Christianity v. Secular Humanism

[night912]

b) You are confusing a precept (God’s people have freedom, the enemies of God’s people will be enslaved/destroyed)

No, I just wanted to see if you are going to contradict yourself, and apparently you just did here. How can your God's/biblical moral laws be absolute if it's moral to own the enemies of God's people as slaves but is immoral to own God's people as slaves?

You are confused as to what absolute morality is.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Your "morality" is based on asking the slaveholder what's appropriate for the treatment of the slave(the Bible.)

Our morality is based on asking the slave whatever they think about being enslaved(humanism.)

Since the slaves themselves will universally say "slavery is wrong" I'm going to take that as my "moral imperative." You're supposed to ask the person receiving the short end of the stick. Not the person administering said stick. I.E The person taking away someone else's rights and freedoms is not the arbiter of morality; The person whose rights and freedoms are being taken away is. That's all there is to it.

But my ultimate point isn't "proof." It's just this:

You're morally bankrupt and inconsistent. And the Bible is morally bankrupt and inconsistent.




It also says to take as possessions subjugated peoples.

That's evidence of the inconsistency and moral bankruptcy of the Bible and your worldview. Not mine. When it says both moral and immoral things, it's not consistent. My stance is entirely consistent.



Because when i ask the slave whether or not it's moral being enslaved, they'll say "it's not moral." Your analogy is just bad.



I was "taught" that the people of those times, educated in such a manner to think that slavery is productive for humanity(!) are horrible monsters. I recognize the existence of such monsters.



ALL cultures embracing slavery are immoral and inconsistent. Slavery IS just as bad as murder. Because in both cases YOU are doing something to deprive ANOTHER person of something else. Without asking the target of your actions.

I.E During the millenia there have been horrible idiots and monsters. Lots of them. Lots of them were looked upon as "moral guides" by other monsters and idiots like themselves.



I invoke neither evolutionary imperatives or cultural / teaching bias. I ask the person targeted by what i perceive to be immoral actions whether or not they like it. If they don't like it, it's immoral to do something to them against their will.

But as far as evolutionary imperatives do go: Human evolution shows that helping and caring for those around you is beneficial. Whereas murdering others of your species or subjugating them is probably not helping.



You can say that. But it'd make you one of those monsters i was talking about.

I've read all you've written to me. Now answer my questions. I'm rephrasing them:

1) Why is slavery wrong? (You wrote it's wrong to deprive someone of something else.) Yet we can think of examples where it's right to deprive someone of something, for example, incarceration for a murderer.

2) If slavery is inherently wrong, than absolute morals exist. How can absolutes exist in metaphysics/intangibles? I'm asking you.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I would prefer a response that speaks to the points I made, rather than this generic response you've made to everyone, as I have already answered some of your questions.

Nobody that I'm aware of "invokes evolutionary imperatives to say slavery is wrong." I certainly haven't and had you read my response you'd already have known that. I've actually described to you on multiple occasions (including this very post you are responding to) how I go about determining what is moral and what is immoral.

I really don't care that "slavery was taught as helpful to society" because reason, logic and observation tell is that is not true. You seem to have bought into that idea though.


If morality is not about the wellbeing of sentient creatures, then what is it about, in your mind?

Please don't make me point out again that I am not (and nobody that I've ever seen) is arguing that we should take our morality from evolutionary theory. I'm not even sure what that means, to be honest.

**

Atheism isn't something that's moral or immoral. It's just the rejection of god claims.

I explained a little bit about how slavery is immoral in my last post. It would be awesome if you'd respond to that instead of this generic type of post you've written here.

Slavery IS about the wellbeing of sentient creatures. Some sentient creatures prosper by enslaving other sentient creatures. Why is this inherently wrong when humans do it?

Do you protest when lions eat gazelles? Aren't lions preying on other sentient, even sapient, creatures?

Why is it okay for men to saddle a horse or limit the freedom of a dog or cat, but not to burden a human?

