Morality, slavery, murder, etc. [Archive] - Straight Dope Message Board

Gaudere

09-12-2000, 09:06 PM

Misc. cites re God's rulings on slavery:

[Exod 21]
1
"These are the laws you are to set before them:
2
"If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. [...]
7
"If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do.
8
If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her.
9
If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. [...]
20
"If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished,
21
but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

Leviticus 25
1
The LORD said to Moses on Mount Sinai, [...]
42
Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves.
43
Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God.
44
"`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 will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

----------
So, "purchased Hebrew servants" were set free after 6 years, and you weren't supposed to enslave fellow Jews. Apparently everyone else was fair game, though. Oh, and you weren't supposed to beat them to death, but if they got up after a day or two, no problem.

kanicbird

09-12-2000, 09:38 PM

Thanks Mod, it feels good not being beat up on this thread. Was checking out some of the older threads you provided - lots of stuff - went through 2 and followed some links, intersting stuff but no answers yet. The best that I came up with is that it is in your best interest to act certain ways - but no uniformity - which I think itself is telling.

Gaudere

09-12-2000, 09:53 PM

Telling of what?

Lemur866

09-12-2000, 10:22 PM

Oh, YHWH, where to start?

K2dave, let me explain...oh, to hell with it. I'm too tired and too crabby. Let everyone else try to knock some sense into you...

ticker

09-13-2000, 07:13 AM

I tend to look at it his way:

There are many different religions in the world.
Different religions are generally mutually exclusive.
It follows that not all religions can have 'come from God' - at least some must be the invention of man.
Christians have a sense of morality as do Hindus [replace with religion of your choice]

It therefore follows that at least some moral codes must be the invention of man and therefore God is not a prerequisite for morality.

xenophon41

09-13-2000, 08:18 AM

Pocket summary of various moralities:
Most monotheistic moralities
Do these things or you will offend the Lord your God Most atheist moralities
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Most polytheistic moralities
Do anything and you're likely to offend one god or another, if they care about you at all. Oh, by the way, do unto others, etc. Most pagan moralities
Magic good; fire baaad. Do unto others, etc. Deism
God created you, and there is perfect order to the universe. By the way, you're on your own, so do unto others, etc. Buddhism
First, there is a mountain, then there is no mountain. Then there is.

Does that clear anything up for you?

kanicbird

09-13-2000, 09:22 AM

[Telling of what?
] -

that there is no absolute ( = fixed unchangable) morality with atheist - they follow their own code that they make up in their mind for what they preceive is the 'greater good'. They set up in their own minds what is right or wrong in according to their surroundings and sometimes what is convienent.
Religious folks too, will try to justify their actions on the basis of the "greater good" or the convienence or come up with some excuse or just misunderstand Gods word. But their is a written, fixed underling code inspired by God.

[Different religions are generally mutually exclusive.
It follows that not all religions can have 'come from God' - at least some must be the invention of man. ]

Christians have a sense of morality as do Hindus [replace with religion of your choice]

It therefore follows that at least some moral codes must be the invention of man and therefore God is not a prerequisite for morality.]

- true but each religon believes the moral code is provided by a higher being who created us and cares for us and who would not mislead us - and can enforce it to one degree or another and will reward one for following it. This could apply to a parrent-child relationship for an atheist but again who's moral code?

ticker

09-13-2000, 11:09 AM

Originally posted by k2dave

Religious folks too, will try to justify their actions on the basis of the "greater good" or the convienence or come up with some excuse or just misunderstand Gods word. But their is a written, fixed underling code inspired by God.

But it is clearly not (in all cases) inspired by God. God is (again - in some cases at least) an invention of man as is the sense of morality with it.

