Who needs the Northern or Southern Poles?

[James Clark]

From a materialist world view you are absolutely correct. And any 'thing' that exists only as a human thought is ephemeral and, in the grand scheme of things, whimsical including 'morals'.  And in that regard the thought of any one human is as valid as the thought of any other. One may interpret slavery as moral. Another may not. Neither is wrong. It is just their interpretation of right and wrong. By your definition it is logically inconsistent to say that one of them is absolutely right and one is absolutely wrong. That is the materialist and existentialist dilemma. Which is my point.

Some room, I think, needs to be carved out for the idea of natural law or inherent revealed rights, which might be derived not from a deity necessarily, but from the simple fact of being.  Descartes argued this far better than I ever could, but perhaps there is a "third way" that lies between morality via fiat from above and the law of the jungle?

[Farmer]

There is - authoritative morality derived through consensus (societal) - usually codified as laws.  It sits between pure absolute and pure relative morality.

[N80]

Some room, I think, needs to be carved out for the idea of natural law

Yes. A complicated subject. Dr. Sam Harris has written a book about this. He is an atheist. Dr. William Lane Craig has pretty much refuted arguments from natural law (in debates with Harris). They are based primarily on what is good for the herd as evolutionarily advantageous. In this way Harris sort of ignores the idea of what a moral is and redefines what good means. It really does not take much to see the weaknesses of such a basis for morality.

or inherent revealed rights, which might be derived not from a deity necessarily, but from the simple fact of being.

Not familiar with this argument but in the end sounds no more logically sound (from a materialist viewpoint) than invoking a deity. It is a search for something with transcendental properties without being transcendental.

but perhaps there is a "third way" that lies between morality via fiat from above and the law of the jungle?

I think that if there is a creator then the law of the jungle still informs morality but possibly does not define it?

[N80]

There is - authoritative morality derived through consensus (societal) - usually codified as laws.  It sits between pure absolute and pure relative morality.

We've beat that horse to death haven't we? Chattel slavery in the U.S. was derived through societal consensus and codified as law. If that is the standard for morality then slavery was moral and could be again. All we'd have to do is agree with it and pass laws. So that doesn't work.

And I don't really see how anything can sit between absolute and relative. That's akin to being sort of pregnant. If it isn't absolute it is relative. If it is relative it is......relative.

[Farmer]

The bible made slavery legal, too.

That's the point of being not absolute and not entirely relative - there is some inertia relating to it being a group decision and authority.  You're judging future possible morality by your own standard, which is not relevant to an authoritative or absolute morality (only a relative one).

[Ray]

Okay. But I'm not sure what you are saying here. It sounds like you are saying that we cannot ever actually "know" anything as it actually is.

In a sense, what I'm saying is so obvious that it's undeniable through any process of logic or reasoning. All our knowledge of what anything 'actually is' is dependent upon how the human organism, with its various sensory receptors, reacts or responds to the stimuli it receives from its surroundings, or the specific object under investigation..

Through our development of science we have been able to extend our sensory perception and indirectly detect a huge range of frequencies that were previously invisible to us, such as X-rays and radio waves, and are able to extend our vision through the construction of gigantic, powerful telescopes that enable us to pick up and amplify extremely faint signals from outer space which can provide a picture of distant objects that were previously invisible to us, and so on.

Through this process of scientific inquiry using sophisticated technology, we get a much more detailed understanding of the environment that surrounds us, including our own body and brain. However, the main point I'm making is that that knowledge, however detailed, is always an impression in the human mind. Even when we get data from a computerised machine that one might imagine is totally objective, the machine has been designed and programmed by the human mind, and the resulting data which is gathered has to be interpreted by the human mind for the data to be meaningful.

How anything actually is, independent of at least some degree of contamination (for want of a better word) from the human mind, is impossible to know. Okay?

Like all ideas and philosophies this too has consequences. This leads to complete relativism. Nothing is knowable. No truth. No morals. Even the hope of any meaningful interaction between humans is dim. Thomas Wolf shared this view:

That's a moving poem which is very sad but also pessimistic. However, I'm not a pessimist. I'm an optimist. The troubles of the world are due to a general failure to understand that at an individual level all our opinions and impressions are influenced by our conditioning from the time we were in our mother's womb, including all the cultural and educational influences that we've been exposed to throughout our life, and all traumatic experiences we've suppressed, which might continue to influence us in ways we are not aware of.

