[Diamond]

Of course, go back to Ancient Rome and you'll find a society who does, indeed, accept the practice as moral. With better education and science, we've determined that children are more manipulatable at these ages and any consent may not be completely self-aware.

True, but the brute fact of Ancient Rome is mute as to why the practice is immoral. And on your own terms you have no principle with which to condemn it. You stated:

I have no problem with different cultures believing different things. If it works for them, good. If we accept the evolution of memes as the foundation for morality, differences would not only be expected, but required...

If you don't have any problem with different cultures believing different things then you should have no problem with the Romans practice of child rape.

Your specific morality comes from your society. I still claim that general morality (the basics) are inherent/built-in, and expressed as the golden rule. Violations of the golden rule, like slavery, comes about from society convincing itself a certain clan/race/sex are less than people so that it doesn't apply. I would also argue that this is wrong in the most basic moral sense.

If morality is societal convention on what basis do you condemn the Romans for not following the golden rule? If your specific morality comes from your society then Corrie Ten Boom was evil for following the golden rule instead of her societal norms when she risked her own life to hide Jews from the NAZIs.

Cordially,

[UndauntedR]

True, but the brute fact of Ancient Rome is mute as to why the practice is immoral. And on your own terms you have no principle with which to condemn it.

I certainly do, which is the current knowledge of child manipulation and the long term impact. From Wikipedia, the long term effects can include "life-long depression, self injury, self-mutilation, Borderline Personality Disorder, Anti-Social Personality Disorder, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (which often leads to a reduced corpus callosum), flashbacks, psychotic breaks with reality, alcoholism, substance abuse, promiscuity, celibacy, prostitution, an inability to form intimate relationships, self-hate, guilt, anger (which is often directed inwards as well as outwards), emotional hypersensitivity, defensiveness, a lifelong inability to trust others, emotional numbness, an attraction to partners who are dominant and/or abusive, and general mental deterioration including loss of IQ." I would classify the majority of the above conditions as suffering and simple, built-in human compassion should make anyone adverse to endorsing such.

If you don't have any problem with different cultures believing different things then you should have no problem with the Romans practice of child rape.

I do have a moral problem with actions that cause unnecessary or unwanted human suffering. To what or whom do I credit this moral compass? Our development as a social, trusting, compassionate society. Look at the natural world. Social species almost universally exhibit some form of altruism and a protective instinct for their society's members and culture (land, rituals, etc). Non social species exhibit these characteristics much less frequently.

If morality is societal convention on what basis do you condemn the Romans for not following the golden rule?

On the basis of compassion. If *I* would not like to be in someone's shoes.. I would expect they would not want to be in their own shoes.

If your specific morality comes from your society then Corrie Ten Boom was evil for following the golden rule instead of her societal norms when she risked her own life to hide Jews from the NAZIs.

In the eyes of the Nazis, yes. In our eyes, no. In the majority of humans, no. Why? The argument is compassion. It's a good argument that the great majority of people would accept. In that way, it's "objective".