Super Effective Argument Regarding Morality

[NH Baritone]

We need a "like" button. Like that post Mitchell.

For the love of all that is decent, good, and upstanding, may we NEVER have a "LIKE" button on this forum.

[Aaron]

We need a "like" button. Like that post Mitchell.

For the love of all that is decent, good, and upstanding, may we NEVER have a "LIKE" button on this forum.

Baritone! I haven't read a post of yours in a while. Glad to see you.

[Aaron]

That suggests to me that if we want to find an explanation for our ethics we need to look to our cultural rather than genetic evolution.

I think we derive a lot of our morality from culture and family. But that doesn't mean that a person can't or won't deviate from the morality they've learned from culture and family, in fact it happens all the time. So I feel an explanation for our morality from culture doesn't really work and that's because a person can still ask the question, "Well why couldn't I do it differently? Why couldn't I do it better? Why is their way supposedly the right way?". Ultimately I think that person has to answer the question of why their new way is right and the old way is wrong. They won't be able to find that answer from the morality of culture since that is the very thing in question, they'll have to look somewhere else for an explanation and I'm very interested in where they will find that explanation. Thanks for the encouraging words by the way.

[Tim-the-Hermit]

The conscience?

[Moonwood the Hare]

That suggests to me that if we want to find an explanation for our ethics we need to look to our cultural rather than genetic evolution.

I think we derive a lot of our morality from culture and family. But that doesn't mean that a person can't or won't deviate from the morality they've learned from culture and family, in fact it happens all the time. So I feel an explanation for our morality from culture doesn't really work and that's because a person can still ask the question, "Well why couldn't I do it differently? Why couldn't I do it better? Why is their way supposedly the right way?". Ultimately I think that person has to answer the question of why their new way is right and the old way is wrong. They won't be able to find that answer from the morality of culture since that is the very thing in question, they'll have to look somewhere else for an explanation and I'm very interested in where they will find that explanation. Thanks for the encouraging words by the way.

Yes, it's more that I think our internal moral conflicts derive from our heritage as primates evolved to live in groups and now have to live with the groups also being in conflict and an enhanced awareness of that which was not possible in a more tribal age. The question of whether we can create values is an interesting one. Plato famously said no and that ultimate values just exist and we have to conform to them. The existentialists said no we create our values. Sartre tells the story of a student who was wrestling with the decision of whether to look after his ageing mother or fight with the resistance. Sartre's answer was chose and by choosing create the value you will live by. But can we really create values by a sheer act of blind will? Sartre felt that to affirm so was to be a consistent atheist though of course not all atheists agree with him.

[Aaron]

But can we really create values by a sheer act of blind will?

In "The Cost of Discipleship" by Bonhoeffer he talks about the difference between the chump who's made up his own opinions with minimal to zero study and the elderly scholar who's devoted his whole life to the study of a particular area and I just wanted to make it clear that I'm a chump when it comes to all this.

But I don't think we can create values by a sheer act of blind will. I think sometimes it might appear that way, like when Hitler tried to create his own race of people and basically tried to redefine how society values human life. But I don't think it was as if he just created his values out of thin air, I think he simply built on something that already existed within himself, so perhaps we don't create values, but rather rearrange values that already exist - but I can see this is getting way out of my league.

Anyways it is my position that morality is objective. I know that makes me a small minority on this forum, but I simply can't help but think this way. It seems to me like it fits much much better with life as we actually find it to be.

[Aaron]

The conscience?

Well I would say the conscience plus objective moral truth and you've got a good start. I'm not saying you couldn't be wrong in your pursuit to find what is right, but I think its at least worth a try. But this view is probably not compatible with the majority of the participants on this forum, even though I think it describes quite well what is actually going on in this life.

[JustJim]

Anyways it is my position that morality is objective. I know that makes me a small minority on this forum, but I simply can't help but think this way. It seems to me like it fits much much better with life as we actually find it to be.

Aaron,

Since being a chump as you've described it seems to be a relative thing, don't feel bad. Compared to many others, I think we're all chumps.

