Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Objective Morality (Once More Into The Breach)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Matters of record:
    Slavery has been opposed by deists (admittedly, pagan) since around the 4th Century BC.
    Christians, by contrast with denominational churches, have voiced opposition to slavery since around the fourth century
    The early church did not oppose slavery, but condemned maltreatment of slaves and encouraged manumission.
    Slavery was a divisive issue in denominational churches throughout most of their history. (Until the anti-slavery factions gained supremacy)
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In terms of morality, denominational churches mostly have been no more than a toe length ahead of the societies in which they are located, but a toe length still puts them ahead.
    1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
    .
    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
    Scripture before Tradition:
    but that won't prevent others from
    taking it upon themselves to deprive you
    of the right to call yourself Christian.

    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

    Comment


    • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
      Emphasis mine. Are you saying, here, that the Christian worldview sees slavery as a morally neutral action?
      What I am saying is that Biblically, not all forms of slavery are necessarily sinful.



      The first senteince of your statement is true: in their time, initially, they would have been widely seen as rabble rousers and "evil" by most, and accepted as a new moral voice by some. YOur second sentence is not true. It is very relevant what unfolds. As their message spreads and penetrates, more people accept it and it becomes the new moral norm. So what happens later is very relevant.
      No, it is not relevant to the fact that they would have been originally seen as evil or immoral.

      Again, theoretically possible, practically implausible. Within his own culture, AK IS viewed as a moral giant (AFAIK). Worldwide, he is not. Is it possible the entire world will convert to conservative Islamic beliefs? Of course it is possible - but it is highly improbable.
      I don't think Islam taking the world (or a large portion of it) is improbable at all.
      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
        Who decides what in scripture constitute moral commands? In actuality it is the culture of the day. The largest Protestant denomination in USA regarded slavery to be scripturally endorsed by God. This was the view of Christianity for centuries.
        Where was it commanded by the Lord?


        And yet 80% of US Evangelicals voted for thrice married Donald Trump despite Jesus’ explicit strictures re divorce. Divorce is accepted as the social norm in the West, nowadays; 100 years ago it wasn't. .
        No, Trump was better than pro abortion Clinton, who would have stacked the court with pro abortion judges.

        NO, you are viewing the culture at any one time as absolute and unchanging, whereas it is not. It is continuously evolving.
        Right, so a King or Gandhi could be considered evil in the future as they were in the past

        It’s possible but unlikely given his appeal is limited to a specific sect of a particular religion, wheres the ideas of Ghandi and MLK were universal.
        Universal to whom? 2 billion Muslims?
        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

        Comment


        • Originally posted by seer View Post
          What I am saying is that Biblically, not all forms of slavery are necessarily sinful.
          So what form of slavery does the bible morally permit?

          Originally posted by seer View Post
          No, it is not relevant to the fact that they would have been originally seen as evil or immoral.
          Many things were once seen as immoral and later came to be seen as moral - or vice versa. It is not clear to me what point you're trying to make here.

          Originally posted by seer View Post
          I don't think Islam taking the world (or a large portion of it) is improbable at all.
          If you think it is possible for conservative Islam (note, I was specific about the fundamentalist version of this belief system) that is practiced by a few million in a few countries can someday dominate the world as the predominant belief system, then you live in a world of fear I do not share. I am no more concerned about that than I am about the world collectively joining the KKK or the Arian Brotherhood. Extremists are fringe groups. Though they may hold sway over a region for some period of time, their history is typically short-lived and relatively localized, or it is global and extremely sparse. I know of no instance in the history of humanity when such a fringe dominated the human population, so I see no reason to fear such a thing today.
          The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

          I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

          Comment


          • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
            So what form of slavery does the bible morally permit?
            Voluntary, at least. If I willing sold myself into slavery to stave off starvation I don't believe that would be immoral.


            Many things were once seen as immoral and later came to be seen as moral - or vice versa. It is not clear to me what point you're trying to make here.
            That it is always in flux, and therefore meaningless. If 2+2 could 4 today, equal 6 next week, or 12 in a month, what meaning would 2+2 have?

            If you think it is possible for conservative Islam (note, I was specific about the fundamentalist version of this belief system) that is practiced by a few million in a few countries can someday dominate the world as the predominant belief system, then you live in a world of fear I do not share. I am no more concerned about that than I am about the world collectively joining the KKK or the Arian Brotherhood. Extremists are fringe groups. Though they may hold sway over a region for some period of time, their history is typically short-lived and relatively localized, or it is global and extremely sparse. I know of no instance in the history of humanity when such a fringe dominated the human population, so I see no reason to fear such a thing today.
            I don't agree Carp, there are a lot more true believers than you suggest, and they usually control the "moderates." And it is the fastest growing religion in the world. Just look how the demographics of Europe are changing with little or no assimilation.
            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

            Comment


            • Originally posted by seer View Post
              Voluntary, at least. If I willing sold myself into slavery to stave off starvation I don't believe that would be immoral.
              So it is ethical, in your worldview, for someone to accept into slavery someone who is starving and wants to "sell themselves" into that slavery?