 

[BilliardsBall]

No, I am not interested in reading what appears to be a Liar for Jesus. By the way, that is not an ad hom. Tell me does he support them myths of Exodus or Genesis? If so you have to know that he is not honest. I have not checked out all of his works. But the fact is that your source is garbage. As most Christian sources are. He is only a self claimed "expert". Worse yet his citations are all worthless. Do you know why?

I've not heard that we can take a class of persons and call them all liars based on their belief systems. What kind of fallacy is that guilty of, do you think?

 

[BilliardsBall]

No, I just wanted to see if you are going to contradict yourself, and apparently you just did here. How can your God's/biblical moral laws be absolute if it's moral to own the enemies of God's people as slaves but is immoral to own God's people as slaves?

You are confused as to what absolute morality is.

Moral absolutism is an ethical view that all actions are intrinsically right or wrong.

You are not a moral absolutist, if you are, your stance on slavery (don't oppress the weak), for example, would not contradict your stance on abortion (don't kill the weak).

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've not heard that we can take a class of persons and call them all liars based on their belief systems. What kind of fallacy is that guilty of, do you think?

We can't. That is not what I did.

Try again.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Slavery IS about the wellbeing of sentient creatures. Some sentient creatures prosper by enslaving other sentient creatures. Why is this inherently wrong when humans do it?

Yeah, and guess who doesn't prosper ...

The slave!

Do you protest when lions eat gazelles? Aren't lions preying on other sentient, even sapient, creatures?

I protest when humans eat other humans. Or harm other humans. Or are cruel to animals. Or hunt for sport.

I don't protest when animals in nature do what they do, even though I may not like it. I also don't base my morality upon evolution, as I've stated several times now (I've also stated that I'm not even sure what you mean by that) so I don't know why you continue to harp on it. It's as though you haven't even read my posts to you at all.

Why is it okay for men to saddle a horse or limit the freedom of a dog or cat, but not to burden a human?

Human beings created domesticated animals, which means they wouldn't make it in the wild. The moral onus is on us, to take care of the lives we created. It would be cruel to release them into the wild.

I'm not into saddling horses. I have a huge problem with horse or dog racing as well.



Now, maybe you could explain what these questions have to do with the points being made in this discussion, and how they speak to your points about Biblical morality.
And maybe you could answer the question I posed to you, which was, If morality is not about the wellbeing of sentient creatures, then what is it about, in your mind?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Moral absolutism is an ethical view that all actions are intrinsically right or wrong.

You are not a moral absolutist, if you are, your stance on slavery (don't oppress the weak), for example, would not contradict your stance on abortion (don't kill the weak).

Not necessarily. One could take the Biblical view that the soul enters with the first breath. Therefore it is not a sin to abort a fetus. That works up to birth by the way.

 

[dybmh]

Why is slavery wrong?

1) Slavery, as opposed to criminal incarceration or indentured servitude, is a version of theft.
2) If a person believes in God as described in the Bible, then slavery denies the inherent divinity in all human beings per Genesis 1:26. Slavery devalues human beings and makes them equivilant in status to animals. See below:

Why is it okay for men to saddle a horse or limit the freedom of a dog or cat, but not to burden a human?

People are not animals.

 

[Subduction Zone]

People are not animals

Actually they are, but we understand what you mean.

 

[dybmh]

Actually they are, but we understand what you mean.

What's a better way to say it? "Animals are not people"?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Moral absolutism is an ethical view that all actions are intrinsically right or wrong.

You are not a moral absolutist, if you are, your stance on slavery (don't oppress the weak), for example, would not contradict your stance on abortion (don't kill the weak).

Your view apparently doesn't account for nuances. You're strictly a black and white guy, it seems. I don't think black-and-white-thinking accurately represents reality.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Yeah, and guess who doesn't prosper ...

The slave!


I protest when humans eat other humans. Or harm other humans. Or are cruel to animals. Or hunt for sport.

I don't protest when animals in nature do what they do, even though I may not like it. I also don't base my morality upon evolution, as I've stated several times now (I've also stated that I'm not even sure what you mean by that) so I don't know why you continue to harp on it. It's as though you haven't even read my posts to you at all.