If morality is objective, and I'm not saying it isn't, how do we figure out what objective moral standards are? You know, the moral standards that apply to all people in all situations for all time? If we can only know morality through subjective means, is it possible to know what the objective morals are?

Also, since an objective morality seems to you to fit much better with life as we actually find it to be, how do you think morality would be different if it was purely subjective, developed over long periods of time in and from social interactions among individuals and groups? Would it be any different? How? Why?

Thanks....

Jim

[Aaron]

Don't raise your voice... Improve your argument....

Hey I like that Jim.

If morality is objective, and I'm not saying it isn't, how do we figure out what objective moral standards are?

Here's my answer at this point in my life: I think for many things in life we know when something is wrong and when something is right and I think when we know when something is wrong or right we are so convinced that we are willing to lay our lives on the line (it could be devotion of time, resources, risk to our reputation or perhaps even to our physical life) to make a change for the better happen. When a conviction like this comes on a person I don't see how they could continue on believing that this conviction is based on a subjective whim they find within themselves. How could you act on such a conviction and be an honest and fair person? For the people you are against could very well have an equally strong or even stronger conviction for the opposite view. How really, aside from the fact that you actually believe what you are standing for is truly the right thing, could you in good conscience continue with your campaign for change? I don't believe its possible.

For me those kinds of moral convictions fit so well in a world with objective morality. Now I think its true that you could be wrong about your moral convictions, that the thing you're fighting for is actually objectively wrong, but that is another issue. So anyway I think it is possible to know what objective morals are. I think we all just know at some level or another, you could call it our conscience perhaps. But to think that the conscience is perfect at discriminating right from wrong or to think that the conscience is the only term in the equation is I believe a mistake. To try and work out all the terms (biological impulses, cultural influences, past experiences, pain that hasn't be properly dealt with... who knows) in that equation is something I wouldn't know how to do, I'm too much of a chump.

Also, since an objective morality seems to you to fit much better with life as we actually find it to be, how do you think morality would be different if it was purely subjective, developed over long periods of time in and from social interactions among individuals and groups? Would it be any different? How? Why?

Interesting question. It is my belief that people who subscribe to a subjective moral view actually practice their morality as though it were objective. They would deny it, but I just think morality becomes so utterly meaningless unless we think that the moral standard we are pushing should actually be the moral standard for everyone else, I'm thinking of slavery or accepting homosexual behavior as normal and good or perhaps treating all humans no matter their race or skin color as though they have equal rights (except for unborn babies they aren't included). And if we actually think it should be the moral standard and we consider ourselves to be honest and fair I don't see apart from actually believing our view is objectively true, how we could actually push our view onto other people and think we're not big fat hypocrites.

So I guess I'm not really sure how it would be different because as soon as you say morality to me you are automatically bring with it an objective element, even though you say you aren't. But if we didn't let that objective element into the back door I'd say we'd end up with anarchy really fast. So that's what I think for whatever my thoughts are worth. Thanks for asking though Jim. I hope things are well.

[StillSearching]

I have pasted verses many times. Go find them yourself.

I searched all of your posts for something to go on here, and found nothing. Lots of blustering about Christianity's culpability, but no specific references to Bible passages that cause you to believe that Jesus himself overtly supported slavery. Nice dodge.

No. But Mark Twain also didn't claim to be the son of the planatation owner whose entire family was okay with slavery (and by "Son" -- Jesus, and Christians today generally agree-- this meant he was god himself). So it's a direct chain: According to Jesus, he's god. This means he's the god of the OT. The god of the OT is not only fine with slavery, he offers lots of rules about how to go about it. If Jesus is GOD -- then Jesus utterly accepts slavery and even has directly been involved in developing the rules on how to do shit like sell your daughters into slavery. Unless you want to argue Jesus IS NOT god-- then we can have a completely different conversation. So -- is Jesus god, or not? If he is-- he's part of the Entity who/whom/which endorses slavery. If he's not... well, WTF are you worshiping him for?

