You may not approve of it but all social constructs are equal.
No they are not, the social construct which falsely asserts that all social constructs are created equal, is decidedly inferior, say, to one which justifies rape and child molestation.
Much as the myth of all societies being irreconcibily "different to begin with", when in reality there are common positive traits existing across the spectrum of good societies, and common negative traits existing across the spectrum of bad societies, many of which, if they were a "norm", habit, or practice allowed unabated, such as murdering people left and right, they would quickly cease to be a "society" to begin with.
[quote
If you are outside of a particular society you may well judge that society as inferior
[/quote]
Inside of it or outside of it, I can and I will judge it on its inherent grounds or merit, much as those thinking men and women who helped to create better societies and civilizations did judge and object to things which were allegedly common practices in certain areas of societies which they were apart of or observing from a distance, and without which such discernment, no modern society or institution of rights, crimes, civility and such would have existed to begin with, such as Marcus Aurelius rightfully condemning the pedastry and sexual deviancy, and other immorality which some corrupt rulers such as Caligula or Nero engaged in, contrary to myths used by the weak and immoral to attempt to justify said sick things and practices.
So no, in reality, you ironically saying that it is "inherently immoral", no matter what society you are apart of, to judge another society by "your own standards", therefore ironically contradicting yourself in the process, as well as the fact that societies, such as that of the Common Law do not merely judge societies within or outside of their official or legal domain by "their own standards", as though their own standards existed or developed "in a vacuum" to begin with, but developed out of systems of law, justice, morality, and so forth which existed across societies and cultures which came before it, and were incorporated into it and the development thereof to begin with, perhaps akin to how the English language, in its modern or older incarnations, did not develop or become what it is in "a vacuum", but developed or evolved out of many different and various sub-languages, vernaculars, jargons, and so forth which proceeded it, cultures, to be specific - to the point that something such as "Old English", or "Anglo-Saxon" may not even be recognizable by today's English, viewed instead as almost an entirely separate or different language altogether.
Much
but you are not master of universe and don't get to decide for anyone but yourself.
No, I get to decide for others as well, not just myself.
That other society will likely be judging you as inferior by their standards.
Their inferior standards of judging inferiority not equal to mine and others, of course, which are decidedly superior.
All culture evolve, there is no such thing as 'de-volving'.
If there is no such thing as "devolving" then likewise there is no such thing as "evolving", as the term "evolve" is meaningless to begin with.
Such as how, in the Common Law, Judge Holmes asserts that law and the chivalric notions which it is based on as an institution, is an "evolution" up from older and more archaic systems, in which conflicts were resolved by blood feuds and private vendettas, rather than a centralized system of courts, civil rights, judges, juries, lawyers, and so forth.
The OT is a very different animal than the NT. So different in fact that many early Christians believed they were the product of different gods.
You're talking about Gnostics, and how the God of the Old Testament was viewed as a "Demiurge", or an imperfect or even malevolent lesser deity, with the Serpant not actually being a Devil, but the true God in disguise, leading Adam and Eve away from the deception of the Demiurge.
If you believe the morality of the OT and NT are the same you'll have to explain how the killing of men, women, children, and even animals, by Joshua was moral in relation to the NT.
Please explain how the laws or rules of warfare, in the Iron Age, such as in the nation of Israel, compared to standards warfare practiced by other civilized nations of the day and age, or how ancient warfare as a whole actually compares to modern warfare, such as in the Dresden Bombings or ancient legal systems to modern, for that matter.
Most people haven't read the law, or history of law and legal systems, or rules of warfare past or present, and from a serious historical perspective or study, most of their arguments would simply be childish appeals to emotion and naivete, rather than serious, credible arguments within the context of serious discussions and histories of the subjects, it's that simple.