Gaudere

09-13-2000, 11:11 AM

that there is no absolute ( = fixed unchangable) morality with atheist - they follow their own code that they make up in their mind for what they preceive is the 'greater good'. They set up in their own minds what is right or wrong in according to their surroundings and sometimes what is convienent. Religious folks too, will try to justify their actions on the basis of the "greater good" or the convienence or come up with some excuse or just misunderstand Gods word. But their is a written, fixed underling code inspired by God.
Well, the way it seems to go with religious folks is: Subjective personal judgement to believe in certain God(s)===>subjective judgment that this/these God(s) has/have an objective fixed morality===> Subjective interpretation of what God's objective morality is. Ask any theist what God wants, and you'll likely get agreement on the big things, but only tiny inbred religious groups agree on the objective morality/immorality of *everything*. Among the theists on this board, most go with the "Do unto others..." but you'll find a wide varience of opinion on the morality of homosexuality, drugs, wearing mixed fibers, atheism, etc. So, an objective morality may exist for theists, but they have only their subjective opinions of what it is to go on. And if you think there's only one way for a theist to interpret their Holy Book/personal revelation, and it's objectively apparent to everyone and anyone who thinks different is clearly Wrong, well, I'm afraid I'll have to snicker a bit. ;) Morality, even if the rules are written in a Holy Book, requires a certain degree of personal interpretation. For example, you're told not to steal, but what if you are starving? What if you steal a gun from a murderer? God apparently does not have the patience to elucidate every possible circumstance you could find yourself in, and so relies to a certain degree on your subjective judgment to choose what is best. For a theist, there may very well be an objective morality out there, but s/he must rely on his/her subjective interpretation of what it is, which renders the actual moral code used by the theist subjective as well.

For atheists/agnostics, we make a subjective choice as to what is our moral code, just as a theist makes a subjective choice as to which God to follow. So for a theist it goes: Subjective choice to believe in God==>follow moral code given by that God as interpeted by said theist, while for an atheist it goes: Subjective choice of moral code==>follow moral code as interpreted by said atheist. Simply because our choice of morality is personal and not given from On High, it does not necessarily mean it is a whim or casual or self-serving, any more than your personal decision to believe in the God you chose is a whim or casual or self-serving because it was not mandated by someone outside you. Now, both theists and atheists could make "mistakes" that result in them thinking actions are moral that we generally do not consider so; the theist could have decided that a particularly nasty brand of Satanism is the way to go, and s/he'll get an absolute moral code all right, just one the rest of humanity may not agree with. Or s/he may interpret thier Holy Book in a way that seems evil to us. And the atheist may pick as their morality some sort of "every-man-for-himself"-ism, which we don't consider terribly moral. But the point I am trying to make, is that the choosing of a moral code is at its root a personal decision for everyone, whether you choose it directly as an atheist does, or whether you first choose which religion to follow and take your moral code from your interpretations of their statements about it.

true but each religon believes the moral code is provided by a higher being who created us and cares for us and who would not mislead us - and can enforce it to one degree or another and will reward one for following it. This could apply to a parrent-child relationship for an atheist but again who's moral code?I generally believe that moral behavior is the best way for humans to work together, therefore it is to all our benefits to be moral. I am not good solely for hope of a reward, nor do I avoid evil solely for fear of punishment, although I find that as a general rule being a good person has many benefits. I try to do the right thing because I want to be a good person. Most theists, as well, would not say they are good because they desire heaven and fear hell; they do good because they love God and their fellow man, and wish to do what is best. If a person only does good because he will be rewarded, and only avoids evil because he will be punished, do you think that he is truly moral? Both atheists and theists can be influenced by rewards/punishments, but the true heart of morality is love, either love of one's fellow man, love of good, or love of God.

kanicbird

09-13-2000, 01:39 PM

[I generally believe that moral behavior is the best way for humans to work together, therefore it is to all our benefits to be moral. ]

Gaudere - this statement may be true, but we are not worker bees or the Borg from Startrek. It would be advantagious for you to appear moral and go along with society to do good, but do what is self serving. Now with religion you have someone more powerful then you watching - if you don't believe in God what is stopping you from this behavior?

Joe Malik

09-13-2000, 02:09 PM

All moral decisions made by humans with free will, whether religious or atheistic, ultimately devolve to subjective aesthetic decisions. Lacking objective proof of God's (or a god or gods') punishment of immorality and reward of morality, how can the basis be different?

I am specifically omitting in this discussion the manner in which to evaluate laws and other coercively enforced societal standards of behavior. Rather, I discuss only those standards to which a person holds him or herself to, without regard to societal expectations.

A religious choice is no less subjective than an atheistic choice; you must choose which god to believe in, which interpretation of that god's wishes to believe in. Again, lacking objective proof, your decision cannot be anything but subjective: you choose the belief that suits your personal nature.

