.....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...

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…