However, having accepted that this is the case, and even after having surmounted any major problems and biases, let's not kid ourselves that our views and opinions can be totally unbiased and objective so that we can see reality as it actually is. We're still conditioned by our general human characteristics which our survival depends upon.

From a materialist world view you are absolutely correct. And any 'thing' that exists only as a human thought is ephemeral and, in the grand scheme of things, whimsical including 'morals'.

I can't follow the logic of your reasoning here. Because something exists only as a human thought, surely it does not necessarily follow that it must therefore be whimsical and ephemeral. It might be, but would you seriously claim that the discipline of mathematics is whimsical because it exists only in the mind, and stored in text books and on computers which have to be interpreted by the mind.

Perhaps you don't agree that mathematics exists only in the human mind. Have you ever seen Pythagoras's Theorem hanging from the branch of a tree? 

And in that regard the thought of any one human is as valid as the thought of any other.

Surely that can't be right. Let's say two people are walking along a path and both notice irregularities in the path, which is a bit rough.. One person has the thought, 'I'd better be careful and walk slowly'. The other person has the thought, 'I've walked over similar terrain before. No problem. I can manage this easily'. So the other person streaks ahead, perhaps also showing off, trips over a boulder, smashes his head on another boulder as he falls, and dies.

Would you claim that the thoughts of these two travelers, regarding the path they were walking on, were equally valid?

[Tony Jay]

The bible made slavery legal, too.....

chapter and verse please...

[Rob C]

"Perhaps you don't agree that mathematics exists only in the human mind. Have you ever seen Pythagoras's Theorem hanging from the branch of a tree?  " .............   Ray

Well, I have seen, personally, with all my visual senses, objective, subjective and possibly (but not necessarily) creative, too, several triangles on display on the edge of the nearest motorway; however, as they included no 90° angle, perhaps they would be disqualified. Yet, with a little extrapolation of thought, a good case for believing this represents both the physical as well as metaphysical display of the Napoleonic Theorem of triangulation might be held to hold sway in the above roadway observations referrred to herein.

This could form the basis if a fine, convincing Artist's Statement, could it not?

Rob

[Alan Goldhammer]

chapter and verse please...

Leviticus 25: 44-46 is one good citation and perhaps most egrigious, Exodus 21:7-11 regarding selling a daughter into slavery.

[N80]

The bible made slavery legal, too.

First, complicated issue as this was usually bond slavery, not chattel slavery. Being in the military is about the same as bond slavery (BTDT). Also, from a Christian point of view the Mosaic law was fulfilled in Christ and no longer binding. References in the New Testament refer to slavery but do not condone it.

That's the point of being not absolute and not entirely relative - there is some inertia relating to it being a group decision and authority.

That inertia is supplied only by the threat of violence. Without that threat it becomes immaterial.

You're judging future possible morality by your own standard, which is not relevant to an authoritative or absolute morality (only a relative one).

Nope. I'm only judging logical consistency here. I've not taken any overt position on what is and is not moral.

[N80]

How anything actually is, independent of at least some degree of contamination (for want of a better word) from the human mind, is impossible to know. Okay?

Yes. I understand that. I disagree with it and can make arguments against it, but they are tedious and in the domain of pure epistemology. But on the surface the premise itself is self defeating. If nothing is knowable then we cannot know that nothing is knowable. It is also fraught with levels of absurdity in regard to how we apply such a philosophy to the act of living. No one lives as if this were true.

Perhaps you don't agree that mathematics exists only in the human mind.

I do not. If at the time of the Big Bang a star was formed, you'd have one star. If a second star formed, you'd have two stars. Whether man is there or not. And this sort of logic also leads to the conclusion that nothing is real at all. It is perfectly possible that what you think of as 'you' is a disembodied mind and everything that you think you have known, seen, felt and perceived are simple neuro-chemical stimuli and in reality nothing exists but you. You cannot disprove this. But no one really believes it and much like the philosophy that the world is unknowable, no one actually acts like they believe it if even if they say they do. It is too absurd. Camu's forte.

