Morality or Obedience?

[JimL]

Jim, I do not think every form of slavery is immoral. Man Stealing, which southern slavery was based on, is a sin in Scripture. But if I willingly sold myself into slavery to save myself and family from starving then that would be a good thing. And Jim, the bible never says you SHOULD beat your slave.

The biblical god, your god seer, is not neutral on the matter, beating ones slave to near death is condoned, i.e. it is not considered immoral by god.

And what is not true Jim - in your world, nothing, slavery, beating slaves or killing them is ultimately wrong or immoral. It is all relative.

You're right seer, the world itself, as Tass avered, is amoral, but human beings are not. It is we who ultimately decide whether slavery is immoral or not, it isn't revealed to us, it isn't an objective fact in the absolute sense, but it is something that we human beings decide for ourselves and codify in law. Does everyone agree? no, but thats why we make it law.

[seer]

The biblical god, your god seer, is not neutral on the matter, beating ones slave to near death is condoned, i.e. it is not considered immoral by god.

Jim it is not a fact, it never says that beating a slave is a good thing, or you should beat a slave, it only prescribes limits or punishments. Look at the context:

18"If men have a quarrel and one strikes the other with a stone or with his fist, and he does not die but remains in bed, 19 if he gets up and walks around outside on his staff, then he who struck him shall go unpunished; he shall only pay for his loss of time, and shall take care of him until he is completely healed. 20"If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished.

Does this mean that God condones striking another man with a fist or stone?

You're right seer, the world itself, as Tass avered, is amoral, but human beings are not. It is we who ultimately decide whether slavery is immoral or not, it isn't revealed to us, it isn't an objective fact in the absolute sense, but it is something that we human beings decide for ourselves and codify in law. Does everyone agree? no, but thats why we make it law.

Right, but if a society does accept slavery that is no more correct or incorrect than one that does not. It is all relative, subjective.

[JimL]

Jim it is not a fact, it never says that beating a slave is a good thing, or you should beat a slave, it only prescribes limits or punishments. Look at the context:

The Bible condones it seer, if it were considered evil it wouldn't be condoned. Prescribing limits to an action, i.e one can beat his slave to near death, but not actually kill him, is condoning the action itself.

Does this mean that God condones striking another man with a fist or stone?

No, but the two laws are unrelated, the one is a quarrell and fight between two men, the other is simply one man punishing another who has no ability to defend himself.

Right, but if a society does accept slavery that is no more correct or incorrect than one that does not. It is all relative, subjective.

Thats right, it isn't wrong in an absolute objective sense because the universe itself is amoral, but we humans as a social species have basically come to the conclusion that slavery is wrong, therefore it is wrong. But, we don't come to moral conclusions willy nilly, we come to moral conclusions over time, based on reason. Once we come to such conclusions, the thiests amongst us attribute those conclusions to revelation concerning objective facts, but of course that's totally made up stuff, since no such thing is ever simply revealed.

[seer]

The Bible condones it seer, if it were considered evil it wouldn't be condoned. Prescribing limits to an action, i.e one can beat his slave to near death, but not actually kill him, is condoning the action itself.


No, but the two laws are unrelated, the one is a quarrell and fight between two men, the other is simply one man punishing another who has no ability to defend himself.

Jim, the point is that Scripture no more condones beating your slave than it condones one man striking another man. You just don't want to admit it.

Thats right, it isn't wrong in an absolute objective sense because the universe itself is amoral, but we humans as a social species have basically come to the conclusion that slavery is wrong, therefore it is wrong.

Who is the "we" Jim, do you have a mouse in your pocket? I mean you do realize that many forms of slavery are on the rise in the world - correct? http://www.theweek.co.uk/73233/slave...ding-countries

But, we don't come to moral conclusions willy nilly, we come to moral conclusions over time, based on reason. Once we come to such conclusions, the thiests amongst us attribute those conclusions to revelation concerning objective facts, but of course that's totally made up stuff, since no such thing is ever simply revealed.

Right and the Maoists and Stalinists concluded that they had good reasons for murdering millions of dissentients in the name of political and social cohesion.

[Sparko]

So Jim, if we come to a moral conclusion that a past action is wrong, does that mean that it was actually wrong before we came to that conclusion?

As in slavery. If they thought it was perfectly moral before but now we have come to the conclusion that it is immoral, does that mean that they were immoral then or is slavery just immoral now but was moral back then?

[Tassman]

Jim, I do not think every form of slavery is immoral. Man Stealing, which southern slavery was based on, is a sin in Scripture. But if I willingly sold myself into slavery to save myself and family from starving then that would be a good thing. And Jim, the bible never says you SHOULD beat your slave. And what is not true Jim - in your world, nothing, slavery, beating slaves or killing them is ultimately wrong or immoral. It is all relative.

No, in OUR world owning and beating slaves is wrong. We make laws against it. It is YOUR world that fought a civil war against the Deep South and Southern Baptists, who demanded to retain it.

[Tassman]

So Jim, if we come to a moral conclusion that a past action is wrong, does that mean that it was actually wrong before we came to that conclusion?

As in slavery. If they thought it was perfectly moral before but now we have come to the conclusion that it is immoral, does that mean that they were immoral then or is slavery just immoral now but was moral back then?

Values have evolved from the tribal mentality of Moses et al, at least in the developed world. What was acceptable back then is not acceptable today in the world of universal moral values as per the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

[JimL]

So Jim, if we come to a moral conclusion that a past action is wrong, does that mean that it was actually wrong before we came to that conclusion?

