Reason is the Most Important Driver of Human Moral Progress?

[Moz]

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.

Hi

I am very disappointed that this is all you seem to have gotten from the discussion. I have pointed out the myriad difficulties that Roman slavery afforded the early christians and you ignore the points. It is not a contentious statement that slavery was a necessary step in human civilizational development, the literature on that is very definitive. Anthropological and social constructionists have no doubt about that. Yes slavery was HORRIBLE but it was the better choice at that time. Btw there is NO economic model of the ancient world or the early modern world even, that works without some form of bondage underpinning the system. It was industrialization NOT morality that finally made human bondage untenable, in the developed world at least.
......................................................
All the War slavery that people go on about is what both sides in ancient conflicts agreed as the fate of the loser. Surely Two armies facing each other and offering the same outcome for defeat of each side is Moral. They saw things very differently back then.
.................................................
Did Paul reflect God's view of slavery?
Gods view of slavery...... YES.
Paul realized that it was the way society at that time was constructed and there was NO other choice but to deal with it as best as they could. How can you not see that Paul's advice to Oneimus was so that he would not be crucified as a runaway slave or do you still REALLY think that Paul just had a Love of slavery and personally wanted Oneismus to stay a slave because he thought God wanted it that way?.
............................................
Peace

 

[atanu]

I'm sure all the other animals will be so pleased to know this.

Sure. But what about human animals?

 

[Augustus]

(1) Democratic elections are not a good way to find your best decision-makers

"Smart people" deciding who is "smart" enough to govern based on their own metrics for what makes people "smart" is a recipe for disaster. Encourages groupthink and magnifies errors and overconfidence.

Saying that, I'd select at least half of the people for government randomly via sortition from anyone in the entire adult population who opts-in (with only minimal restrictions for mental illness, etc).

 

[Mock Turtle]

Sure. But what about human animals?

We have to make do with what we have.

 

[PruePhillip]

Decriminalization of drugs has been found to lead to reduced drug use and abuse. There is nothing wrong with homosexuality. There is nothing wrong with gambling as long as it doesn't become a problem. If someone wants to die, it is their life, not yours (arrogance is a sin, do remember). Crime has been on a steady decline and tending downwards for over 20 years now.

You see, what you are doing here is REDEFINING MORALITY.
Turn of last century the term "drinking,smoking and gambling" meant sinful behavior.
Turn of the 17th Century the charge of "adultery" meant the death penalty in many Western nations.

I recall Woodstock photos of young men and women walking around stark naked, smoking dope.
Their "morality" was about "peace" and "brotherhood" and the people who opposed them were
"militarist" and "narrow minded" and "capitalist."

So people are wary of defining terms in debates.

Another one I experienced - from 1963 the crime rate went up and up for thirty years without a
break. When I would ask them about this they would ALWAYS respond "that's just better reporting"
But after 1993 the crime rate went down and down, and the same people now say "See, crime is
falling - see the statistics."

I use the word "morals" for what it always meant. Morals is not gambling, for instance. Saving whales
and campaigning against Global Warming cannot be the new "morals" as such things do not address
the human condition.

 

[PruePhillip]

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!

and Paul said nothing about global warming, suffrage, feminism, racism, legalization of drugs,
abortion, child labor, education, property rights, LGBT issues, transgender toilets, tattoos,
free trade, liberalism, parliamentary processes, right of kings, pollution, exploitation, basic
wages, rights of privacy, capitalism, socialism, trade unionism, militarism, hedge funds, stock
markets, taxation and a billion other issues.

I am thankful he didn't. Paul addressed one thing - your condition before God. Not what the
world thinks or does.

 

[Audie]

"Smart people" deciding who is "smart" enough to govern based on their own metrics for what makes people "smart" is a recipe for disaster. Encourages groupthink and magnifies errors and overconfidence.

Saying that, I'd select at least half of the people for government randomly via sortition from anyone in the entire adult population who opts-in (with only minimal restrictions for mental illness, etc).

One thing you can say for communist government,
a person has to be very smart and tough to get to
the top. GWB might have made it to some sort of
mid level management.

 

[Audie]

and Paul said nothing about global warming, suffrage, feminism, racism, legalization of drugs,
abortion, child labor, education, property rights, LGBT issues, transgender toilets, tattoos,
free trade, liberalism, parliamentary processes, right of kings, pollution, exploitation, basic
wages, rights of privacy, capitalism, socialism, trade unionism, militarism, hedge funds, stock
markets, taxation and a billion other issues.

I am thankful he didn't. Paul addressed one thing - your condition before God. Not what the
world thinks or does.

so you figure "Paul" was the real deal?

 

[PruePhillip]

so you figure "Paul" was the real deal?

Depends by what you mean

 

[Stevicus]

Glad we are in agreement.

So, what was your comment about, then, and how is it relevant to the topic of the thread?

 

[Stevicus]

"Smart people" deciding who is "smart" enough to govern based on their own metrics for what makes people "smart" is a recipe for disaster. Encourages groupthink and magnifies errors and overconfidence.

Saying that, I'd select at least half of the people for government randomly via sortition from anyone in the entire adult population who opts-in (with only minimal restrictions for mental illness, etc).

I'm not even sure that many people actually want a smart leader. I think one of the main criticisms of Adlai Stevenson when he ran for president was that he was an intellectual - as if that's a bad thing.

 

[joe1776]

"Smart people" deciding who is "smart" enough to govern based on their own metrics for what makes people "smart" is a recipe for disaster. Encourages groupthink and magnifies errors and overconfidence.

Well, of course that would be a dumb idea. But we have IQ tests that we have been relying on for sixty or seventy years now to accomplish the task of measuring intelligence.