Surely that can't be right. Let's say two people are walking along a path and both notice irregularities in the path, which is a bit rough.. One person has the thought, 'I'd better be careful and walk slowly'. The other person has the thought, 'I've walked over similar terrain before. No problem. I can manage this easily'. So the other person streaks ahead, perhaps also showing off, trips over a boulder, smashes his head on another boulder as he falls, and dies.

Would you claim that the thoughts of these two travelers, regarding the path they were walking on, were equally valid?

Your logic is situational. The fast walker might just as well have done fine. The slow walker might have tripped.

[Alan Goldhammer]

First, complicated issue as this was usually bond slavery, not chattel slavery. Being in the military is about the same as bond slavery (BTDT). Also, from a Christian point of view the Mosaic law was fulfilled in Christ and no longer binding. References in the New Testament refer to slavery but do not condone it.

That's not entirely true.  My sister is a professor of Biblical Studies in Israel and we talked about this issue a couple of years ago when she was over here for a visit.  Much of the slavery in the middle East was chattel slavery and it was common to all of the various civil groups living at that time.

[N80]

That's not entirely true.  My sister is a professor of Biblical Studies in Israel and we talked about this issue a couple of years ago when she was over here for a visit.  Much of the slavery in the middle East was chattel slavery and it was common to all of the various civil groups living at that time.

Which is exactly why I said "complicated issue" and "usually". By the time of Christ slavery among the Hebrews was primarily bond slavery. Chattel slavery and the command to utterly destroy their neighbors where primarily aspects of Hebrew life before the settling of Judea. But I do not claim to be an OT scholar. And again, Christian thought holds that the Mosaic law was abrogated by Christ.

And I'm not defending Judeo-Christian morals. Its certainly a valid topic and has its own complications and difficulties and I'm perfectly willing to go down that path but it IS, in fact, another path that does not change my primary contention that if there is no absolute moral authority then there are no absolute morals and to believe that there is no absolute moral authority but that some morals are absolute is logically inconsistent.

No weaknesses associated with believing there is a transcendent moral authority can change the above argument.

[Ray]

If at the time of the Big Bang a star was formed, you'd have one star. If a second star formed, you'd have two stars. Whether man is there or not. And this sort of logic also leads to the conclusion that nothing is real at all. It is perfectly possible that what you think of as 'you' is a disembodied mind and everything that you think you have known, seen, felt and perceived are simple neuro-chemical stimuli and in reality nothing exists but you. You cannot disprove this. But no one really believes it and much like the philosophy that the world is unknowable, no one actually acts like they believe it if even if they say they do. It is too absurd. Camu's forte.

This gets to the crux of the issue. What we as English-speaking humans call a star in common language, can be described in many different ways. The word 'star' exists only in the human mind, just as the numerals 1 and 2 exist only in the human mind, but not necessarily in every human mind, and certainly not in the minds of birds and bats and foxes, I'm sure you'll agree. 

It is reasonable to presume that the matter that comprises the star will continue to exist in the absence of any human to observe it, and I'm certainly not claiming that this is not the case. That would be foolish. The point I'm making is that precisely how that matter is perceived will vary, depending on the sophistication of the technology used, and the individual characteristics of the viewer. This makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to determine how something actually is in reality.

For example, it is generally accepted that Dark Matter and Dark Energy comprise about 95% of all the matter in the universe. Today we might look at what we imagine are two separate stars close together in the night sky. However, in a hundred years time, after we've found a way to detect Dark Matter, those two stars might be viewed as one continuous blob or nebula, connected and enlarged through the presence of the previously invisible Dark Matter.

If nothing is knowable then we cannot know that nothing is knowable. It is also fraught with levels of absurdity in regard to how we apply such a philosophy to the act of living. No one lives as if this were true.

You're falling into the trap of thinking in terms of the duality of 'either/or, as though we either know something or we don't. What we know about any one thing or person, is just a tiny proportion of what there is to know.

