<p>Okay…so what’s your point?
Jeebus, merely agreed that religion had nothing to do with it. He implied that morality is society/culturaly based…i.e. whatever that particular group feels is acceptable or unacceptable. I agree that given different cultures/societies you will have differences of what moral or immoral. Big deal. </p>
<p>I’d venture that even within those societies that might think “slavery” acceptable that there might be those that think it still immoral for their own personal reasons. Just because America condoned slavery back in the 1700s doesn’t mean that EVERY american felt it was “moral”…in fact there may have been a few slaveonwers who still nonetheless felt their ownership “immoral” but hey…society permitted it…so oh well. </p>
<p>As for “murder” I’m afraid I got my “legalese” involved…as “murder” is typically defined as the UNlawful (lawful being whatever is acceptable in the particular society) killing…thus I would venture to guess that in those societies where retribution killing is acceptable…that would not fit the murder definition because in that culture it would be synonymous with justifiable homicide. Even in the US we have “justifiable homicide” so not all acts of killing are “immoral” or they may be but they are “justified” despite their immorality.</p>