Saying that, I'd select at least half of the people for government randomly via sortition from anyone in the entire adult population who opts-in (with only minimal restrictions for mental illness, etc).

I don't like that idea.

I foresee online leaderless expert panels making policy decisions in the future. The members would be tested high IQ applicants chosen randomly by computer to control for bias. The online discussion would make their work transparent.

Without a leader and eliminating the face-to-face meetings would eliminate most of the problems with group decision-making.

Panel members would be trained specialists. So, for example, if you were falsely accused of murder, you would want the jury capable making the right decision: innocence.

The majority opinion of say a 33-member panel with an average IQ of 120, trained in the investigation of murder cases and the forensic sciences would be more likely to make the right decision than the current criminal justice decision model.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Jesus and His disciples clearly taught throughout the New Testament that the Ten Commandments are still valid today.

How is that possible if we are disregarding the Old Testament?
Also, without the Old Testament, there's not even a need for Jesus, because if we're ignoring the Old Testament, we're also ignoring original sin.

Also, Jesus supposedly said that ....

For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
Matthew 5:18

 

[Nakosis]

So, what was your comment about, then, and how is it relevant to the topic of the thread?

It's not relevant to the topic of the thread. It is relevant to the comment you posted from Youtube.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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?

There are actually 613 commandments
All 613 Commandments in the Old Testament Law of Moses

 

[Spirit of Light]

There are actually 613 commandments
All 613 Commandments in the Old Testament Law of Moses

As far as I understand Old testament was made for jews. But the 10 commandments do count for Christians today. But i am not Jew or Christian so I can, of course, be wrong

 

[Augustus]

Well, of course that would be a dumb idea. But we have IQ tests that we have been relying on for sixty or seventy years now to accomplish the task of measuring intelligence.

Then you are saying using IQ tests is a dumb idea.

They is the very definition of "Smart people" deciding who is "smart" based on their own metrics for what makes people "smart".

IQ tests don't measure intelligence or anything meaningful. They measure your ability to do completely artificial, pointless tasks in a completely artificial setting with no purpose, meaning or consequences.

Choosing people for governance based on their ability to spot arbitrary patterns, mentally manipulate pictures, know the meaning of random words, etc. is a terrible and highly irrational.

I don't like that idea.

Decentralisation and variance beat centralisation and conformity as the latter create fragile systems that ultimately implode.

Panel members would be trained specialists. So, for example, if you were falsely accused of murder, you would want the jury capable making the right decision: innocence.

The majority opinion of say a 33-member panel with an average IQ of 120, trained in the investigation of murder cases and the forensic sciences would be more likely to make the right decision than the current criminal justice decision model.

That's exactly the way to create groupthink and lock errors into the system: centralisation of power and choosing from people 'trained' to think alike. Random selection helps a bit, but you still rely on experts to identify other experts to create the pool to choose from. This encourages conformity, and ambitious people looking to influence policy know they have to 'play the game' to build reputation among the current generation of decision makers.

People who promote the 'wrong' ideas according to the current intellectual fads and fashions will be kept out.

 

[joe1776]

Then you are saying using IQ tests is a dumb idea. They is the very definition of "Smart people" deciding who is "smart" based on their own metrics for what makes people "smart".

OK now I understand your point.

You don't trust IQ tests but you can't offer a better tool to do the job. So, your random selection method guarantees overall average intelligence the way jury selection from a list of licensed drivers guarantees an average IQ.

The roots of my proposal go back to World War Two when the USA enlisted some of its brightest minds to advise on strategy. Post war, this group was later to become the Rand Corporation, a leading think tank.

President Roosevelt (FDR) also relied on what was called a "brain trust" what I'm calling an expert panel, to advise him on ways to pull the USA out of the Great Depression. They were successful.

 

[Augustus]

You don't trust IQ tests but you can't offer a better tool to do the job.

That is because I'm not "smart" enough to believe intelligence can be quantified into a nice, neat easily testable metric. We have a habit of saying 'well that's the best we have', without considering bad information may be worse than no information at all.

Intelligence can only be deduced from performance in real world conditions. 2 Nobel winning, genius level economists ran a hedge fund and bankrupted it. They had a wonderful complex mathematical theory, unfortunately it only worked on paper, not in reality.

I guarantee countless IQ geniuses have no clue about how to function properly in real world conditions.

So, your random selection method guarantees overall average intelligence the way jury selection from a list of licensed drivers guarantees an average IQ.

It guarantees diversity, which is what is important. People with different views, skills, experiences, etc. not simply a narrow elite from similar backgrounds who mostly think alike.

The roots of my proposal go back to World War Two when the USA enlisted some of its brightest minds to advise on strategy. Post war, this group was later to become the Rand Corporation, a leading think tank.

President Roosevelt (FDR) also relied on what was called a "brain trust" to advise him on way to pull the USA our of the Great Depression. They were successful.

How did "the best and the brightest" do during Vietnam? Or "the smartest guys in the room" do at Enron?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

REDEFINING MORALITY.

No one is redefining it. We have merely had a thought and realized one religion doesn't get to call the shots, nor should it.

Turn of last century the term "drinking,smoking and gambling" meant sinful behavior.

Smoking has long been acceptable, drinking so acceptable that alcohol prohibition dorky last long, and even the founding fathers came from a time when community lotteries/gambling was a means to raise funds for state/municipal projects.

Saving whales
and campaigning against Global Warming cannot be the new "morals" as such things do not address
the human condition.

If morality to you starts and stops at humans, your sense of morality is vastly superior. The other animals we share this world with are worthy of our moral considerations.