The fundamental contradiction is to attempt to define a particular morality as a priori objectively correct and then search for an objective basis to make it correct. One has no more justification to apply objective standards to morality than to art; there is no "objectively correct" way to paint or sculpt, there are only more or less popular aesthetic opinions.

Gaudere

09-13-2000, 02:22 PM

Now with religion you have someone more powerful then you watching - if you don't believe in God what is stopping you from this behavior?I care about other people; I generally don't wish to do things that hurt them, even if it benefits me. The fact that it is generally beneficial to me to not do bad things is a nice bonus.

If God said it was OK, would you rape, steal and kill if you could get away with it? If you would not, the reasons you would not do so probably approximate an atheist's reasons to not do so even if s/he would not get caught. If you would rape, steal and kill if God said it was permissable, I hope you don't get a message from God like some of those before you have:

[Joshua 10:40] So Joshua subdued the whole region, including the hill country, the Negev, the western foothills and the mountain slopes, together with all their kings. He left no survivors. He totally destroyed all who breathed, just as the LORD, the God of Israel, had commanded.

[Genesis 22:2] Then God said, "Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about."

Etc., Etc. Have you decided whether or not slavery (including beating the slave severely) is wrong by God's fixed, unchangable, objective moral code yet? ;) And keep in mind that your decision about God's objective morals is indeed subjective; the Judeo-Christian God's words have been used to both condone and condemn slavery.

Cisco

09-13-2000, 08:37 PM

I didnt read all the other posts because im lazy and tired. But...in direct answer to the OP...i think you are missing your own point, God is a tool used to try and control us, morals and ethics are bullshit.

kanicbird

09-15-2000, 06:09 PM

[Genesis 22:2] Then God said, "Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to
the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you
about." ]

What about the rest of the story, God stopped this before Isaac was killed - whit all the blood in the Bible, intersting that you chose this one.

Man's idea of good and evil is not God's.

We can't understand it w/ our limited knowleage - this is where faith comes in.

[ If God said it was OK, would you rape, steal and kill if you could get away with it?]
because of civil laws - no. but if God commanded it that would supercede man's law but I would need confirmation from Him.

Gaudere

09-15-2000, 07:03 PM

but if God commanded it that would supercede man's law but I would need confirmation from Him.What sort of confirmation? If you genuinely believe God told you to rape another, you would do it? (You know, it's stuff like this that makes me a wee bit twitchy.)

God has manifestly allowed slavery, according to the Bible, including severe beatings. Do you think slavery is therefore moral? Should you enslave others if given the opportunity and desire, assuming that you will not get caught by secular athorities?

kanicbird

09-18-2000, 09:20 PM

[What sort of confirmation?]

Depends on how I knew God asked me, maybe the wet cloth/dry ground then wet ground/dry cloth (do I have that in reverse?) - I would probally ask for something more concrete - perhaps return to life of a long since dead and burried cat

If you genuinely believe God told you to rape another, you would do it? (You know, it's stuff like this that makes me a wee bit twitchy.) ]

IF truly God directed me to, I would not have a choice. It doesn't matter what the civil authorities said - thy will be done.
That being said, I don't recall God ever telling someone to rape

[Do you think slavery is therefore moral? ]
I would have to say that I can find nothing immoral about it in and of itself. I think we have grown past our need for it - but that doesn't make it wrong.

what makes slavery wrong be? I'm not talking about the 13th here.

Gaudere

09-18-2000, 10:16 PM

Depends on how I knew God asked me, maybe the wet cloth/dry ground then wet ground/dry cloth (do I have that in reverse?) Huh? I do hope you would not decide to rape someone based on natural condensation/wicking action.

I would probally ask for something more concrete - perhaps return to life of a long since dead and burried cat.Hm, what if He said: "Do not tempt the Lord thy God"--what if He wants you to have faith, not ask for miracles as proof? I don't think Abraham asked God for a miracle before taking Isaac to be killed.

That being said, I don't recall God ever telling someone to rapeNo, just infanticide and slavery, right? ;) But I think I can make a case that he condoned rape:

[Num 31:17] Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him.

[Num 31:18] But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

...and I think the obvious interpretation is they are going to have sex with the young girls, after killing their families. I highly doubt the young girls would go willingly to the beds of their captors and the killers of their entire family.