We use the word 'know' frequently ín the context of 'recognise'. When I say I know my neighbour, I mean that I know his name and can recognise him and I'm aware of certain characteristics he has and perhaps a few stories he's told. In terms of a full knowledge of the human being who is my neighbour, my knowledge is extremely limited.

So the term, 'nothing is knowable' actually means (logically and sensibly) 'nothing is fully knowable in all its facets and connections'.

A couple of hundred years ago (or a bit more) we could only detect that portion of the electromagnetic spectrum we call light, which represents about 0.0035% of the entire spectrum from the lowest radio waves to the shortest Gamma rays. (Calculated on a linear scale.)

In modern times we have progressed to the point where we think we can detect (potentially) as much as 5% of the matter and energy that surrounds us, but we're not certain about that. Such is progress.

Of course we can't fully know anything. How could you argue otherwise? 

Your logic is situational. The fast walker might just as well have done fine. The slow walker might have tripped.

You missed my point. Whoever trips in this hypothetical example is irrelevant. The relevance is the connection between the tripping and the thought processes. If the accident has no bearing on thought processes, because it's a natural and unpredictable event like a bolt of lightning that neither person has protection against, then my example would not apply.

In my example, I am assuming that thought processes are involved in the safe trekking along a rough track, and therefore all thoughts are not equally valid. Okay? 

[Farmer]

N80 - I'm not arguing that there are any absolute moral points in the absence of absolute morality.  Of course there are not.  So called innate or natural rights are societal constructs evolved from basic human requirements for survival.  They are available now, really, as authoritative morality.

With regard to your suggestion that the only way to enforce authoritative morality is through violence, it really depends on your definition of violence.  Ultimately, it is the threat of exclusion or punishment.  Certainly punishment is violent in one way or another, but exclusion need not always be.  Nonetheless, authoritative morality is a logically consistent and demonstrably exists and disproves the assertion that the absence of absolute morality leaves only relative morality.

The key, really, is to understand that there are no natural or innate rights that exist outside of evolutionary requirements for survival.

[Farmer]

chapter and verse please...

Leviticus 25:44-46

Colossians 4:1

Ephesians 6:5

Exodus 21:20-21

Titus 2:9-10

1 Peter 2:18

Exodus 21:26-27

Exodus 21:1-36

Deuteronomy 23:15

1 Corinthians 7:21

Romans 6:16

Colossians 3:22

Leviticus 19:20

Leviticus 22:11

1 Timothy 6:1-2

[Tony Jay]

Mentions of the reality of slavery (howsoever defined) in the Bible do not in any way "legalise" it.
I am disinclined to try and argue this out on a verse-by-verse basis in a forum such as this.
(As such I actually regret that particular post.)

With respect to the argument on morality put to N80:
If what you say is true then you (and all of the rest of us for that matter) have absolutely no right (another meaningless term) to complain when any form of criminal activity or immoral (meaningless concept, actually , if you are correct) conduct is perpetrated against you because the perpetrator would love to use your exact argument to prove his innocence - after all, all he or she was doing was exercising their evolutionary prerogative to get ahead, the fact that it was at your expense is neither here nor there, you would just become a victim of evolutionary chance, rather than a victim of crime with a case for justice.

I put it to you that the logical conclusions of such an argument are completely absurd and in no way reflect the reality of day-to-day living.
Something like this can exist in an intellectual test-tube but in the real world is just fantasy.

Tony Jay

[Farmer]

Tony - I didn't list every mention of slavery, I only picked a large number that either tacitly or implicitly approve of slavery (which at the time is to have the effect of recognising it as both legal and morally acceptable - the latter point being the basis for legality in the view of many, such as some arguments put forth in this thread).

I agree that taking every single chapter and verse is pointless and certainly some of the references I mentioned are not as strong on the primary point.\

But let me take just three that specifically approve of slavery:

Leviticus 25:44-46

As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly.

Here, we are told that slavery is fine, that slaves are possessions forever, so long as you exclude Israelites.  That's very clear.  It mentions buying them, it mentions males and females, it says foreigners born locally are OK, it says they are possessions forever and can be passed down to your sons.


Ephesians 6:5

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ,

Explicitly telling slaves to obey their masters.


