Objective morality

[LuftWaffle]

On 1/17/2017 at 11:36 PM, Bonky said:

 From Leviticus chapter 25...

“‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."

I don't see anything about a contract.  I also don't see anything in the Bible that states, in general, that anyone needs to sign a "contract".   If anything I see a clear indication that a particular race or nation of people are treated better than others. 

 

Atheists tend to consider themselves to be morally and intellectually superior to Christians. As a result of this, they get severely triggered when it is shown that atheism entails moral nihilism and that the moral high horse they're sitting on, has "Property of Jesus Christ" written on it. Their recourse in such instances is to take jabs at Christianity and their goto for this is usually the slavery issue. As such I am pretty familiar with all the verses about slavery because it's impossible to have a conversation about moral ontology without having to deal with these red herrings. Atheism's inability to ground morality in anything but mere subjective preference, doesn't evaporate simply because the word slavery appears in the Bible. You need to deal with it.

Having said that, the primary purpose of slavery was endentured servitude. It was a system by which citizens of Israel could work off any debts. Servants if they choose, could get a piercing and remain with a master if they liked working for that master. Jacob for instance slaved for Laban as a way of earning the right to marry his daughter. This flies in the face of the misleading atheistic narrative that slaves were to be treated as mere possessions. That is was atheists are going for were they bring up the slavery issue, is to make it appear as though slaves were dehumanised and considered to be mere things. This couldn't be further from the truth, and you and I have had this conversation before.

In terms of the verse in question, yes Israelite citizens had better rights than slaves coming from outside nations. This is true for almost every nation on earth where the citizens of a nations enjoy better priviledges than foreigners. What's the problem? 

Enslavement of enemy forces was actually a mercy since it gives them a chance at life, instead of being killed on the spot. War happens, but of course in our day and age where most softhanded Western liberals have never had to fight for anything, the idea of hurting people in war seems barbaric.

Lastly keep in mind that Israel's policy was that one could become an Israelite if one accepted the beliefs. Israel wasn't so much a race as it was a family with lots of adopted children. Those in the family got special treatment, simple.
So a foreigner could become a citizen of Israel by accepting the Israelite faith. See for instance the book of Ruth and the loads of Egyptians who escaped Egypt with Israel and so on.

What I mean by contract is that slaves were considered as part of a man's wealth in an economic or contractual sense, not that slaves were to be treated inhumanely, which is what you were hoping for.

The reason I didn't elaborate too much on the contractual thing is because a) we've had this conversation before and b) this is a red herring to get away from the fact that atheism cannot make sense of morality.

Quote

I don't think women being treated as equals is "superficial".

Which is why I added, "In the grand scheme of things". It seems we're both in agreement that people not dying is far more important than women's rights to vote. My point was that both you and Siegi were trying to prove moral inconsistency by reaching for Western luxuries such as a woman's right to vote, same-sex marriage and pot legalisation. These issues are important in the West because the West is rather safe and peaceful, were citizens enjoy the kind of freedoms and self-actualization unheard of in history.

Quote

"Can you look back in history and find a culture that celebrated cowardice? Or didn't mind theft of personal property? That considered murder to be morally benign? I doubt it."

No, but I don't see how this challenges my views.  

It challenges your claim that morality is obscure and that it evolved in a messy fashion. My point is that the fundamentals were always the same.

Quote

Christian values sure took their time giving us these modern views.

Christian values or human stubbornness?  I'm glad though that your argument has moved from "I don't see any evidence of moral progress as a result of Christian beliefs" to "why did it take so long". I get that you'll never accept that Christianity did good in the world, so I'll take this as a half-hearted concession.

Quote

I'm not familiar with your term "Christian West".  I decided to look it up and I came up pretty dry.  It's almost as if you made this up

hmmm. https://www.englishclub.com/grammar/nouns-adjective.htm

Christian West refers to the West that is Christian. Sometimes nouns can be used as adjectives. My point is that Western civilisation has traditionally been and still is largely influenced by Christianity. As such you'll find statements like "God save the queen", "In God we trust", "Soli deo gloria" and such in Western countries' things. You'll also find that the great universities of the West that have shaped and bettered the world are steeped in Christian tradition, founded by Christians and covered in plaques and spires that make them look more like churches than institutions of learning. It is from here that we get great mind like Newton, Tesla, Pasteur who believed that those who studied the sciences were honouring God. Then you can look at the fact that most grand old hospitals in the West are named after Saints, that the greatest and oldest Humanitarian organisations are the Salvation Army and the Red Cross, that the Greatest moral reformers of the world, Mother Theresa, Wilberforce, Martin Luther King and so on were all Christians. Some say the American constitution is the greatest constitution ever written: and I believe that this too is thanks to it's formulators belief that men are created equal and that as such they have inalienable rights endowed by a moral authority, right?

