Oh absolutely people have made a moral case *in favor* of slavery--the very popular one at the time was, in fact, that slavery was the only way to indoctrinate the slaves in the "true religion" (pick flavour of choice) and thus save their souls, and thus slavery was ultimately to the benefit of the slaves.
I don't share this view, of course, and I suspect most people in the modern world don't anymore, but it certainly looked to me as though the people making that argument at the time were sincere.
And people in the modern day sometimes argue, not that slavery is moral now, but that slavery was moral when most people thought it was. Another view I don't share, though it sounds like perhaps you and the_alchemist do, though the point of disagreement sounds to be more over what "morality" means, than over whether slavery was actually, um, "right-as-opposed-to-wrong" Uh, whatever word you use for that.
And sure, if we postulate "morality" means "whatever most people at that time and place think is right" rather than "what really is right" then the contention that "morality is doing what is right no matter what you are told" makes no sense by definition.
Since people don't often say things that they realize make no sense by definition, the possibility arises that the speaker of the original quote meant something other than "whatever most people at that time and place think is right" by "morality."
Whether you call that "right" or "ethics" or "good" or whatever, I don't know. But whichever term you use (if you recognize the concept as valid at all) should probably be substituted for "morality" in the first part of the quote and, (altered to the adjective form) "right" in the second part of the quote. At least, if one wants to get at what the speaker was trying to say.
At that point, one may still disagree with what the speaker was trying to say, but at least one is not battling a phantom meaning.
For myself, I think I don't really fully agree with what the original speaker was trying to say. I would say "Do what is right. Religion may or may not agree; paying it mind costs time and energy. It takes time and energy to do what is right." Then I would write that out in a circle so the end comes right before the beginning.
Specifically, I do not agree with the original speaker of the quote that religion *necessarily* requires doing what you're told even when it's not right. Some liberal religions place the values quite the other way.
no subject
I don't share this view, of course, and I suspect most people in the modern world don't anymore, but it certainly looked to me as though the people making that argument at the time were sincere.
And people in the modern day sometimes argue, not that slavery is moral now, but that slavery was moral when most people thought it was. Another view I don't share, though it sounds like perhaps you and the_alchemist do, though the point of disagreement sounds to be more over what "morality" means, than over whether slavery was actually, um, "right-as-opposed-to-wrong" Uh, whatever word you use for that.
And sure, if we postulate "morality" means "whatever most people at that time and place think is right" rather than "what really is right" then the contention that "morality is doing what is right no matter what you are told" makes no sense by definition.
Since people don't often say things that they realize make no sense by definition, the possibility arises that the speaker of the original quote meant something other than "whatever most people at that time and place think is right" by "morality."
Whether you call that "right" or "ethics" or "good" or whatever, I don't know. But whichever term you use (if you recognize the concept as valid at all) should probably be substituted for "morality" in the first part of the quote and, (altered to the adjective form) "right" in the second part of the quote. At least, if one wants to get at what the speaker was trying to say.
At that point, one may still disagree with what the speaker was trying to say, but at least one is not battling a phantom meaning.
For myself, I think I don't really fully agree with what the original speaker was trying to say. I would say "Do what is right. Religion may or may not agree; paying it mind costs time and energy. It takes time and energy to do what is right." Then I would write that out in a circle so the end comes right before the beginning.
Specifically, I do not agree with the original speaker of the quote that religion *necessarily* requires doing what you're told even when it's not right. Some liberal religions place the values quite the other way.