moral question

[waitasec]

Is it more moral leaving them to the desert elements to die slowly?

wa:do

if i may,
that is a good point and i see what you mean, however in the context of these OT stories it seems to be in order to obliterate the enemy, they were told to keep young virgin girls for the raping, thusly more slaves.

 

[Autodidact]

Not if you don't want them to contribute to your gene pool. Or to grow up wanting revenge.

Given the time period, technology and so on... orphanages are not a likely option.

wa:do

Nothing? You've got a baby with no parents, and the only thing you can think of to do with it is kill it? Seriously? Because I can think of many more moral choices.

 

[painted wolf]

if i may,
that is a good point and i see what you mean, however in the context of these OT stories it seems to be in order to obliterate the enemy, they were told to keep young virgin girls for the raping, thusly more slaves.

Yes but those children would still have fathers among their captors, and male slaves have the possibility of being assimilated into the free populace.

Non-peer group male children can never become proper Israelites, they will thus always be a threat. Male slave children, with Israelite fathers can be consecrated into the religion/culture.

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

Nothing? You've got a baby with no parents, and the only thing you can think of to do with it is kill it? Seriously? Because I can think of many more moral choices.

You have a rival for mates, resources and a person who can never contribute to your culture except as an enemy. Modern morality is nice, but in a time and place where your own genetic kin are at risk of disease, malnutrition and attack the monkeysphere shrinks noticeably.

I have more choices and security than anyone in the bronze age... thus my morality is far freer to accommodate others. After all they are not immediate rivals for resources. If that changes, my morality will likely have to change to cope.

How many orphans have you saved?

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

You have a rival for mates, resources and a person who can never contribute to your culture except as an enemy. Modern morality is nice, but in a time and place where your own genetic kin are at risk of disease, malnutrition and attack the monkeysphere shrinks noticeably.

So your position is that after you have killed all but the virgins, all without any provocation, merely for (1) revenge or (2) conquest of land [the two reasons given in the Bible] it is moral to then kill the baby boys?

How many orphans have you saved?

One.

So if I understand correctly, your morality is that under certain circumstances, such as if you have already killed their parents, stabbing babies to death is moral?

 

[painted wolf]

So your position is that after you have killed all but the virgins, all without any provocation, merely for (1) revenge or (2) conquest of land [the two reasons given in the Bible] it is moral to then kill the baby boys?

I'm saying that people living in a marginal habitat under primitive conditions will not have the same morality as a comfortable modern non-xenophobe.

One.

Awesome! You are one better than I, I've had to settle with fostering (and hopefully will do so again in the future)... far too poor to adopt.

So if I understand correctly, your morality is that under certain circumstances, such as if you have already killed their parents, stabbing babies to death is moral?

I'm saying morality is at least partially biology... and it is fluid based on circumstance. Ultimately we are evolved to stick with a core "monkeysphere" of peers and others outside that group become less important.
Living under stress exaggerates these aspects of our biology.

It's all well and good to declare something "evil" when you are living comfortably... it's far different when you are living in a desert, with little food and a lot of enemies.

If you are not going to adopt the child for complex social and biological reasons, it is more moral to not let the child suffer a slow death. Much like it is more moral to abort a child with extreme Harlequin syndrome than to let it die a slow painful death of infection, bleeding and starvation.

Today in a world of international aid and diplomacy such an action is horrific... but they were not living in the same world we do. I don't agree with their actions, but I do understand why they did what they did.

It's still hypocritical to attack them for atrocities when we are plenty of guilty of them ourselves.

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

I'm saying that people living in a marginal habitat under primitive conditions will not have the same morality as a comfortable modern non-xenophobe.

Yes, that's true. But this thread is not an anthropological exploration of human cultural variation. Using your current morality, are these actions moral?

Awesome! You are one better than I, I've had to settle with fostering (and hopefully will do so again in the future)... far too poor to adopt.

PM me. It cost me almost nothing.

It's all well and good to declare something "evil" when you are living comfortably... it's far different when you are living in a desert, with little food and a lot of enemies.

Well, like most of the posters here, I am living comfortably, not in a desert, with little food and a lot of enemies.