But sure, go ahead and believe the made up atheist story of Christianity, which reads roughly: in the beginning was a primordial soup from which people emerged randomly after as many years as it takes for this totally scientific process to occur. Some wicked (according to our best subjectivist definition of wicked) people invented religion as a way to control others back when people were gullible and would believe anything. These people had slaves and genocided a lot. Then the inquisition and crusades happened, which, in conjunction with slavery and genocide is basically all we need to know about Christianity. Then we got science which has shown that we don't need god (lowercase is super important even though it's a proper noun) anymore. Some Christians try to be as clever as we are by attempting to argue for the existence of God, but if they were rational they'd realise that any argument that leads to God is either circular, or is undercut by slavery.

Quote

I think rationality can be a basis for moral structure and nothing more is needed. 

Define rationality? Also, please elaborate on how a rational proposition becomes a moral imperative.
Are you a determinist? By this I mean do you believe that all human actions are ultimately caused by the inevitable workings of the laws of nature?

 

 

 

Edited January 19, 2017 by LuftWaffle

[Bonky]

3 hours ago, LuftWaffle said:

Atheists tend to consider themselves to be morally and intellectually superior to Christians. As a result of this, they get severely triggered when it is shown that atheism entails moral nihilism and that the moral high horse they're sitting on, has "Property of Jesus Christ" written on it. Their recourse in such instances is to take jabs at Christianity and their goto for this is usually the slavery issue. As such I am pretty familiar with all the verses about slavery because it's impossible to have a conversation about moral ontology without having to deal with these red herrings. Atheism's inability to ground morality in anything but mere subjective preference, doesn't evaporate simply because the word slavery appears in the Bible. You need to deal with it.

I find it ironic you used the term "triggered".

3 hours ago, LuftWaffle said:

Having said that, the primary purpose of slavery was endentured servitude. It was a system by which citizens of Israel could work off any debts. Servants if they choose, could get a piercing and remain with a master if they liked working for that master. Jacob for instance slaved for Laban as a way of earning the right to marry his daughter. This flies in the face of the misleading atheistic narrative that slaves were to be treated as mere possessions. That is was atheists are going for were they bring up the slavery issue, is to make it appear as though slaves were dehumanised and considered to be mere things. This couldn't be further from the truth, and you and I have had this conversation before.

What is the context here?  Israelites and how they interacted with other Israelites?  The Bible clearly states there were different rules if you weren't a Hebrew.   The core issue here is whether owning people as property is a good idea.  Even if we were to state that the Israelites were rather good at treating their slaves well, do you think it's a good idea that humanity embraces this practice?

3 hours ago, LuftWaffle said:

The reason I didn't elaborate too much on the contractual thing is because a) we've had this conversation before and b) this is a red herring to get away from the fact that atheism cannot make sense of morality.

I think atheism does fine.  In fact, I think secular morality is superior to theistic.  Your case for morality allows for ISIS to in fact be committing "good" acts by doing God's will. 

3 hours ago, LuftWaffle said:

It challenges your claim that morality is obscure and that it evolved in a messy fashion. My point is that the fundamentals were always the same.

What I don't understand is why we need to reach for a supernatural explanation for why this is. 

3 hours ago, LuftWaffle said:

Christian values or human stubbornness?  I'm glad though that your argument has moved from "I don't see any evidence of moral progress as a result of Christian beliefs" to "why did it take so long". I get that you'll never accept that Christianity did good in the world, so I'll take this as a half-hearted concession.

I wasn't conceding anything.  I was momentarily giving you the benefit of the doubt in order to show that even if you were correct, the effectiveness of Christian values is pretty poor.

3 hours ago, LuftWaffle said:

Some say the American constitution is the greatest constitution ever written: and I believe that this too is thanks to it's formulators belief that men are created equal and that as such they have inalienable rights endowed by a moral authority, right?

There's no mention of a moral authority.  If you look at the writings of the founding fathers, they are not like the bible thumping evangelical Americans we see today.  Many of them would be considered heretics today for their lack of faith.  Thomas Jefferson is an example.  At any rate, good ideas are good ideas irregardless of what religious beliefs the person holds.   By your logic should we look at the founders of Apple, inventory their religion beliefs and credit a religion for giving us the iphone?

3 hours ago, LuftWaffle said:

Then we got science which has shown that we don't need god (lowercase is super important even though it's a proper noun) anymore. Some Christians try to be as clever as we are by attempting to argue for the existence of God, but if they were rational they'd realise that any argument that leads to God is either circular, or is undercut by slavery.