If your offer is sincere, we can certainly have this conversation, because I'm not convinced that Jesus made exclusive, literal claims to be the literal son of God. In fact, on several occasions, he goes out of his way to place himself subordinate to God. As for your last question here, you probably didn't read it but I did offer up a slightly different view of the word "worship" than the one you hold. (EDIT: In the "Psychological Reasons" thread) That might help you understand why I continue to make Christianity a part of my life.

On another note, during my search for your non-existent scripture quote, I ran across this...

If you need precedence for this, look into the debates over slavery. Many of the FFs could not align all men created equal and still allow for slavery, but they would have lost the southern colonies if they pushed it through. So slavery remained, even though many FFs knew it was wrong and would be addressed at some future point (we call that The Civil War)

So, the Founding Fathers get a pass for "supporting" slavery, at least temporarily, but neither God nor Jesus do? Could I not substitute FFs with either of them in the above sentences and have a reasonable explanation for how the Bible treats the topic of slavery?

Not quite the same as supporting it, is it?

Absolutely it is the same thing as supporting it. Absolutely. If I never speak out about rape, murder, theft, violence, I am supporting it by my silence. If I am aware of child abuse and remain silent-- I am culpable. If I know of slavery happening, and I do not cry out against it, I am PART OF THE PROBLEM.

And that makes you just as culpable for the blood your religions have spilled. you may THINK you're removed from it-- but until you stand up and say, "This is WRONG!" Blood sacrifices are WRONG. Slavery is WRONG. The laws of Leviticus are WRONG -- then YOU are co-conspirators for ALL of it.

Ah, casting the first stone, are we? This from the guy who believes we have evolved beyond the injustice of slavery, when in fact it is more prevalent today than ever! (Here's the pertinent quote from the article, in case you choose not to read it: "Despite more than a dozen international conventions banning slavery in the past 150 years, there are more slaves today than at any point in human history." How much time do you spend speaking out about it? I'm guessing not much, since you believe it to be a problem of the past. Does your lack thereof constitute support?

Oh, that is TOO much! TOO MUCH!!! My turn for LOL! You have GOT to be kidding me-- this is what I'm SAYING-- THEIR ideas about slavery included THINKING SLAVERY OF ANY KIND WAS OK! My ideas of slavery -- and those of most people today -- is BEYOND THAT OF PEOPLE IN THE BRONZE AGE!.

Oh. Is that why it's just as bad a problem today as it was 2000 years ago (perhaps worse)? And, since you insist that we are morally superior today, and have rightly placed slavery in the "bad" category, I must assume that you tacitly endorse and support slavery in its current form. Right?

So what? He still -- as "god-the-utterly-absolutely-and-unquestioningly-perfect" -- voices a sense of class-ism. You asked for an example, and I handed you one on a warm plate. Eat hearty. Watch out for pits.

I asked for steak tartare and you handed me a pile of bullshit on a warm plate. This is laughable. Have you never heard the story of the Good Samaritan? Why would a classist religious leader use a parable like this? It'd be like Hitler reading The Adventures of Super Jew at one of his rallies.

[Keep The Reason]

I searched all of your posts for something to go on here, and found nothing. Lots of blustering about Christianity's culpability, but no specific references to Bible passages that cause you to believe that Jesus himself overtly supported slavery. Nice dodge.

Okay-- it's possible I thought that they were pasted here when I've done so in other forums.

Colossians 4
Masters, a give your bondservants what is just and fair, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven.

Ephesians 6
Bondservants, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, f with fear and trembling, g in sincerity of heart, as to Christ; 6 h not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as bondservants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, 7 with goodwill doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men, 8 i knowing that whatever good anyone does, he will receive the same from the Lord, whether he is a slave or free. 9 And you, masters, do the same things to them, giving up threatening, knowing that 2 your own j Master also is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him.

If your offer is sincere, we can certainly have this conversation, because I'm not convinced that Jesus made exclusive, literal claims to be the literal son of God.