Exodus 21:20-21

“When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.

It's OK to beat your slaves, just not kill them.  The slave is money.  Clearly, there is no moral or legal objection to slaves, just to killing them (or not hurting them so badly that they die within 2 days - if it takes longer, it's OK...).


And a bonus one:

Titus 2:9-10

Slaves are to be submissive to their own masters in everything; they are to be well-pleasing, not argumentative, not pilfering, but showing all good faith, so that in everything they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior.

Be a good slave in order to support the doctrine of God.  It's far from being ambiguous or unclear.

And as a double bonus, Peter tells is that even unjust masters are OK:

1 Peter 2:18

Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust.


The bible is NOT a source of absolute morality.  It meanders all over the place, it represents the reality of the cultures and politics of the time.  It represented the will of the majority of the power (not the people, since they were not empowered generally).  It is an authoritative morality.

And as a final, triple bonus (because seriously, there's just too many to pass up):

Exodus 21:1-36

“Now these are the rules that you shall set before them. When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out alone. But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ ...

It specifically says "rules that you shall set before them".  It's prescribing what the law should be.

Honestly, if that's not legalising or providing a morality guide as to the acceptability of slavery, in chapter and verse in the bible, then I think you're reading a different book.

As your analysis of my argument to N80.  No, that's not what I said.  What you are describing is moral relativism (an extreme version).  My point about authoritative morality is that it carries the weight of the society and if someone acts against that (some criminal activity) then I am able to appeal to the authoritative morality of society to prosecute the guilty party.

Moreover, this is EXACTLY what happens in the real world.  You don't get to go to court and say "The bible says I can buy Hebrew slaves so long as I set them free after 7 years and the bible is the word of God and therefore an absolute morality that you must accept".  Society says that's bollocks and you can't have slaves and so the authoritative morality, which is empowered by society, is the relevant guide.  Similarly, you don't get to say "I have a natural right to liberty and therefore you cannot gaol me for breaking a law".  Well, you can say it, but society rejects it - your claim of a natural right is nothing more than a claim (I'm using "you" in a generic sense here, for clarity).  The only effective authority is society, hence authoritative morality (being neither relative - it's not individual and it has inertia) and is not absolute because it can change.

[Tony Jay]

I am not going to reply to the issue on slavery in the Bible - as I said.

To say, in any way, that morality is merely the product of public opinion, and laws constructed on that opinion - is not morality, it is merely fashion.

Not so long ago slavery was both legal and socially acceptable in both the British Empire and what has now become the United States. By your own measure it was completely moral!
That fact that slavery is no longer legally practised in those places was never due to a mass action effect.
It took a long and determined effort by a very few individuals against prevailing public opinion, convinced that slavery represented evil and immorality in any age and any circumstance to change things. This was especially the case in Britain.
Even in the USA, the American Civil War, although presented purely as a moral crusade against slavery by some, was, in fact, much more complicated in its genesis. Yes, the emancipation of slaves was one result of that conflict but it was never the primary reason for the war.

It is clear that you live currently in a country where you believe your views on morality and law work, perhaps not perfectly, but the situation is workable.
However, I grew up in a country where the whole basis for government and law was based on an immoral presumption. This presumption was not immoral just because it became fashionable to criticise it in 60's, 70's and 80's. It was immoral because it has always been wrong. I am talking about Apartheid - government and law based on racial discrimination. The presumption was that one race was naturally superior to another. Frankly, this view was entirely socially acceptable and legal almost all around the world and certainly in Europe and North America for a long time.
(I think it is still a very prevalent view around the world and certainly in both Europe and North America even if it is not legal in most places.)
Apartheid was not a 20th century invention. It was a natural continuation of a system first imposed by Dutch, and later British, colonial administrators. It's details changed over time but what has become known as Grand Apartheid was the implementation of a post Second World War National Party government's plan to formalise and rigorously impose a system already centuries old.
In my opinion what is called Apartheid was wrong centuries before it became fashionable to criticise it because I do believe that for morality to be morality it has to be transcendent.
But, by your measure, had you been alive in the 19th century in particular, racism and its consequences would have been moral simply because it enjoyed widespread public acknowledgement as a normal attitude to have and laws enacted to enforce racism would have been just.
Furthermore, by your measure, it would have been wrong to oppose these attitudes and laws precisely because it would have meant going against prevailing public opinion - effective authority - in your terminology.
Furthermore, just because a society, now holds a particular view of the world with laws to match, by your measure they are in no position to criticise another society with different views also with laws to match, nor try to impose one's views on that society, because their views are just as valid, even if totally incompatible with one's views.

