Reason is the Most Important Driver of Human Moral Progress?

[Shadow Wolf]

As far as i remember from reading the bible, the 10 commandments were given to Moses directly from God, so no they are not written by a man. But remember, Christian teaching only counts for Christians, So for us who are not following Christianity why use time and energy on criticizing their teaching? If you do not follow the teaching it's ok, keep on living the life you wish.

The 10 Commandments are very specific to the Jews. Such as the commandment to observe the feast of unleavened bread.

 

[Revoltingest]

Then why is there so much competition?

Because there's that too.

(I had to jump in for this question.)

 

[Spirit of Light]

The 10 Commandments are very specific to the Jews. Such as the commandment to observe the feast of unleavened bread.

Ten Commandments list

1. You shall have no other gods before Me.
2. You shall make no idols.
3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
4. Keep the Sabbath day holy.
5. Honor your father and your mother.
6. You shall not murder.
7. You shall not commit adultery.
8. You shall not steal.
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
10. You shall not covet.

which,one is about unleaved bread?

 

[Nakosis]

Then why is there so much competition?

There's both. Competition and cooperation. There is good and bad competition. The idea in good competition is to better oneself. Like in playing chess, sometimes you lose. You then analyze the game, find your mistake and do better in the next competition. One learns from each loss.

Bad competition is when the rules are unfair. Like when the laws are unfair and give a corporation an unfair advantage.

 

[Moz]

So Paul's solution to the problem of slavery boils down to 'don't rock the boat?'

As an Apostle he could have used his authority to make Philemon release his slaves AND used the situation to condemn slavery and urge owners to release them, BUT HE DID NOT!

Hi

Well you are being a bit trite but yes what the hell.... "Don't rock the boat" was probably the best you are gonna get and it is a long way from ENDORSING slavery as you started out saying so i guess you do see SOME nuance in the issue.

Ok let's solve this.
First Paul did not have the Authority to order Philemon to do anything of the sort and also any "official" proclamation by Paul would have had legal and political ramifications for All those who were slaves and slave owners. A mass slave revolt is NOT a good idea in the Roman empire. That WILL bring in the legions.

But you tell me what YOUR decision would have been , remembering that this would affect all christian slaves and slave owners across multiple Empires and cultures.
Really ... come up with a Viable alternative where you have considered the real world affects and i will conceed that i am wrong.

Peace

 

[Wandering Monk]

Hi

Well you are being a bit trite but yes what the hell.... "Don't rock the boat" was probably the best you are gonna get and it is a long way from ENDORSING slavery as you started out saying so i guess you do see SOME nuance in the issue.

Ok let's solve this.
First Paul did not have the Authority to order Philemon to do anything of the sort and also any "official" proclamation by Paul would have had legal and political ramifications for All those who were slaves and slave owners. A mass slave revolt is NOT a good idea in the Roman empire. That WILL bring in the legions.

But you tell me what YOUR decision would have been , remembering that this would affect all christian slaves and slave owners across multiple Empires and cultures.
Really ... come up with a Viable alternative where you have considered the real world affects and i will conceed that i am wrong.

Peace

The Apostles had God-given authority over the churches.

Romans were known to free their slaves on occasion. Some were even adopted into Roman households. So this would not have been an unprecedented act for Philemon to release his slave. Slavery in ancient Rome - Wikipedia

Now, if a pagan Roman could release his slaves, surely a righteous Christian church leader could do it. Why didn't Paul even suggest this to Philemon?

Obviously, Paul didn't have a problem with slavery. That is the endorsement I am talking about.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Ten Commandments list

1. You shall have no other gods before Me.
2. You shall make no idols.
3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
4. Keep the Sabbath day holy.
5. Honor your father and your mother.
6. You shall not murder.
7. You shall not commit adultery.
8. You shall not steal.
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
10. You shall not covet.

which,one is about unleaved bread?

That's not the 10 Commandments. Exodus 34 features the what is the 10 Commandments.