              Originally posted by seer View Post
              That it is always in flux, and therefore meaningless. If 2+2 could 4 today, equal 6 next week, or 12 in a month, what meaning would 2+2 have?
              You continually return to the argument, "moral codes are meaningless if they are not absolute/universal" without ever doing anything but asserting it, Seer. Note that "in flux" and "meaningless" are not equivalent. My checking balance is "in flux." It is not meaningless. My weight is "in flux," it is not meaningless. Laws are "in flux," but few consider them "meaningless." My food preferences are "in flux." They are hardly meaningless.

              You have never made the case for "changeable = meaningless" in any of your posts. Here you attempt to equate moral truths as like-in-kind to mathematical truths, again, without making the case for why they should be seen this way, rather than being seen as like-in-kind to legal principles. Slavery was legal, and then it wasn't. Nobody argues that the law is "meaningless" because it can change. The law is what it is determined to be at the time. Current law is guided by, but not limited to, past precedent, so it can change. Past law is assess in light of current legal norms. Few people would think to look at the Supreme Court decision permitting sterilization of "imbeciles" as "moral" today (despite the fact that this law has never been overturned, AFAIK).

              So how do you go about making the case that a) moral laws are more like mathematical laws than they are like legal precepts, and b) moral law is meaningless if it is not absolute/universal?

              Originally posted by seer View Post
              I don't agree Carp, there are a lot more true believers than you suggest, and they usually control the "moderates." And it is the fastest growing religion in the world. Just look how the demographics of Europe are changing with little or no assimilation.
              That Islam may someday dominate as the largest religion would not surprise me. That conservative/fundamentalist Islam will dominate would, as I noted. And note, "the largest religion" has less and less import as the world becomes more and more secular. Indeed, secularism/atheism appears to me to be the fastest growing "religion." You may be afraid of it - but I am not.
              Last edited by carpedm9587; 01-22-2018, 11:59 AM.
              The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

              I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

              Comment


              • Originally posted by seer View Post
                Voluntary, at least. If I willing sold myself into slavery to stave off starvation I don't believe that would be immoral.
                In a way that's kind of what you do when you go out and get a job

                I'm always still in trouble again

                "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                Comment


                • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                  In a way that's kind of what you do when you go out and get a job
                  How do you know about my job!
                  Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                    So it is ethical, in your worldview, for someone to accept into slavery someone who is starving and wants to "sell themselves" into that slavery?
                    I don't see a moral problem with it if both partners are willing and the slave owner is gracious.



                    You continually return to the argument, "moral codes are meaningless if they are not absolute/universal" without ever doing anything but asserting it, Seer. Note that "in flux" and "meaningless" are not equivalent. My checking balance is "in flux." It is not meaningless. My weight is "in flux," it is not meaningless. Laws are "in flux," but few consider them "meaningless." My food preferences are "in flux." They are hardly meaningless.

                    You have never made the case for "changeable = meaningless" in any of your posts. Here you attempt to equate moral truths as like-in-kind to mathematical truths, again, without making the case for why they should be seen this way, rather than being seen as like-in-kind to legal principles. Slavery was legal, and then it wasn't. Nobody argues that the law is "meaningless" because it can change. The law is what it is determined to be at the time. Current law is guided by, but not limited to, past precedent, so it can change. Past law is assess in light of current legal norms. Few people would think to look at the Supreme Court decision permitting sterilization of "imbeciles" as "moral" today (despite the fact that this law has never been overturned, AFAIK).
                    Yet I will equate morality with math, for 2+2 would be meaningless if the sum was changing or evolving. Blame it on my binary thinking... You say that sterilization was morally acceptable, then not - what is the right answer? There isn't one in your your world view.


                    That Islam may someday dominate as the largest religion would not surprise me. That conservative/fundamentalist Islam will dominate would, as I noted. And note, "the largest religion" has less and less import as the world becomes more and more secular. Indeed, secularism/atheism appears to me to be the fastest growing "religion." You may be afraid of it - but I am not.
                    Time will tell...
                    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by seer View Post
                      I don't see a moral problem with it if both partners are willing and the slave owner is gracious.
                      Your moral stance on this is significantly separated from mine. I do not find any form of slavery morally acceptable, and there are many ways to help a hungry man without accepting their offer to sell themselves. With or without permission, one human being owning another is not something I find morally justifiable.