Ok, before you and I have this debate-- how about we let Aaron and cleve chime in here. Guys, is SS right? Did Jesus not claim to be an integral part of god himself?

Is Jesus not also the god of the OT who clearly endorsed slavery?

On another note, during my search for your non-existent scripture quote, I ran across this...

So, the Founding Fathers get a pass for "supporting" slavery, at least temporarily, but neither God nor Jesus do? Could I not substitute FFs with either of them in the above sentences and have a reasonable explanation for how the Bible treats the topic of slavery?

Statements like this really make me shake my head in surprise.

The FF's were mortal men. Are you sure you want to equate what humans are wrong about with what your GOD is wrong about? I mean, this is as astonishing admission from a believer. "Welllll-- you know, my god can be just as wrong as these guys over here, but hey... uh, I still trust him more than I trust human beings he's apparently no different from."

Crazy stuff. But it's always great when the loopholes illustrate a collapsing worldview. So I'll give it to you-- Jesus? God? On the EXACT same footing as the Founding Father's and Mark Twain.

WTF are you doing WORSHIPING fallible men-like gods in ANY sense? Didn't the Germans worship Hitler in the 1930s-1940s? How did that work out?

Ah, casting the first stone, are we? This from the guy who believes we have evolved beyond the injustice of slavery, when in fact it is more prevalent today than ever! (Here's the pertinent quote from the article, in case you choose not to read it: "Despite more than a dozen international conventions banning slavery in the past 150 years, there are more slaves today than at any point in human history." How much time do you spend speaking out about it? I'm guessing not much, since you believe it to be a problem of the past. Does your lack thereof constitute support?

I do NOT believe it merely to be a problem of the past and have actively contributed time, money and support to organizations that fight it. I refuse for instance, to shop at WalMart because of their policies, and while I was unaware of the issues with Apple in China until recently, and so presently own some items, I will not purchase them again because of their policies.


There are two key issues in your article. First, the actual number of sex slaves which are being discussed is within a world of vastly vastly more people -- 6 billion people. In terms of per capita, the number is far less than was extant in the pre-Civil War USA. This does not excuse the slavery going on, but it's a misleading thing to say ONLY that there are more individuals when overall, in a similarly populated world, there would be far, far less.

The second point that's not only in your article but you post it right here is this:

"Despite more than a dozen international conventions banning slavery in the past 150 years,"

Right there is proof positive that progress has been made. The fact is, under your biblical society there were NO INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS BANNING SLAVERY ANYWHERE. Slavery was ACCEPTED. It was the NORM. It was ENDORSED by your god and his scion.

Look at this demographic from 1850:

slaves per population 1850.jpg (47.06 KiB) Viewed 103 times

What do you think these "slaves per population" would be today?

Here's a link to the Southern USA Census of 1860

What do you think those numbers would look like today? Would there be "Free / Slave" categories?

If you think that nothing has changed, then you're merely being nihilistic.

Oh. Is that why it's just as bad a problem today as it was 2000 years ago (perhaps worse)? And, since you insist that we are morally superior today, and have rightly placed slavery in the "bad" category, I must assume that you tacitly endorse and support slavery in its current form. Right?

Wrong. It's not "just as bad a problem today". 1000 years ago, you'd be hardpressed to find anyone who would say slavery was morally or ethically wrong. Even 150 or so years ago, you'd find it hard to find people who thought it was completely unethical. So while it's a problem, overall yes most people have learned that slavery is unjust, unethical, and immoral. That it's still extant by some criminal percentage misses understanding that we collectively all consider it to be extant under CRIMINAL standards, not socially acceptable ones.

And you seem to be not able to tell the difference between the two. You think because criminals do it today, that we haven't learned a thing-- and equate this with people who were NOT criminals thinking it was the normal course of events -- most assuredly bucked up by your precious bible and Jesus and god.

I asked for steak tartare and you handed me a pile of bullshit on a warm plate. This is laughable. Have you never heard the story of the Good Samaritan? Why would a classist religious leader use a parable like this? It'd be like Hitler reading The Adventures of Super Jew at one of his rallies.