 

[Wandering Monk]

That's not the 10 Commandments. Exodus 34 features the what is the 10 Commandments.

DECALOGUE - JewishEncyclopedia.com

 

[QuestioningMind]

Hi
The Chinese seem to be reviving the Gulag system, millions imprisoned for religious or ideological objections. They have also instituted a factory system that might not be slavery but it is only a hairs breath from it.

As for the slaughter. The moral west was quite ok with the fire bombing of civilians, women, children and the elderly, by the 100's of 1000's. They bombed the Indo-Chinese relenetlessly in the jungles of Vietnam and Laos only a couple of decades ago.

What has stopped the uncontrolled bloodshed was not the HUMAN decision that mass slaughter is wrong, the big players in the game just got too smart for their own good and built weapons that now make the bombing of each others civilian cities a trigger for nuclear annihilation. They have to kill on a smaller more "targeted" scale with proxies but the military spending is skyrocketing across the planet... that is not a sign of moral progress really is it?

The targeted killing of supposed enemies by drone strike seems to be the American answer to the moral problem of "war prisoners". They KILL them on suspicion because they can not charge them with any crime... they are in their own country defending their own homes after all....so kill them and if they happen to have their wife and kids with them then so much the better..... oh and we can hit the funeral and get the uncles and aunts as well, bonus. This is the world you are in right now.
Peace

Peace

Sorry, but all you've done is point out what I've already conceded... that we are still far from a perfectly moral society. However, pointing out ways in which we still behave immorally does not in any way address my contention that as a global society we are more moral that ever before in history.

 

[QuestioningMind]

If you look at the example from Christianity and Sodoma and Gomorra where they where extremely immoral and yes did hore and rape and probably a lot worse too, there has been a time where immoral was very high, But the problem of today is that we are going in to a time of same immoral that happen there.
I do not say everything was 100% before far from it. But I do see that human beings today are getting worse year by year, greed, anger, lies, disrespect for elders, are some of the other things that can be seen as immoral. unfortunately there are many examples of people who claim to be of a religion, and they exploit other people's trust, so no not everything within religion is god today.
But yes there are people of today who also do live morally good lives. so not all hopes are gone.

Again the fact that today we still have people acting immorally does not in any way dispute my claim that we are at least more moral than we were in the past. Just q few hundred years ago there wouldn't have been a single nation state that condemned slavery. Today virtually ALL nation states do. Claiming that we were somehow MORE moral when slavery was almost universally accepted suggests that you have a very bizarre definition of morality.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Hi
I am not sure that billions of people consider these action to be immoral. 1.5 billion Chinese seem 1.3 billion Indians are also pretty far from the rational morality that you crave. The South American psyche seems not to be to amenable to the western thought process as well and they seem ok with slaughter and atrocity. The African nations are also not on the bus of this rational morality
.........................................................

The seeming solidity of our society blinds you to the truth of human nature and morality. A drastic upheaval of the geo/political or economic system would see your "progressive morality" abandoned for pragmatic concerns about survival so fast your head would spin. I suppose the dystopian Zombie genre that is so popular these days shows what we actually think people would be like if thrust back into survival mode. Or the "preppers" armed up to kill anyone who would take what is theirs in the event of disaster.

When the shock does come, and it will eventually, it always does, it will be those who have their convictions built on solider foundations than mere reason who will show what true morality is. That is the example from the camps. That is the example from history.
..................................................................

On the drone thing... their is no debate that affects the actual program. They are now the new norm and are being rolled out by ALL militaries despite the "moral debate" amongst those who have no power to stop them. Drone tanks, ships, missles are all being developed. Autonomous AI killbots are the next horror to roll out with the rational moral defence of "Not putting our Boys in harms way". They can kill "the bad guys" by joystick in the comfort of safe airconditioned bunkers. It all actually getting worse on this front not better. Somehow the ancient way of man against man seems to be more moral to me actually.
........................................................................

For most of human history when innocent civilians were killed during a military strike, everyone would have just shrugged and said, "Yeah, so what? It's war.