I believe that religion was at one time our best explanation for reality, for the world around us.   I think that religion provides auxiliary uses today that we have a very hard time letting go of.   I've said before that I understand that some people believe that there's a creator God, but I don't see any convincing reason to conclude that that is the most plausible explanation.  

Now I'm told the Bible is the greatest work handed down from God to man.  This same book inspires people to tell me that I'm not really an atheist, deep down I know the truth and I'm suppressing it.    This book inspires people to tell me, in one breath that humanity is so fraught with corruption and shortcomings and yet in another breath if we end up in hell it's our fault because we should have known better.   It inspires people to tell me that the moral author of humanity actually allowed slavery like behaviors for his chosen people but we can rationalize that and brush it under a rug. 

So I do have my reasons why I think religion(s) at one time were our best source of answers for the world around us,  I just think today that there are other ideas that some [like myself] consider more compelling.   Humanity has gaps in our understanding, it's frustrating for sure...where secular and religious people disagree is whether we should fill these gaps with the supernatural.

Edited January 19, 2017 by Bonky

[Bonky]

2 hours ago, LuftWaffle said:

Define rationality? Also, please elaborate on how a rational proposition becomes a moral imperative.
Are you a determinist? By this I mean do you believe that all human actions are ultimately caused by the inevitable workings of the laws of nature?

I didn't see this last question before I hit send on my last post.  It's 4am where I'm at...I'll respond later today after I rest.

[Bonky]

9 hours ago, Bonky said:

12 hours ago, LuftWaffle said:

Define rationality? Also, please elaborate on how a rational proposition becomes a moral imperative.
Are you a determinist? By this I mean do you believe that all human actions are ultimately caused by the inevitable workings of the laws of nature?

I didn't see this last question before I hit send on my last post.  It's 4am where I'm at...I'll respond later today after I rest.

I haven't studied up on this in great detail but I would say I'm a compatibilist.  If you agree that "Life is preferable to death. Pleasure is preferable to pain. Health is generally preferable to sickness" then moral structure can easily take place with reason and rationality.   

[Seanc]

On 1/19/2017 at 1:41 PM, Bonky said:

I haven't studied up on this in great detail but I would say I'm a compatibilist.  If you agree that "Life is preferable to death. Pleasure is preferable to pain. Health is generally preferable to sickness" then moral structure can easily take place with reason and rationality.   

if the reason and rationality applies only to yourself then sure, but how does "your" morals explain situations where your life takes another's or your pleasure causes another pain?

[Bonky]

18 hours ago, Seanc said:

if the reason and rationality applies only to yourself then sure, but how does "your" morals explain situations where your life takes another's or your pleasure causes another pain?

The whole point is that these fundamentals don't just apply to me, they apply to all humans.  So it's pretty easy to see that me killing someone robs them of their will to be healthy and alive. 

[Seanc]

53 minutes ago, Bonky said:

The whole point is that these fundamentals don't just apply to me, they apply to all humans.  So it's pretty easy to see that me killing someone robs them of their will to be healthy and alive. 

If this applies to all humanity then at some point in time someone's life will cause another to lose his and someone's pleasure will cause someone else pain. Where does you theory fit in then? Seems your talking more about natural instincts more than morality

[Bonky]

58 minutes ago, Seanc said:

If this applies to all humanity then at some point in time someone's life will cause another to lose his and someone's pleasure will cause someone else pain. Where does you theory fit in then? Seems your talking more about natural instincts more than morality

You're not being very specific so I'm not sure what I'm even responding to.  I also never claimed that my "theory" of morality had all the answers or an answer for every situation.  

[Seanc]

19 minutes ago, Bonky said:

You're not being very specific so I'm not sure what I'm even responding to.  I also never claimed that my "theory" of morality had all the answers or an answer for every situation.  

I was only pointing out the flaws in the vague descriptions that you gave, I cant go into anymore detail unless you do also. Not trying to be sound confrontational which is hard through text. only trying to be clear and direct. 

[Bonky]

So let's clear things up.  Earlier in this discussion I stated:

Quote

If you agree that "Life is preferable to death. Pleasure is preferable to pain. Health is generally preferable to sickness" then moral structure can easily take place with reason and rationality.  

 

You responded by saying:

Quote

if the reason and rationality applies only to yourself then sure, but how does "your" morals explain situations where your life takes another's or your pleasure causes another pain?

Reason and rationality don't just apply to me, neither does the statement "Life is preferable to death. Pleasure is preferable to pain. Health is generally preferable to sickness".

 

So given the presupposition:  "Life is preferable to death. Pleasure is preferable to pain. Health is generally preferable to sickness".  Do you agree or not agree that reason and rationality can guide morality?