To illustrate a point, which is primarily what the parables are meant to do. I could see Hitler offering the same parable; in fact, Himmler even addressed this very issue!

I am talking about the "Jewish evacuation": the extermination of the Jewish people.

It is one of those things that is easily said. "The Jewish people is being exterminated," every Party member will tell you, "perfectly clear, it's part of our plans, we're eliminating the Jews, exterminating them, ha!, a small matter."

And then along they all come, all the 80 million upright Germans, and each one has his decent Jew. They say: all the others are swine, but here is a first-class Jew.

The idea here was that if every one of the 80 million Germans each had a "first rate Jew", then they couldn't go about exterminating the Jews. I don't know if you can see the connection here, but the Good Samaritan parable seems to be chastising the Jews for being LESS than their sworn enemy, the Samaritan. It's saying, "Here you guys are not treating one another like neighbors, especially your own people, when your enemy is doing better than you are-- is that what you want?"

This is of course the point of the Good Samaritan parable -- not that "all Samaritans are good people" -- but that those you consider swine might actually behave better than you do, so you need to up your game as well. Indeed, the Good Samaritan parable relies on the classism that was clearly in place at the time-- that of an enmity between the Jews and the Samaritans.

In some places, the gospels are less inclined to classism ("Render unto Caesar"), and in other places, they are ("only those who are born again can see the kingdom of heaven").

[StillSearching]

Colossians 4
Ephesians 6

These are the words of Paul (or a contemporary of his, depending on which biblical historian you believe), not Jesus. Try again.

The FF's were mortal men. Are you sure you want to equate what humans are wrong about with what your GOD is wrong about? I mean, this is as astonishing admission from a believer. "Welllll-- you know, my god can be just as wrong as these guys over here, but hey... uh, I still trust him more than I trust human beings he's apprently no different from."

You're obfuscating the issue by inserting God, when this discussion revolves around Jesus. I've already alluded to the fact that I don't equate the two, nor do I think Jesus equated himself with God. You also missed my point. I agree with the gyst of what I quoted from you: Sometimes we have to put aside one problem in order to deal with another. I'd just like you to admit that you understand that as well as I do, and leave the "God loves slavery" dead horse to rest in peace.

WTF are you doing WORSHIPING fallible men-like gods in ANY sense? Didn't the Germans worship Hitler in the 1930s-1940s? How did that work out?

Very poorly, but as a result of who and what and how they were worshipping, and the fact that they allowed their worship to drown out everything else (common sense, decency, etc.). Spending time contemplating and/or praising something that you find worthy and laudable (which is how I define worship) is not an inherently evil or even harmful act.

[Moonwood the Hare]

A point that is often missed is that Christianity worked towards the abolition of slavery not once but twice. There is a good discussion of this in the work of the social historian Rodney Stark. Stark points out that from about the 7th Century onwards slavery was effectively abolished within Christendom because it was held to be wrong for a Christian to keep another Christian as a slave. As all baptised people were classed as Christians and as just about everybody was baptised there were few slaves. The exceptions were prisoners of war captured in skirmishes with Muslims. However with the discovery of large parts of Africa where the natives were unconverted and the emergence of Protestantism the game changed. The first Church to speak out against this emerging slavery was the Roman Catholic Church but its protests were largely ignored. Second into the fray were the Quakers with their high social awareness and trailing behind came the Evangelicals. People often think that the idea of universal human rights as something residing in each individual was responsible for the abolition of slavery by the men of the enlightenment. In fact most of the first generation of enlightenment thinkers supported slavery on the grounds of natural human rights (Hobbes argues that our right over ourselves is prior to the social contract hence we have a right to sell ourselves and so become slaves, hence slavery is okay - that's not in Starkey I got that from Paul Marshall). Anyway a big role in the abolition of slavery was played by the Clapham sect (Anglican Evangelicals) who got the British government with its gunboats behind them. The British not only stopped trading in Slaves but used force to stop other nations.