Human beings created domesticated animals, which means they wouldn't make it in the wild. The moral onus is on us, to take care of the lives we created. It would be cruel to release them into the wild.

I'm not into saddling horses. I have a huge problem with horse or dog racing as well.



Now, maybe you could explain what these questions have to do with the points being made in this discussion, and how they speak to your points about Biblical morality.
And maybe you could answer the question I posed to you, which was, If morality is not about the wellbeing of sentient creatures, then what is it about, in your mind?

Yes, the slave does not prosper. How did you come to understand that all humans ought to prosper/benefit? We can see the survival imperative operating much differently in nature--for example, there are species that eat their own.

How did you come to understand that all humans ought to prosper/benefit for a system to be moral?

Why do you protest when humans eat other humans? ... is a question designed to see where you're coming from. I keep getting from atheists at RF silly answers, like "obviously it's wrong, you disgust me." I'm trying to be Socratic, to get you to consider your ways.

My questions have to do with biblical morality, of course. It is superior to secular morality and you cannot sit as a judge of biblical morality (effectively) unless you explain how you derive your moral choices.

Your question was "If morality is not about the wellbeing of sentient creatures, then what is it about, in your mind?"

To me, moral choices obey God/are consistent with Bible morals, which requires, for example, at some points, the death of sentient creatures, to execute justice! Capital punishment, for example, favors the wellbeing of potential human prey (future murder victims) over the predator (a known murderer).

 

[BilliardsBall]

1) Slavery, as opposed to criminal incarceration or indentured servitude, is a version of theft.
2) If a person believes in God as described in the Bible, then slavery denies the inherent divinity in all human beings per Genesis 1:26. Slavery devalues human beings and makes them equivilant in status to animals. See below:


People are not animals.

Are you a Christian or a secularist, perhaps? Every biology text I've seen says people ARE animals.

 

[dybmh]

Are you a Christian or a secularist, perhaps? Every biology text I've seen says people ARE animals.

No. I'm Jewish.

Maybe it would have been better to say: Animals aren't the same as people.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes, the slave does not prosper. How did you come to understand that all humans ought to prosper/benefit? We can see the survival imperative operating much differently in nature--for example, there are species that eat their own.
How did you come to understand that all humans ought to prosper/benefit for a system to be moral?

Yes, slaves do not prosper. As in, their wellbeing is not being addressed. And, as I said, if morality is about anything, it's about the wellbeing of humans (and sentient creatures).

Humans kill each other too. That doesn't make it moral (though it may be moral in some cases, for example, when a person is suffering. There's that nuance again ). But we recognize that it's not a behaviour that optimizes the wellbeing of human beings or of society. In fact, it's a detriment to society if people have to walk around all day worrying that they could be murdered at any moment. It's also a detriment to society if everyone gets murdered, because then there is no more society and no wellbeing for anyone.

Why do you protest when humans eat other humans? ... is a question designed to see where you're coming from. I keep getting from atheists at RF silly answers, like "obviously it's wrong, you disgust me." I'm trying to be Socratic, to get you to consider your ways.

Why do I protest when humans eat other humans?

Well, I do, and I don't. Depends on the situation. If a person is being murdered and eaten, I definitely would protest that. Their wellbeing is completely being taken away from them.
But what if it's a situation similar to one where those Chilean soccer players whose plane went down in the Andes Mountains ended up eating the dead in order to stay alive and attempt to save the remaining survivors? In that case, I would say it's not immoral. The wellbeing of the already-dead person is not being compromised while the wellbeing of those still alive and starving people needs to be addressed.

My questions have to do with biblical morality, of course. It is superior to secular morality and you cannot sit as a judge of biblical morality (effectively) unless you explain how you derive your moral choices.

If Biblical morality is about following orders and commands, then I would have to argue that that is not an exercise in morality at all. That cannot be superior to secular morality, because secular morality involves thinking through our actions and their consequences and weighing out the impact of our actions on those around us. Following commands doesn't involve any of that.

Your question was "If morality is not about the wellbeing of sentient creatures, then what is it about, in your mind?"

