I think I understand. You think there is some inherent morality that is embedded in reality around us.
You don't know how to get to it, but you believe it is there and Jewish Bronze Age leaders had the wisdom to translate some of the objective morality for us.
In your view, the moral judgments that we pass (throughout history) are just erroneous interpretations of this objective morality. If we only knew what it was we would be behaving morally forever.
The problem for you is that there is no evidence that it is actually true. On the contrary, morality is formed and shaped by the societies we live in. I gave you plenty of examples of immoral actions that were based on Jewish moral law.
You now understand much of my position af_newbie. However, you are still holding onto a large misconception. You insist that this is a question of evidence. It is not. Here is how Kant explains it.
Categorical Imperativehttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperativeThe categorical imperative (German: kategorischer Imperativ) Introduced in Kant's 1785 Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals... may be defined as a way of evaluating motivations for action.
Sentient beings occupy a special place in creation, and morality can be summed up in an imperative, or ultimate commandment of reason, from which all duties and obligations derive. He defined an imperative as any proposition declaring a certain action (or inaction) to be necessary.
Hypothetical imperatives apply to someone who wishes to attain certain ends. For example:
* If I wish to quench my thirst, I must drink something.
* If I wish to pass this exam, I must study.
A categorical imperative, on the other hand, denotes an absolute, unconditional requirement that must be obeyed in all circumstances and is justified as an end in itself. It is best known in its first formulation:
Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.
The capacity that underlies deciding what is moral is called pure practical reason, which is contrasted with pure reason (the capacity to know without having been shown) and mere practical reason (which allows us to interact with the world in experience). Hypothetical imperatives tell us which means best achieve our ends. They do not, however, tell us which ends we should choose. The typical dichotomy in choosing ends is between ends that are "right" (e.g., helping someone) and those that are "good" (e.g., enriching oneself). Kant considered the "right" superior to the "good"; to him, the "good" was morally irrelevant. In Kant's view, a person cannot decide whether conduct is "right," or moral, through empirical means. Such judgments must be reached a priori, using pure practical reason.
Reason, separate from all empirical experience, can determine the principle according to which all ends can be determined as moral. It is this fundamental principle of moral reason that is known as the categorical imperative. Pure practical reason is the process of determining what ought to be done without reference to empirical contingent factors. Moral questions are determined independent of reference to the particular subject posing them. It is because morality is determined by pure practical reason, rather than particular empirical or sensuous factors, that morality is universally valid. This moral universalism has come to be seen as the distinctive aspect of Kant's moral philosophy and has had wide social impact in the legal and political concepts of human rights and equality.
Asking what the evidence shows you on this topic is nonsensical as this is not a question of evidence. Similarly stating that a particular society or individual is shaped by the rules of that society while certainly true is also irrelevant for such social contrivances also have no bearing on morality. The imperative is categorical.
