Amazing Grace and Morality

Hey there,

As to the response to Morality III, here are my thoughts.

You said, "A man's actions are judged moral or immoral in the context of his society... We consider slavery wrong in the context of our society, but in the context of the society of the Deep South in the mid 1800's, a slave owner could have exposed a black slave to horrors by just releasing them. In the context of that society, slavery was a moral choice."

Perhaps you are familiar with the recent movie Amazing Grace. It is the story of William Wilberforce, the English politician that was primarily responsible for the abolition of the slave trade in England. When he came into office the slave trade was legal and accepted by almost the entire country. All of parliament barring a very few exceptions were in favor of it. Now if you are familiar with the story you know what was happening to those slaves being brought into the West Indies. They were kidnapped from their homes, chained hand, foot and neck and put into compartments 2’ by 4’ on the ships, where those compartments would quickly fill with their own excrement during the several week trip across the ocean. About two thirds of them would die during the trip over due to the conditions. The others would be branded and used by the English as slaves.

So, since the context of the society was favorable to this, does that mean that such actions were moral? Further, since Wilberforce was against this, and the society was in favor of it, was Wilberforce then immoral? Since he stood against the culturally accepted practice does that make him the evil one?

A few more questions: When did Wilberforce’s immorality turn into morality and vice versa for those that were participating in the slave trade? Was it one day moral and the next immoral? And how do we know when it changed? Further, I am sure that the African countries from which the people were being stolen were against this activity. They would have considered it immoral. So their society says it’s immoral while the British society says it’s moral. Who then is right? Or is there a right? When two different societies have opposite moral standards, is there any precedent for determining which society is moral? And if there is, who sets that precedent?

These are my questions. Again, I fully believe that you are a moral man (and a great friend). I know that you would not say that the activities of the slave trade are moral, but my problem isn’t with you. My questions are in reference to a non-theistic system of belief, so I hope you are not taking them personally.
Anyway, that is all for now. I look forward to hearing from you.