To bolster this interpretation, there's:

[Deut 21:10] "When you go forth to war against your enemies, and the LORD your God gives them into your hands, and you take them captive,

[Deut 21:11] and see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you have desire for her and would take her for yourself as wife,

[Deut 21:12] then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and pare her nails.

[Deut 21:13] And she shall put off her captive's garb, and shall remain in your house and bewail her father and her mother a full month; after that you may go in to her, and be her husband, and she shall be your wife.

[Deut 21:14] Then, if you have no delight in her, you shall let her go where she will; but you shall not sell her for money, you shall not treat her as a slave, since you have humiliated her.

...which means basically, marry the women you captured and enslaved, but if you decide you don't like them after you've had sex with them, well, let them go. I'm sure the women are thrilled, and I'm sure they really wish to marry their captor, and then be thrown aside if they don't "please" him..

Now, I'm not trying to get into a big "God is evil" argument; I'm just trying to point out that it is extremely difficult to be "moral" by the standards of most "moral" sorts--most definitely including moral Christians--if you follow the Bible blindly, without using your own moral sense and intelligence and empathy. Rape, murder of babes and slavery as acceptable? God gave you that brain for a reason; use it. Would that He had given you a heart gentle enough to understand that hurting other people is wrong, even if God says He doesn't mind!

I would have to say that I can find nothing immoral about it in and of itself. I think we have grown past our need for it - but that doesn't make it wrong.OK, how do you reconcile enslaving and beating of slaves with God's other timeless, objective perfect command, love thy neighbor as thyself? If it was wrong to enslave the Jews, how can it be right to enslave non-Jews if you love your neighbor as yourself? You cannot be loving your neighbor as yourself if you kill a woman's children or force her into marriage, or beat the person you enslave brutally.

kanicbird

09-19-2000, 07:42 AM

[Hm, what if He said: "Do not tempt the Lord thy God"--what if He wants you to have faith, not ask for miracles as proof? I don't think
Abraham asked God for a miracle before taking Isaac to be killed.]

True but God did ask us to test him

kanicbird

09-19-2000, 08:05 AM

Gaudere

09-19-2000, 09:37 AM

Love thy neighbor - could apply to not beating your slave - to treat them as you would like to be treated if the situation is reversed. You would probally like to be freed but because of the 'human condition' you proablly would not free them, so at least be good to them.If you don't like being enslaved, and your slaves don't like being enslaved, you should not enslave them if you love your neighbor as yourself.

As a slave owned (not that I have any) one might realize the importance of a slave based system and realize that to free all slaves would put mankind in a overall worse condition then they were in (sort of how I feel about some of the social programs we have now).Oh, sure, all the slaves were willing. :rolleyes: Christ, that's like the pro-slavery propoganda of the 1860s. "Slaves *like* being slaves." "Our economy would fall apart if we freed them." "They're better off as slaves than being free." Quite frankly, you cannot enslave an unwilling person (and if they were willing, they would not be slaves, right?) and claim to be loving your neighbor as yourself.

Needing slaves doesn't meen you have to mistreat them.No, but God specifically said it was OK to beat them until it was questionable as to whether they would live or die; to the point that it might take them a day or two even to get up. You cannot love your neighbor as yourself while considering it acceptable to enslave him and beat him half to death.

What you describes is what I believe was a normal event that happened in many societies some of which believed in false gods.So? This sort of things happened among worshippers of your God, too. Aren't Christians supposed to do what is right always? After all, you say God's moral laws are objective and timeless. If rape and murder were acceptable to God then, shouldn't they be acceptable now? Would you say "well, sure it says "do not steal" and "do not commit adultery", but those are laws for a long time ago, they don't apply to this particular time"? Why then would you attempt to justify ignoring God's other moral laws by saying that they occured in another time and place?

Why is it wrong to hurt your fellow man? what makes it wrong?Well, for me it is wrong because I care about other people and do not wish to see them hurt. For you, I guess, there is the order to "love thy neighbor as yourself".

The point I am trying to make is that an effective morality, whether a person is religious or not, requires a certain degree of intelligence and empathy. No static code of laws, no matter how comprehensive, can possibly resolve all conflicts between various moral imperatives and human desires. You apparently do not see a problem with accepting rape, murder and slavery as moral, but you need to resolve the Bible's apparent statements that such are acceptable with the command to love your neighbor as yourself--you simply cannot casually enslave and rape if you love your neighbor as yourself.

kanicbird

09-19-2000, 01:40 PM

1st of all how do you get those quote lines?