If you are not going to adopt the child for complex social and biological reasons, it is more moral to not let the child suffer a slow death

I can think of many kinder options than killing them. You can adopt them. You can take them to relatives to adopt. You can let their older sisters take care of them. You can let the oldest ones take care of the youngest ones. You can raise them as slaves. Oh, and you can not slaughter every living adult in their tribe.

Today in a world of international aid and diplomacy such an action is horrific... but they were not living in the same world we do. I don't agree with their actions, but I do understand why they did what they did.

In actuality I don't think any of it happened. I do understand why they believe they did those things. One is a basic tribal outlook, based on being tribal nomads. I agree; this is a very poor basis for a modern morality. Which is my point--the Bible is a horrible resource for moral decisions in the modern world.

It's still hypocritical to attack them for atrocities when we are plenty of guilty of them ourselves.

I'm not attacking them. I don't even think they existed. I'm using them as a teaching hypo for modern Christians--the ones who say things like the Bible is a necessary basis for a sound morality, Atheists have no basis on which to make moral decisions, and the like. If you doubt that there are many such people, I will be happy to go out on the net and find a few quotes for you.

 

[painted wolf]

Yes, that's true. But this thread is not an anthropological exploration of human cultural variation. Using your current morality, are these actions moral?

Absolutely not...

PM me. It cost me almost nothing.

Thanks.

Well, like most of the posters here, I am living comfortably, not in a desert, with little food and a lot of enemies.

I've been faced with the prospect of marginal living...

I can think of many kinder options than killing them.

Absolutely... but we are not them. We don't have the cultural and situational stressors they did.

You can adopt them.

They are not and can never be part of the "chosen people". To adopt them invites tragedy.

You can take them to relatives to adopt.

That would go over well now wouldn't it... "sorry I killed your relatives dad, took his mum and sisters as my slaves, but here have an extra baby to take care of... nice to see you btw."

You can let their older sisters take care of them.

And distract them from their work?

You can let the oldest ones take care of the youngest ones.

Lord of the Flies...

You can raise them as slaves.

And have one of them turn on you like Moses did to the pharaoh.

Oh, and you can not slaughter every living adult in their tribe.

And leave some of them to retaliate?

In actuality I don't think any of it happened. I do understand why they believe they did those things. One is a basic tribal outlook, based on being tribal nomads. I agree; this is a very poor basis for a modern morality. Which is my point--the Bible is a horrible resource for moral decisions in the modern world.

Actually it's not that horrible... if you accept that it has lessons on what is wrong as well as what is right. And that not all of it is to be taken as literal lessons on moral action.

I'm not attacking them. I don't even think they existed. I'm using them as a teaching hypo for modern Christians--the ones who say things like the Bible is a necessary basis for a sound morality, Atheists have no basis on which to make moral decisions, and the like. If you doubt that there are many such people, I will be happy to go out on the net and find a few quotes for you.

Oh I agree that such people exist, I've met more than a few here. And it's an important lesson...

I still think your OP wording was a trap though.

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

I still think your OP wording was a trap though.

wa:do

Of course it was a trap! It's a trap that snares anyone who actually believes the Bible is a source of morality. Yet millions of people continue to believe it. I mean, surely I'm not the first person to read those passages and think, "That's horrible, certainly immoral. This book is not a good moral guide."

 

[Nooj]

Are you one of those people?

Are you asking if I'm one of those people who think that killing babies can be right? I'm not sure. I'm still thinking about it.

No, I argue that killing babies, in and of itself, is wrong.

Why?

Of course intention matters. If I happen to be late for the bus, causing the bus to pause a minute for me to get on, and as a result the bus is in the exact spot to hit a toddler that runs into the street, and kills it, I am not morally culpable, or certainly not as morally culpable as if I take out a sword, walk up to a sleeping baby, and stab it to death. I would think that would be obvious.

Why is it obvious?

So my question is, is it suddenly moral just because God commands it?

What if God had a good reason to command it? If there was a good reason behind killing everyone except the girls and taking them as sex slaves, would you support it? After all, intentions matter don't they?

