Morality Then and Now

.....versus that of a general more one, it is without a doubt that the different cultures and societies of the world have evolved a great deal over the millennia. The Christians are a good example. The Christians of the Crusades or Christians of the Church of England are far from being the Christians of today.

Similarly, the Muslims of the Crusades or the Muslims that have fought for 1,400 years (and counting) over the successor of Muhammad have in many ways shifted since the day of the prophet, even if many others are still fighting (Hall). One might suggest that this is a natural evolution and that there has been a development of the moral standard over time. However, there is more than one idea to suggest that this could not and should not be the case.

First, the fact that women are subjugated, limited and oppressed cannot be dismissed as just a moral evolution. It was not right centuries ago when it was done in the first two centuries CE and the same remains true now. The use of clitoral circumcisions is obviously and completely different than why it is done to males. In the case of women having circumcision done, the obvious goal as defined by many is to keep them "pure" and prevent them from feeling pleasure when they engage in sex.

They are viewed simply as people to produce children and the antecedent of female circumcision leads to a lot pain, a lot negative medical developments and there is really no moral or cultural explanation about the practice that could be deemed acceptable. Even if religion and the subjugation of women has a firm nexus and intersection within religions of all stripes over the last several millennia, that does not mean it is or was morally acceptable to have that in place.

One could make similar arguments about the verses and beliefs about LGBT people. Even if one believes that those scriptures were inspired by God, they were still written by people with sometimes flawed moral compasses (Phillips). Another clear example of how moral decay or moral duty does not change over centuries is the story of Socrates. That man died roughly 2,400 years ago and so much of what he had to say about morality, doing the right thing and keeping a strong moral code are still prevalent today.

Even when he faced death and could have possibly avoided the same by confessing and changing his tone, he refuses to do so. Even if such a choice is much less common nowadays, it still happens a great deal. For example, Coptic Christians in Egypt or even Lebanon face a lot of oppression and violence just because of their faith. Many extremists among the Muslim faith view people different or that defect from Islam to be only worth of death.

The point that is foreseen by what happened in the time of Socrates and beyond has not changed all that much today. Sure, there are technologies and other things to consider that did not exist before such as medical-induced abortions and the like, but the ability to consider and ponder moral questions has not changed even if some people have different or more malleable moral codes than others (Biography).

When it comes to whether we can condemn people that engage in what would seem to be dated or barbaric practices, perhaps the answer involves the intent of the act and the liberty of the person involved. If someone consents to female circumcision or arranged married, for example, then it is technically their choice and thus the ability of others to question or assert anything about the practice is in many ways undermined.

However, it would be safe to presume that many arranged marriages and female circumcision, or anything else along those lines, are being done in spite of what of the woman or affected party wants and thus that makes it wrong.

There are things that are a little more opaque and nebulous when moral questions are posed about them but preordaining what someone will or will not do and those things causing pain, distress or even death very much undermines the moral position of anyone enforcing that code for that specific reason.

After all, if a father of a female rape victim is wont to blame the victim and/or harm or kill the woman as a result of being raped, that is clearly wrong because the woman is the victim in that case and punishing her at all for that happenstance is not the least bit respecting of her rights and wants as a person. The rapist is the one who committed a moral and legal infraction and thus that is the person that should be punished.

Even with that, there are some cultural practices that are quite different. For example, if a Muslim woman is accepting and desiring to conform to the dress code that involves wearing a hijab, facial covering or anything else similar, that is her choice and she is not being directly harmed or abused, at least not overtly, by that choice. There still could be oppression and demands for compliance that a more liberated and free woman might reject.

However, that is ultimately up to her even if she might have to be protected or shielded from those that would wish her harm if she does not comply. In general, it does come down to a choice and the ability to choose. If both are present, then the moral question is much less of an issue unless one is talking about genital mutilation and other such things. However, if choices exist but those choices are limited due to intimidation and coercion, then that is not acceptable.

Beyond that, everyone must be free to make their own choice and not be harassed or intimidated. A person.