Where are the people on the streets of America protesting the use of drones?
Where is the moral outrage other than a very small group of commentators in the public sphere.
Can you see any possibility that the American military would discontinue using drones for any reason whatsoever?
I think the majority attitude to civilian casualties is still.... so what, It;s war.

Peace

First off, I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that all 1.5 billion people in China are perfectly happy to accept government decisions that fly in the face of morality and human dignity and international order. You DO realize that people who live under oppressive governments are not able to safely voice their outrage at what the government does without fear of retribution, right?

But even id every single person in China and India does not agree with /Western morality', that doesn't change the reality that billions of people do.

As for being 'blind to human nature', you really need to reread what I've read. ALL I've claimed is that currently human beings generally exhibit more moral behavior that ever before in history. Nothing I've said claims that if there was a sudden catastrophic disaster that people would maintain that same level of morality.

All you've done is point out that human's still aren't perfectly moral, but you've done nothing to discredit my claims that generally people act MORE morally today that ever before in history.

 

[Wandering Monk]

These are good trends. Do they suggest we are becoming MORE immoral as we become more secular?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

DECALOGUE - JewishEncyclopedia.com

The list presented in exodus 34 is clearly labeled as the 10 commandments in the Bible. Not the other list every body else calls the 10.

 

[Wandering Monk]

The list presented in exodus 34 is clearly labeled as the 10 commandments in the Bible. Not the other list every body else calls the 10.

And yet, the Jews, to whom they were given, see them both as the ten commandments. Maybe you need to straighten them out.

 

[Milton Platt]

"Reason is the key driver of human moral progress."

EDIT: A more accurate summary of Newberger Goldstein's thesis might be, "Reason deserves the greatest credit for whatever moral progress we have seen and see in the world." Or -- not "reason is the key driver of human moral progress", but rather "reason is the single most important driver of human moral progress."

Comments?

One would at least hope that reason is the most prominent driver in moral progress.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

[Stevicus]

Geesh, capitalism? Capitalism does not require anyone to act in a barbarous manner. Folks make that choice.

Well, nothing requires anyone to act in a barbarous manner. I don't see this as any kind of argument.

 

[Moz]

First off, I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that all 1.5 billion people in China are perfectly happy to accept government decisions that fly in the face of morality and human dignity and international order. You DO realize that people who live under oppressive governments are not able to safely voice their outrage at what the government does without fear of retribution, right?

But even id every single person in China and India does not agree with /Western morality', that doesn't change the reality that billions of people do.

As for being 'blind to human nature', you really need to reread what I've read. ALL I've claimed is that currently human beings generally exhibit more moral behavior that ever before in history. Nothing I've said claims that if there was a sudden catastrophic disaster that people would maintain that same level of morality.

All you've done is point out that human's still aren't perfectly moral, but you've done nothing to discredit my claims that generally people act MORE morally today that ever before in history.

Hi
If you do not think that the eastern mindset has a very different cultural viewpoint on these things then fair enough.
If you think the lack of great power warfare is because of some moral superiority to our very near relations and not the fact that they cannot play that game because of Mutually Assured Destruction then fair enough.
If you think that MAD is an advance then fair enough.
If you think the rational approach to the problem of warfare is to farm it out to drones then ultimately AI then fair enough.
It is not so evident to me.
...............................................................
I don't think our "culture" has any moral standards in the realm of human sexuality... is it moral to cheat on your partner? It's wrong to get caught i suppose is what the moral ends up being when most situations are played out in the modern rational view. YOU have the right to do what YOU choose, you also should not cause pain to your partner but that is the lessor moral and now deal the cards........

..................................................................
It is necessary to paint in broad strokes on this sort of forum, surely there are points of debate within some of the things i pointed out. I did not MAKE them up.... there is a counterview that exists and deserves to be debated not just thrown out..