[Keep The Reason]

Colossians 4
Ephesians 6

These are the words of Paul (or a contemporary of his, depending on which biblical historian you believe), not Jesus. Try again.

Oh, Okay, you're one of those people who divorces Paul from anything Jesus says or means. We can dispense with Acts entirely then, I'm certain you'll agree.

Luke, Chapter 12

And the Lord said, Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his lord shall make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of meat in due season?

Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing. <-- This says the servant of the master is blessed. This is overt support of slavery.

Of a truth I say unto you, that he will make him ruler over all that he hath.

But and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken;

The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.

And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. <-- This indicates Jersus is fully aware that slaves may be beaten by their masters; he uses this parable as justification for punishment.

But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

You're obfuscating the issue by inserting God, when this discussion revolves around Jesus. I've already alluded to the fact that I don't equate the two, nor do I think Jesus equated himself with God.

I'd like to see what others say here. If Jesus is not god, then fine with me. In terms of being a "Christian" -- you're a secular Christian who thinks Jesus had some good philosophies by which to live, in which case we'd be in agreement (his take on slavery, not so much. His insistence on punishment, not so much. But loving one's neighbor, that was good).

Let's go with John Chapter 10:

Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.

But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. <-- whaddaya know. Classism here. The "Haves vs the have nots"

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

I and my Father are one. <-- Direct overt statement that Jesus and Yahweh are one and the same.

and leave the "God loves slavery" dead horse to rest in peace.

"Loves" slavery? I said god endorses it; can you find for me where I wrote "god loves slavery"? If you find it, let me know so I can retract it. I may have written that in prosaic form to make a point but I don't know what a fictional being might "love" in the strictest sense. But the bible certianly supports the case that god endorses it and crafts rules around its implementation. And Jesus acknowledges the same and doesn't condemn it, which is also granting assent to it.

Very poorly, but as a result of who and what and how they were worshipping, and the fact that they allowed their worship to drown out everything else (common sense, decency, etc.). Spending time contemplating and/or praising something that you find worthy and laudable (which is how I define worship) is not an inherently evil or even harmful act.

But of course they didn't see it that way until very late in the game. In fact, they found it to be very laudable and worthy to praise Hitler. Best not to worship anything, at all. It's really a way to submerge one's critical facilities in favor of an emotional passion.

[Keep The Reason]

A point that is often missed is that Christianity worked towards the abolition of slavery not once but twice. There is a good discussion of this in the work of the social historian Rodney Stark. Stark points out that from about the 7th Century onwards slavery was effectively abolished within Christendom because it was held to be wrong for a Christian to keep another Christian as a slave. As all baptised people were classed as Christians and as just about everybody was baptised there were few slaves. The exceptions were prisoners of war captured in skirmishes with Muslims. However with the discovery of large parts of Africa where the natives were unconverted and the emergence of Protestantism the game changed. The first Church to speak out against this emerging slavery was the Roman Catholic Church but its protests were largely ignored. Second into the fray were the Quakers with their high social awareness and trailing behind came the Evangelicals. People often think that the idea of universal human rights as something residing in each individual was responsible for the abolition of slavery by the men of the enlightenment. In fact most of the first generation of enlightenment thinkers supported slavery on the grounds of natural human rights (Hobbes argues that our right over ourselves is prior to the social contract hence we have a right to sell ourselves and so become slaves, hence slavery is okay - that's not in Starkey I got that from Paul Marshall). Anyway a big role in the abolition of slavery was played by the Clapham sect (Anglican Evangelicals) who got the British government with its gunboats behind them. The British not only stopped trading in Slaves but used force to stop other nations.

I personally have no problem with the history of who began to abolish slavery and who did not. It is what it is, and in a world where just about everyone is religious, as it was prior to 1850, of course progress is going to be had by those who are religious. There were almost none who were NOT religious at some level, the globe over.

There's nothing in the bible however to warrant the abolishing of slavery. People may have learned to consider it vile (obviously) but they didn't do it because the OT or the NT described it as something to be put away. It's just not there in the religious doctrines. It never was.