Morality is just not a product of evolution.
Rights do not exist just inside "evolutionary requirements for survival" - your words.
Unless you meant that in evolutionary terms that there are no rights!
To try and describe morality in terms of evolution is the ultimate oxymoron - a complete contradiction in terms.
Evolutionary theory, by its definition, cannot recognise events in terms of good and evil, justice and injustice, morality and immorality.
In evolutionary theory these concepts have no meaning, they are non-things - non-sense.

I can assure you that I do not believe that I have a "natural right to liberty" (your terminology) on any basis, biblical or otherwise, in any and every circumstance. I believe in a transcendent morality and I believe that are consequences to immorality as a result. I believe that transcendent morality does stand in judgement of society as whole, individual action, and laws and legal systems. I could care less whether immorality is coded as law - that does not make it moral. The fact that many (most) in society might accept a particular immoral and unjust law does not make it moral (or just) either. The fact that a great injustice can be actually perpetrated, and justified on the basis of law, does not make that act moral.

Your views, I believe, are essentially contradictory.
Morality, as a concept, does not have a logical definition sans a transcendent authority.
You have protested the example I gave, in my last post, as extreme.
I fully understand that you do not want, nor believe, that your beliefs end up there in that situation - but they do.
The logical conclusion is exactly the situation that "morality" devolves to an opinion.
That opinion can be held individually or corporately, but it is an opinion.
And opinions can change, are subject to all sorts of influences that results in opinions changing, and the resultant change in opinion suffers from the same weakness as before - it is no better nor no worse than the aforeheld position: it is merely an opinion.
For morality to be morality there has to be a transcendent base - in other words certain things are wrong at all times and in all circumstances. Public opinion, by definition, cannot change that.
Without the transcendent quality, morality actually not only devolves merely to opinion, but also to the unpalatable situation of "might is right." In other words any person and group who actually has the power to enforce their opinions on others automatically governs the "moral" status quo.
I don't know about you but I heartily reject any suggestion that merely because someone has some sort of power over me (name your scenario!) that this gives them the moral ascendency and the right to call the shots and decide what morality is.
As far as I am concerned your views would have to endorse the "might is right" approach.
N80 has dealt with this issue in this or another thread (too much to read back on) as well from a slightly different perspective.

Tony Jay

[Farmer]

You don't need to reply on the issue of slavery in the bible.  The answer is demonstrably as I said it was.

In regard to the rest of your response, you keep invoking logic.  However, not once have you shown a logical nexus to support your point (or to speak against mine).  Just saying that something is logical because it fits your paradigm does not, unsurprisingly, make it logical.

Notwithstanding that, your appeal to a transcendent moral source is, by definition, not logical.  It cannot be tested, it cannot be assessed - it is not a philosophical matter, but rather a theological one, to use your transcendent source.  So the two concepts are not directly reconcilable.

To answer your question about slavery.  Yes, slavery was authoritatively moral at various times and places in history (and was, at the same time, relatively moral and immoral).  Of interest, despite your refusal to discuss it, is that even your transcendent (theological) source accepted slavery as moral.

In discussing apartheid, you are again assigning your relative moral values on to others.  At the time, it was authoritatively moral.  It was relatively moral and immoral.

You're right - there is no good and evil in evolution.  There is no absolute good and evil.  There is only what we perceive as good or evil and that is developed through evolution as we determined what we need to survive as a social animal.

At no time have I suggested that because someone has power over me that they have moral ascendency, because I have no discussed any rank of one morality versus another.  To do that we need to move into a discussion of ethical lenses, which is indeed an interesting topic.

I'll leave you with this:  Is it moral for a transcendent authority to not make every one equally aware of the absolute morals that exist?