                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      Yet I will equate morality with math, for 2+2 would be meaningless if the sum was changing or evolving. Blame it on my binary thinking... You say that sterilization was morally acceptable, then not - what is the right answer? There isn't one in your your world view.
                      As I said, Seer, you have asserted that moral principles are equivalent to mathematical principles without making the case. You simply insist it must be so. Moral statements are statements about actions that ought and ought not be done. As such, they are far more equivalent to legal statements, which deal with the same things, only as encoded in law within a given society. The connection between the two is fairly evident.

                      As for your question about sterilization, the answer is: it was morally acceptable then to that society - it is not now to this society. There is no "absolute" by which to answer your question. I know you want/need one, but it simply does not exist. You have not shown, in any of this discussion, that it is necessary for such an absolute to exist, or that it actually does exist. You simply reassert, over and over and over, that it has to be that way because "there has to be a right answer" and because "morality is meaningless without absolutes." Morality is not math, Seer. They are not even closely associated. If you want to show that they are, you will have to do more than simply assert it over and over again.

                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      Time will tell...
                      It will indeed... Meanwhile, I will focus my "fear" energy on things that are more likely to actually happen.
                      The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                      I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by seer View Post
                        Where was it commanded by the Lord?
                        The Christian view for centuries was that slavery was scripturally endorsed by God. Those who disagreed were considered wrong. Historically, the social mores of the day have always been justified by appeals to scripture. It still is on a variety of social issues.

                        No, Trump was better than pro abortion Clinton, who would have stacked the court with pro abortion judges.
                        Who are you to make that judgement? According to Jesus, divorce and remarriage, whilst the other party is still alive, is adultery...you can’t get more scriptural than Jesus’ own, unambiguous words. Yet 80% of Evangelicals voted for a thrice divorced adulterer living in sin...not to mention his extra marital affairs with the likes of Stormy Daniels.

                        Divorce is proscribed by Jesus himself whereas abortion is not. Anyway, according to Pew Research, the majority of US Christians are pro choice. Are they wrong? Is divorce wrong? So much for your absolute morality.

                        Right, so a King or Gandhi could be considered evil in the future as they were in the past
                        No, history has proved them right as far as the social values of today are concerned.

                        Universal to whom? 2 billion Muslims?
                        Universal to the signatories of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights..."of the then 68 members of the United Nations, 48 voted in favour, none against, eight abstained, and two did not vote" -Wiki.. In short the majority of nations.
                        Last edited by Tassman; 01-22-2018, 11:55 PM.
                        “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                          Your moral stance on this is significantly separated from mine. I do not find any form of slavery morally acceptable, and there are many ways to help a hungry man without accepting their offer to sell themselves. With or without permission, one human being owning another is not something I find morally justifiable.
                          Well that is the point isn't it. You have an opinion on this, others have a different take. Neither position is more valid than the other.



                          As I said, Seer, you have asserted that moral principles are equivalent to mathematical principles without making the case. You simply insist it must be so. Moral statements are statements about actions that ought and ought not be done. As such, they are far more equivalent to legal statements, which deal with the same things, only as encoded in law within a given society. The connection between the two is fairly evident.
                          See Carp, you don't want to admit that 2+2 would be meaningless if sums changed with cultural mores. Yet, when it comes to morality, which effects our lives much more deeply, ethics are cast on the winds of personal or social whims...

                          As for your question about sterilization, the answer is: it was morally acceptable then to that society - it is not now to this society. There is no "absolute" by which to answer your question. I know you want/need one, but it simply does not exist. You have not shown, in any of this discussion, that it is necessary for such an absolute to exist, or that it actually does exist. You simply reassert, over and over and over, that it has to be that way because "there has to be a right answer" and because "morality is meaningless without absolutes." Morality is not math, Seer. They are not even closely associated. If you want to show that they are, you will have to do more than simply assert it over and over again
                          .

                          So you can't answer the question. In the big picture, I would say yes, our moral musing are meaningless, because we are ultimately meaningless.
                          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                            The Christian view for centuries was that slavery was scripturally endorsed by God. Those who disagreed were considered wrong. Historically, the social mores of the day have always been justified by appeals to scripture. It still is on a variety of social issues.
                            Again Tass, it was never commanded by the Lord. There are ethical questions that scripture does not address. I know Bible believing Christians who have opposite opinions on social welfare for instance, or gun rights.



                            Who are you to make that judgement? According to Jesus, divorce and remarriage, whilst the other party is still alive, is adultery...you can’t get more scriptural than Jesus’ own, unambiguous words. Yet 80% of Evangelicals voted for a thrice divorced adulterer living in sin...not to mention his extra marital affairs with the likes of Stormy Daniels.
                            So what? I fully agree with Jesus, but what is worse, an adulterer in the the White House or one who supports killing unborn human beings by the truck load. No contest...