 

[painted wolf]

Of course it was a trap! It's a trap that snares anyone who actually believes the Bible is a source of morality. Yet millions of people continue to believe it. I mean, surely I'm not the first person to read those passages and think, "That's horrible, certainly immoral. This book is not a good moral guide."

No, it was a broader trap than that... the open wording leaves other issues like abortion, war and the treatment of the poor up for debate as well.

More children are killed by water born diseases than anything else... yet these are easily prevented illnesses... so why do we let so many children die such horrible deaths?

Aren't all of us in prosperous countries morally culpable for our inaction in stopping those deaths?

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

No, it was a broader trap than that... the open wording leaves other issues like abortion, war and the treatment of the poor up for debate as well.

More children are killed by water born diseases than anything else... yet these are easily prevented illnesses... so why do we let so many children die such horrible deaths?

Aren't all of us in prosperous countries morally culpable for our inaction in stopping those deaths?

wa:do

Possibly, but all of those are weaker cases. You can make an argument for that. But this is the most extreme case: deliberately murdering a healthy baby.

It's not necessary to bring in less obvious cases, which do not clarify, but rather muddy, the issue.

 

[Nooj]

Possibly, but all of those are weaker cases. You can make an argument for that. But this is the most extreme case: deliberately murdering a healthy baby.

I don't see what murder has to do with it. Murder is a legal category and the legality of an action doesn't necessarily say anything about its morality. By modern international laws, the actions you're criticising would definitely be considered unlawful, but that doesn't automatically mean they were immoral.

 

[painted wolf]

Possibly, but all of those are weaker cases. You can make an argument for that. But this is the most extreme case: deliberately murdering a healthy baby.

It's not necessary to bring in less obvious cases, which do not clarify, but rather muddy, the issue.

But morality is most strongly defined in the places where it's muddiest.

Clear cut cases are boring and uninformative.

Also, one could argue that abortion is often a case of deliberately killing a healthy baby.

The same with war... and as for poverty: isn't preventing a child from having safe drinking water essentially murder? Or at least manslaughter.

wa:do

 

[Orias]

But morality is most strongly defined in the places where it's muddiest.

Clear cut cases are boring and uninformative.

Also, one could argue that abortion is often a case of deliberately killing a healthy baby.

The same with war... and as for poverty: isn't preventing a child from having safe drinking water essentially murder? Or at least manslaughter.

wa:do

Morality is irrelevant to reality.

It's an unconditional stance, self preservation is the highest law.

 

[Autodidact]

But morality is most strongly defined in the places where it's muddiest.

Clear cut cases are boring and uninformative.

Also, one could argue that abortion is often a case of deliberately killing a healthy baby.

The same with war... and as for poverty: isn't preventing a child from having safe drinking water essentially murder? Or at least manslaughter.

wa:do

Apparently, for many Christians, this is not a clear cut case.

 

[painted wolf]

Apparently, for many Christians, this is not a clear cut case.

But many others recognize the difference between morality then and now. Others at least situationally... much like we do. Except that they admit it more readily.

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

Morality is irrelevant to reality.

It's an unconditional stance, self preservation is the highest law.

Usually, but not always. We have a habit of self sacrifice as a species as well.

wa:do

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Which is why morality is not black and white... and why this subject is a trap.

If you say killing babies is ok, you are a monster by admission.. but if you say it's never ok, then you are a monster by omission.

wa:do

ps. I totally agree we are morally obliged to take the action that reduces the most suffering possible.

I think these scenarios are a good illustration of why I think it's usually most useful to look at morality in terms of weighing alternatives in terms of value and worth rather than in terms of a static code of "do this, don't do that".

Apparently, for many Christians, this is not a clear cut case.

Maybe because they place a high value on obedience to God.

 

[Autodidact]

But many others recognize the difference between morality then and now. Others at least situationally... much like we do. Except that they admit it more readily.

wa:do

You can take the view that we should empathize with an ancient morality, and understand why people in that time and place might make decisions we would no longer consider acceptable, or you can take the position that the Bible should be a guide to our modern moral decisions, but I don't see how you can assert both these things.