I did point out how over half the planet live to a different view so in reality your are defending "western civilization" and i think most of the advances you point out are economic and technological and the underlying moral structure, in the broadest sense of the word (individual results may vary) has plummeted. Is there no value in that argument. Is there no grey, You admit that economic disaster may cause a regression of rational morality so how is that not VALIDATING my point that morality built on nothing solid are mere fades and could be adjusted if the economic conditions dictated it a necessary. Forced labour, conscription, reproductive engineering are all scenarios can easily be drawn from the underlying principles of pragmatic rationalism.

Dan Carlins Hardcore History has an excellent Podcast on Human slavery through out history that might give you interesting things to think about. (Nothing religious or apologetic in nature) More economic than anything really.
...............................................................
Social media activism and identifying with oppressed people in some nebulous feel good group think way when you have no skin in the game is not morality it is merely peer group pressure and that is a dangerous thing to base anything on. I am not accusing you of any of these faults in your Personal Integrity you may have deeply thought out your moral stand but i do not think the majority give it anything more than a passing thought and just follow the herd.
...........................................................................
Nothing I've said claims that if there was a sudden catastrophic disaster that people would maintain that same level of morality.

Doesn't you admitting this show that you do not really believe in the underlying claim of the OP. If this progressive morality can be thrown out if circumstance changes and we reverted back to practices that are considered immoral now because they are not seen as necessary then is it really Morality or is it just fashion.

The facts show though that the people who stick to there moral convictions when catastrophes occur are the ones whose moral code is not theirs to change. Read some Solzhenitsyn about the gulags or about the conscienteous objectors in Germany or the AnaBaptists in the reformation and of course the christian victims of Roman oppression in their formative years. .

I can confidently say that if a castrophic disaster occured there are certain Christian brotherhoods who would follow the examples of those of the past and say NO we will not go against our morals. No we will not change our morals. Here i am not endorsing christendom, they will sell out every time. Followers of Jesus moral teachings on the other hand die for their beliefs rather than change them because is seems expedient or popular.

Peace

 

[Moz]

The Apostles had God-given authority over the churches.

Romans were known to free their slaves on occasion. Some were even adopted into Roman households. So this would not have been an unprecedented act for Philemon to release his slave. Slavery in ancient Rome - Wikipedia

Now, if a pagan Roman could release his slaves, surely a righteous Christian church leader could do it. Why didn't Paul even suggest this to Philemon?

Obviously, Paul didn't have a problem with slavery. That is the endorsement I am talking about.

Hi

The Apostles had God-given authority over the churches.

They absolutely did. Their authority though was not arbitrary or personal. The declaration by Paul that slavery was now to be ILLEGAL amongst Christians is such an untenable argument if you game it out two logical steps. It would have been a death sentence and caused economic mayhem amongst the christian community, slavery WAS the economy. It would have brought the attention of the legions. There were no ancient job fairs offering wages for labour. If you were a Roman citiezen there was SOME welfare, Bread and wine, but for the rest no such luck'

Could the CHURCH and the EMPERORS have abolished slavery across the planet then FAIR enough. but i hold them guilty for much more than just that. The so called christian Constantine the Great could have done something.... not Paul
...............................................................
Romans were known to free their slaves on occasion. Some were even adopted into Roman households. So this would not have been an unprecedented act for Philemon to release his slave. Slavery in ancient Rome - Wikipedia
I did not address that as i thought you might think it through a little......... Paul did indicate to Onesimus that he would smooth things over and put in a good word for him. I would assume from the character Paul portrays in his letters that he would have done what he could behind the scenes.... the point was that Onesimus was better of dealing with the situation within the law.
It is strange that you could claim to have some knowledge of the system of human bondage that the Romans engaged in and not understand that it was an economic necessity of the time. Maybe Onesimus was in debt bondage or been legally condemned to slavery. It does not seem consistent with the rest of the writings of Paul to conclude that he wished Onesimus to be mistreated.