To me, moral choices obey God/are consistent with Bible morals, which requires, for example, at some points, the death of sentient creatures, to execute justice! Capital punishment, for example, favors the wellbeing of potential human prey (future murder victims) over the predator (a known murderer).

I don't agree that capital punishment is moral. I think it's hypocritical. Once a person is dead, they can't sit and think about the consequences of their actions as a form of punishment. They won't be thinking of much of anything after that. It's the easy way out for them.

This doesn't really answer the question though. I asked what morality is about. Not where or who you think it comes from. It sounds to me like you are saying morality is about following orders from a deity.

 

[Darkstorn]

1) Why is slavery wrong? (You wrote it's wrong to deprive someone of something else.) Yet we can think of examples where it's right to deprive someone of something, for example, incarceration for a murderer.

Sometimes it's also "right" to deprive a person of a snake biting their leg. Your analogy and/or understanding is poor: The point was that it's wrong to deprive someone of anything without their consent. As the depriver, you are not the arbiter of moral justice.

2) If slavery is inherently wrong, than absolute morals exist. How can absolutes exist in metaphysics/intangibles? I'm asking you.

Slavery is "only" wrong in the way that it's never right. Again, I have no problem professing "absolute morals" whatever that means if I can justify them.

Half of this thread is YOU first trying to make the case that the bible is "objectively moral" and "consistent" and that you feel slavery is wrong.

When that didn't work out you changed your tune and instead of admitting to the inconsistency of bible morals, you show us the inconsistency of your morality: Your morals change on a whim.

You went from slavery being wrong to slavery being right to try to justify the "absolute morals" of the bible instead of justifying your own position.

I think morality is subjective: There is no ojective morality. But for the record: Almost all statements of morality are "absolute" in that they say something is either wrong or right.

For example, the ten commandments are absolute. They don't say "thou shalt not murder, except on Tuesdays" for example.

 

[night912]

Moral absolutism is an ethical view that all actions are intrinsically right or wrong.

You are not a moral absolutist, if you are, your stance on slavery (don't oppress the weak), for example, would not contradict your stance on abortion (don't kill the weak).

No you're wrong, that's not what moral absolutism. Moral absolutism is the view that whatever that is wrong, it's wrong in all situation. It doesn't compare different actions with one another. It only compares the same actions. Moral absolutism doesn't deal with how to determine what is right or wrong. It deals with being consistent with what is right and wrong.

If someone is a moral absolutist and thinks that slavery is morally wrong(immoral), then no matter on culture, society, what situation it is or who they are, slavery is morally wrong (immoral). If they think that slavery is morally right (moral), then there is no situation where slavery is immoral.

Or if lying is immoral, then no matter what situation it is, lying is always immoral. Even if you lie to save numerous lives, you still committed an immoral act.

b) You are confusing a precept (God’s people have freedom, the enemies of God’s people will be enslaved/destroyed)

So you contradicted yourself by saying that slavery is not immoral, then say that slavery is morally right for the enemies of God's people to be own as slaves, but it's immoral for God's people to be own as slaves.

There's a thing called graded absolutism, but first you must understand what moral absolutism before discussing it.

 

[night912]

Slavery IS about the wellbeing of sentient creatures. Some sentient creatures prosper by enslaving other sentient creatures. Why is this inherently wrong when humans do it?

Wellbeing consists of all humans. The wellbeing of a human slave is effected.

Do you protest when lions eat gazelles? Aren't lions preying on other sentient, even sapient, creatures?

Has nothing to do with slavery.

Why is it okay for men to saddle a horse or limit the freedom of a dog or cat, but not to burden a human?

Slavery is a human being owning another human being as property. So dogs, cats, horses are not human, therefore your defense is irrelevant and just a red herring.

Also, stay with the same moral act that is being discussed. Animals eating animals have nothing to do with slavery. Humans eating humans have nothing to do with slavery.

 

[McBell]

I've not heard that we can take a class of persons and call them all liars based on their belief systems. What kind of fallacy is that guilty of, do you think?

You committed the Strawman Fallacy.