As in slavery. If they thought it was perfectly moral before but now we have come to the conclusion that it is immoral, does that mean that they were immoral then or is slavery just immoral now but was moral back then?

Its not wrong in the sense that there is an objective source that it's being wrong is in agreement with, there is no such absolute objective standard, but being rational human beings who's thinking evolves we have basically come to acknowledge that owning and beating other people is wrong, in the same way that we have evolved to understand that clubbing women over the head and dragging them to our cave to rape them is wrong. The point is that the universe doesn't make judgements, morality is a human construction and ultimately we decide what is good or evil. That doesn't mean though that our moral rules are arbitrary, they are reasoned, they serve a purpose. We construct the rules for sports games as well, the rules don't objectively pre-exist out there for us to find, but they are constructed by us because they serve a purpose

[Tassman]

Right and the Maoists and Stalinists concluded that they had good reasons for murdering millions of dissentients in the name of political and social cohesion.

Just as the largest Protestant body in the USA, The Southern Baptist Convention, concluded that the bible justified slavery and waited until 1995 to formally denounce its past defences of human bondage.

We construct the rules for sports games as well, the rules don't objectively pre-exist out there for us to find, but they are constructed by us because they serve a purpose

Excellent point!

[Sparko]

Values have evolved from the tribal mentality of Moses et al, at least in the developed world. What was acceptable back then is not acceptable today in the world of universal moral values as per the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

1. You are not Jim
2. You didn't answer the question.

If we think something is immoral today but someone in another society in another time did not think it was immoral, were they behaving immorally or not? Can we judge a different time/society by our standards? Is something like Slavery objectively immoral for everyone at all times or just in our society because we decided it is to us?

[Sparko]

Its not wrong in the sense that there is an objective source that it's being wrong is in agreement with, there is no such absolute objective standard, but being rational human beings who's thinking evolves we have basically come to acknowledge that owning and beating other people is wrong, in the same way that we have evolved to understand that clubbing women over the head and dragging them to our cave to rape them is wrong. The point is that the universe doesn't make judgements, morality is a human construction and ultimately we decide what is good or evil. That doesn't mean though that our moral rules are arbitrary, they are reasoned, they serve a purpose. We construct the rules for sports games as well, the rules don't objectively pre-exist out there for us to find, but they are constructed by us because they serve a purpose

So were they actually wrong to have slaves if they thought it was perfectly fine and normal thing to have at that time? If there is no actual objective source, then our ideas of what is immoral are no more significant than theirs. What makes your idea or morality more "evolved" than theirs?

What if 100 years from now, people have evolved to the conclusion that parents making their children do chores amounts to slavery, since the children are not being paid a wage and they are being force to live with their parents? Does that mean that parents today are being slavers to their children and are evil just because some people 100 years from now say they are? What gives them the right to judge our society by their standards?

[shunyadragon]

1. You are not Jim
2. You didn't answer the question.

If we think something is immoral today but someone in another society in another time did not think it was immoral, were they behaving immorally or not? Can we judge a different time/society by our standards? Is something like Slavery objectively immoral for everyone at all times or just in our society because we decided it is to us?

The issue is 'not what someone or a society thinks is moral or immoral' at any time in history or culture. It is what the Bible says is moral or immoral.

[JimL]

1. You are not Jim
2. You didn't answer the question.

If we think something is immoral today but someone in another society in another time did not think it was immoral, were they behaving immorally or not? Can we judge a different time/society by our standards? Is something like Slavery objectively immoral for everyone at all times or just in our society because we decided it is to us?

You are not understanding the point. If there is no objective standard, which is the perspective we are eschewing, then it isn't about whether or not they were immoral back then because it is up to all of us, at all times, both now and then, to construct our own moral social systems, what we as a culture believe to be right and wrong, good or bad. Yes, we can believe and accuse the old slavedoms, if you will, of being immoral, and from our perspective they are indeed immoral, but the universe doesn't make such judgements. That's just the way the world is, you may not like it, you may wish there was a absolute right and wrong, but there isn't, and even if there were, you wouldn't know what it was so it's existence would be superfluous and useless to you.

[Sparko]

You are not understanding the point. If there is no objective standard, which is the perspective we are eschewing, then it isn't about whether or not they were immoral back then because it is up to all of us, at all times, both now and then, to construct our own moral social systems, what we as a culture believe to be right and wrong, good or bad. Yes, we can believe and accuse the old slavedoms, if you will, of being immoral, and from our perspective they are indeed immoral, but the universe doesn't make such judgements. That's just the way the world is, you may not like it, you may wish there was a absolute right and wrong, but there isn't, and even if there were, you wouldn't know what it was so it's existence would be superfluous and useless to you.

So you are saying that just because we think they were immoral doesn't mean that they actually were immoral then?

So then your original complaint about accusing God of supporting something immoral is moot and doesn't matter because it's just your opinion.

[JimL]

So you are saying that just because we think they were immoral doesn't mean that they actually were immoral then?

The universe is amoral so moral systems are human constructions unrelated to objective truisms. Nothing is objectively immoral in that sense, but what is immoral is the violation of the rules we make re right and wrong. Thats just the way the world is. It's all up to us!

So then your original complaint about accusing God of supporting something immoral is moot and doesn't matter because it's just your opinion.

Nope, we are perfectly justified in condemning others, including god, for violating what we, in our opinion, believe to be immoral.