Yes. And it changes as the society changes. What was morally unacceptable 50 years ago is not considered immoral today. Half a century ago, separate but equal was morally acceptable; today it is "hate speech." The Founding Fathers did not condemn slavery as immoral in their days because in their society it wasn't, even though there was already a movement underway to free the slaves elsewhere.
Even Lincoln, who is credited for freeing the Southern slaves, would be considered a bigot today if one reads what he had to say about the blacks.
Today calling someone a "Negro" is considered unconventional at best and outright racist as worst. And while 'black' is not frowned upon (yet), African-American is considered more proper (but not European-American for e whites). Likewsie the perfectly legitimate English word 'neggardly' is not much in use today and some poltician a while ago lost his job over it. All man-made "morality."
Much of the Old Testament morally prescribed standards would be considered morally unacceptable today—on moral grounds. Whose moral grounds? Certainly not God's! If God were the source of our morality than every word in the Bible would be practiced as morally upright to this day.
What you are describing is conventionalism, i.e., that you ought to do what your society tells you to do
That's how every society works. We raise our children according to what we believe is right, and we congregate in groups that share the same outlook on life. We discourage or prohibit that which we find hurtful, or counterproductive for the society and our own interests and values. We believe our society is superior to others.
which if you think about it for a moment leaves you no basis or grounds for your condemnation of the destruction of the state and lawlessness of the French revolution
The grounds for condemnation are that the anarchy that resulted is antisocial, it threatens the survival, destroys the security offered by the society, it threatens our property, privileges, etc. and, academically speaking, it is not what the 17th century Lockean Liberalism advocated.
If there is no law above society and moral rules are relative to society, then once French society speaks, end of discussion. Fin.
What law is above the society? What law can be in effect unless the society, or a subset of society accepts it as the law?
Part of morality is also culture and tradition. 0bama says the Muslims have the legal right to built their mosque at Ground Zero in Manhattan because the law allows them.
But the history of that site says it is improper, indecent and an in-your-face provocation. The law was created for man; not man for the law.
This is like saying can we put up an all-naked strip joint right next to a church? Just because the law may allow doesn't mean it is proper because it disturbs the social order, it is disingenuous, polarizing, potentially violent, or just plain antisocial, unnecessary, etc.
I think you already have proved it by your condemnation of the French revolution
I don't think so. One would have to define God first before one can make God the standard. And, as I said, if scripture is as close as it comes to God standards, I really don't think the Bible is the best source to emulate when it comes to morality and acceptable punishment, even though it supposed to be from none other than God himself.
If you really believe the scriptures are inerrant word of God, then you ought to believe that stoning disrespectful children to death should be morally acceptable for all times, for the Bible musthave been true back then as it must be today.
Yet in terms of what view of reality and knowledge inherent in the moral conventionalism that you espouse do you assume that there is anything like an objective criterion of morality by which to find the French revolution lacking?
French anarchy is no different than any other anarchy. Anarchy is undesirable for many objective reasons, but I am sure some lone Grizzly Adams living by himself in a log cabin in the middle of nowhere couldn't give a rat's about any law or morality because he doesn't have to. Nor is he technically subject to any laws other than nature.
What you are saying, it appears, is that human values are self-created, subjective, fleeting, and relative.
That's how every society works. We raise our children according to what we believe is right, and we congregate in groups that share the same outlook on life. We discourage or prohibit that which we find hurtful, or counterproductive for the society and our own interests and values. We believe our society is superior to others.
Morality by social construct led to the murders of six million Jews in Europe. That sort of normative ethical relativism logically leads to the absurd conclusion that people like Dietrich Bonhoffer and Corrie Ten Boom who disobeyed Hitler's edicts were, by definition, immoral. We believe our society is superior to others - based on and measured against what? Other can self-created, subjective, changing values?
The grounds for condemnation are that the anarchy that resulted is antisocial, it threatens the survival, destroys the security offered by the society, it threatens our property, privileges, etc. and, academically speaking, it is not what the 17th century Lockean Liberalism advocated.
While I agree with your assessments, I still must point out that the examples you use to explain or account for morality are all ultimately based on some prior moral notion for their support, which says nothing ontologically about the source or grounding of morality itself. Without God, you have only a couple of options left, and without begging the question it is going to be very difficult for you to explain how a materialist, impersonal universe that is the result of nothing but the result of blind chance or necessity is the origin or source of prescriptive moral truths that exist outside of our opinion of them, and that are incumbent upon us to obey in the future. Why should I not be selfish, or antisocial, or why I should care about the survival of society, or the security of society, or other people's property or privileges if nothing transcends nature itself?
What law is above the society? What law can be in effect unless the society, or a subset of society accepts it as the law?
Do you believe that moral right and wrong exist outside our opinion? I think the Founders did. The appeal of the Declaration that the Founders signed was to a Law above the law to which even governments are beholden:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Unalienable refers to, among other things, something that cannot rightfully be abrogated, and the ground and source of that non-transferability according to the Founders is the endowment of a transcendent Creator. On the other hand, if your rights come only from society then society can decide to take them away, if society says so, and in that case the society says view of morality that you espouse here leaves you without standing for complaint.
Cordially,