                            Divorce is proscribed by Jesus himself whereas abortion is not. Anyway, according to Pew Research, the majority of US Christians are pro choice. Are they wrong? Is divorce wrong? So much for your absolute morality.
                            Yes divorce is wrong, except for certain reasons that both Jesus and Paul laid out. And if you don't get that killing unborn human beings, who never did any harm, is wrong, you are morally retarded.


                            No, history has proved them right as far as the social values of today are concerned.
                            For now, but since ethics are always evolving, who knows what the future will bring.

                            Universal to the signatories of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights..."of the then 68 members of the United Nations, 48 voted in favour, none against, eight abstained, and two did not vote" -Wiki.. In short the majority of nations.
                            How can it even be close to universal when only a minority of the world's countries have signed on? With a number of the signatories not even following the mandates.
                            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by seer View Post
                              Well that is the point isn't it. You have an opinion on this, others have a different take. Neither position is more valid than the other.
                              My position is valid to me - yours is valid to you. Which one dominates within the society governs which one is more valid to the society at large. I suspect (but do not have data and cannot prove) that most people would consider the ownership of one person by another to be a moral ill, where voluntary/gracious or not.

                              Originally posted by seer View Post
                              See Carp, you don't want to admit that 2+2 would be meaningless if sums changed with cultural mores. Yet, when it comes to morality, which effects our lives much more deeply, ethics are cast on the winds of personal or social whims...
                              I have no problem admitting that mathematics is based on universal/absolute principles. I DO have difficulty with your assertion that morality must be absolute/universal because it is like in kind to mathematics. You are arguing by assertion (it MUST be universal/absolute or it's not real!) and outrage (it's just whim!), Seer. You still have never made a coherent argument for why morality MUST be absolute/universal. You continue to simply assert it and express outrage at the suggestion that it might not be. Those are not arguments. I look around myself and find a perfectly functional model for morality that is subjective to the individual and community, which I have outlined multiple times. It describes the process we see in both secular and religious groups, and even provides a basis for religious moral codes.

                              Originally posted by seer View Post
                              So you can't answer the question. In the big picture, I would say yes, our moral musing are meaningless, because we are ultimately meaningless.
                              Again - an assertion. You need to make the case that subjective = meaningless. You will have a hard time doing that, because you engage in subjective activities every moment of every day that I would suggest you do not consider "meaningless."

                              This has been the problem with your argument from the outset, Seer: you assume your conclusion. You unilateraly declare that only objective/universal things are "meaningful" or "real" or "of value," and then proceed to point to subjective moral frameworks from the position of that declaration. It was when someone opened my eyes to this error in my thinking (when I was Christian) that I realized this was yet another place where I was accepting, uncritically, a framework I had been indoctrinated to. Your basically going in circles and, as a consequence, your argument does not convince anyone that does not already have your mindset.

                              If you hope to convince, you need to tackle, head on, the assertion that subjective = meaningless, and show how/why a subjective moral framework is not functional. So far, you have not.
                              The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                              I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                                My position is valid to me - yours is valid to you. Which one dominates within the society governs which one is more valid to the society at large. I suspect (but do not have data and cannot prove) that most people would consider the ownership of one person by another to be a moral ill, where voluntary/gracious or not.
                                And how is that meaningful? A society accepts slavery another society doesn't. You like apples, I like pears... So?

                                I have no problem admitting that mathematics is based on universal/absolute principles. I DO have difficulty with your assertion that morality must be absolute/universal because it is like in kind to mathematics. You are arguing by assertion (it MUST be universal/absolute or it's not real!) and outrage (it's just whim!), Seer. You still have never made a coherent argument for why morality MUST be absolute/universal. You continue to simply assert it and express outrage at the suggestion that it might not be. Those are not arguments. I look around myself and find a perfectly functional model for morality that is subjective to the individual and community, which I have outlined multiple times. It describes the process we see in both secular and religious groups, and even provides a basis for religious moral codes.
                                Since when are you the arbiter of what is coherent? You don't like the analogy because of what it portends. I mean if you think that my preference for pears is meaningful - well more power to ya...

                                Again - an assertion. You need to make the case that subjective = meaningless. You will have a hard time doing that, because you engage in subjective activities every moment of every day that I would suggest you do not consider "meaningless."
                                OK, you win, my preference for pears is of utmost meaning!

                                This has been the problem with your argument from the outset, Seer: you assume your conclusion. You unilateraly declare that only objective/universal things are "meaningful" or "real" or "of value," and then proceed to point to subjective moral frameworks from the position of that declaration. It was when someone opened my eyes to this error in my thinking (when I was Christian) that I realized this was yet another place where I was accepting, uncritically, a framework I had been indoctrinated to. Your basically going in circles and, as a consequence, your argument does not convince anyone that does not already have your mindset.
                                Right, I assume that we are not merely meaningless specks, on a insignificant planet, in an indifferent cosmos. So sue me...
                                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                160 responses
                                508 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                                21 responses
                                133 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X