If "thou shall not kill" is not objective but killing, as your preference, is a subjective or relative thing, there could have been more continual genocides on the scale of the holocaust.
Note the recent Congress interrogation where the top universities presidents lost their moral compass in insisting 'genocide, killing of babies is contextual' and it is only 'wrong' when it happens or had happened. WTF!
Because to you morality is not objective but subjective or relative, you're implicitly condoning [thus contribute to] genocides and killing of babies by others. PERHAPS, you're in a closet on this?