You should find a copy of Milton Meltzers "Slavery. A world History and have a read... it is a fascintaing subject and way more complicated than the emotionally based plea you make. Oh course Slavery is Bad.... at certain points in human history the alternative was worse.
.......................................................................................
Obviously, Paul didn't have a problem with slavery. That is the endorsement I am talking about.
No that is not OBVIOUS at all. The STATE crucified runaway slaves.
All that is OBVIOUS is that Paul did not want Onesimus crucified as a runaway slave. The rest is your inference that Paul was fine with the situation that existed in the world of that time. I think that it is obvious from all the writings attributed to Paul that the welfare and well being of the congregations as well as the individual members of the faith was his main concern.

So for a person in the ancient world to hold the view that slavery was a necessary evil is immoral. I could quote you a boat load of moral non religious thinkers from the last couple of centuries that battle with the complexity of that particular can of worms and came to the same conclusion that Paul.
I'll concede that Paul put up with slavery and did not specifically condemn the practice. He did tell those who had slaves that they were to treat them as fellow christians even though their social standings were different.
Railing against the injustice of slavery may have encouraged christian slaves to be militant or resentful to pagan masters and that leads to a bad place.

This is NOT easy stuff.

Peace





.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Hi

The Apostles had God-given authority over the churches.

They absolutely did. Their authority though was not arbitrary or personal. The declaration by Paul that slavery was now to be ILLEGAL amongst Christians is such an untenable argument if you game it out two logical steps. It would have been a death sentence and caused economic mayhem amongst the christian community, slavery WAS the economy. It would have brought the attention of the legions. There were no ancient job fairs offering wages for labour. If you were a Roman citiezen there was SOME welfare, Bread and wine, but for the rest no such luck'

Could the CHURCH and the EMPERORS have abolished slavery across the planet then FAIR enough. but i hold them guilty for much more than just that. The so called christian Constantine the Great could have done something.... not Paul
...............................................................
Romans were known to free their slaves on occasion. Some were even adopted into Roman households. So this would not have been an unprecedented act for Philemon to release his slave. Slavery in ancient Rome - Wikipedia
I did not address that as i thought you might think it through a little......... Paul did indicate to Onesimus that he would smooth things over and put in a good word for him. I would assume from the character Paul portrays in his letters that he would have done what he could behind the scenes.... the point was that Onesimus was better of dealing with the situation within the law.
It is strange that you could claim to have some knowledge of the system of human bondage that the Romans engaged in and not understand that it was an economic necessity of the time. Maybe Onesimus was in debt bondage or been legally condemned to slavery. It does not seem consistent with the rest of the writings of Paul to conclude that he wished Onesimus to be mistreated.

You should find a copy of Milton Meltzers "Slavery. A world History and have a read... it is a fascintaing subject and way more complicated than the emotionally based plea you make. Oh course Slavery is Bad.... at certain points in human history the alternative was worse.
.......................................................................................
Obviously, Paul didn't have a problem with slavery. That is the endorsement I am talking about.
No that is not OBVIOUS at all. The STATE crucified runaway slaves.
All that is OBVIOUS is that Paul did not want Onesimus crucified as a runaway slave. The rest is your inference that Paul was fine with the situation that existed in the world of that time. I think that it is obvious from all the writings attributed to Paul that the welfare and well being of the congregations as well as the individual members of the faith was his main concern.

So for a person in the ancient world to hold the view that slavery was a necessary evil is immoral. I could quote you a boat load of moral non religious thinkers from the last couple of centuries that battle with the complexity of that particular can of worms and came to the same conclusion that Paul.
I'll concede that Paul put up with slavery and did not specifically condemn the practice. He did tell those who had slaves that they were to treat them as fellow christians even though their social standings were different.
Railing against the injustice of slavery may have encouraged christian slaves to be militant or resentful to pagan masters and that leads to a bad place.

This is NOT easy stuff.

Peace





.

So then, this is all a lead up to the big question: Did Paul reflect God's view of slavery? He was God's messenger after all.

 

[Nakosis]

Well, nothing requires anyone to act in a barbarous manner. I don't see this as any kind of argument.

Glad we are in agreement.