[ Oh, sure, all the slaves were willing.]

This is not what I said, I said that the slave owner probally realized the importance of slavery to their economy. like min. wage workers here - you don't want to be one but we need them.

[God specifically said it was OK to beat]

Here's where I would put in the treat others as you would like to be treated.

[ So? This sort of things happened among worshippers of your God, too. Aren't Christians supposed to do what is right always? ]
yes we are suppose to, but that way never works. we make mistakes - this is where forgivness and clensing of sins come in - but it has to be a sin.

[After all, you say God's moral laws are objective and timeless. If rape and murder were acceptable to God then, shouldn't they be acceptable now?]

Gods laws evolved with time like our constution does today - parts were added as time went on effectivally changing parts. things that were ok were later rulled sinful. I think it was needed to be somewhat barbaric in early history/perhistory for us to develope properly. Once we got to a certain point God prohibited that behavior (not to say sins weren't commited.)

[ Would you say "well, sure it says "do
not steal" and "do not commit adultery", but those are laws for a long time ago, they don't apply to this particular time"? Why then would you attempt to
justify ignoring God's other moral laws by saying that they occured in another time and place?]

no nothing superceeded it

[Well, for me it is wrong because I care about other people and do not wish to see them hurt. For you, I guess, there is the order to "love thy neighbor as
yourself".]

so your morality code is emotion based

[No static code of laws, no matter how comprehensive, can possibly resolve all conflicts between various moral imperatives and human desires.]

**** No code made by man could ever live up to this, but God not only could make such a code but defines what is right and wrong.

[You apparently do not see a problem with accepting rape, murder and slavery as moral, ]

Not exactly, for believers in (Christan) God it is immoral, for belivers in other god(s), it depends. For non belivers I see no morality - nothing is right or wrong because only such moral codes can come from a higher power. I don't accept leagal authority as providing a moral code for the reasons I mentioned where the **** is. They can enforce certain behaviuoirs but that doesn't make a moral code.

Gaudere

09-19-2000, 02:19 PM

1st of all how do you get those quote lines? You can read about how to do Vbb coding here. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/index.php?action=bbcode) See "Quoting Other Messages".

This is not what I said, I said that the slave owner probally realized the importance of slavery to their economy. like min. wage workers here - you don't want to be one but we need them.This is the slave owner being more concerned about his own profit than the welfare of his neighbor, which contradicts "love your neighbor as yourself". You still haven't shown how you can love your neighbor as yourself and yet enslave and beat him against his will.

Me: God specifically said it was OK to beat
K2dave: Here's where I would put in the treat others as you would like to be treated.Ah, but how can you have it both ways? God says "It's OK to beat a slave, as long as he doesn't die." Then God says "love your neighbor as yourself." Now, these two laws conflict; you have chosen to believe that God's law "love your neighbor as yourself" overides God's law "It's just fine to beat a slave half to death." In other words, you made a subjective moral judgment that even if God says it's Ok to beat people...it's really not. Now, this isn't a *bad* thing; I heartily agree with your choice of which of God's laws is the best one! But it shows that your subjective judgemnt does enter into your morality; if you could not weigh in your own heart which law of God's was truly supreme, you would be unable to reconcile the two laws.

yes we are suppose to, but that way never works. we make mistakes - this is where forgivness and clensing of sins come in - but it has to be a sin.But God specifically said rape and infanticide were OK!

Gods laws evolved with time like our constution does today - parts were added as time went on effectivally changing parts. things that were ok were later rulled sinful. I think it was needed to be somewhat barbaric in early history/perhistory for us to develope properly.My goodness, that sounds like a flexible, situational moral code, not a timeless, perfectly Good objective one. Are you trying to say that back then, "love your neighbor as yourself" was immoral, and rape, infanticide and slavery *were* moral?

Once we got to a certain point God prohibited that behavior (not to say sins weren't commited.)Um, the ten commandments were given to people before the passages I quoted. God said "do not murder" but then says "kill all the male children".

so your morality code is emotion basedSo's yours, dude. ;) "Love your neighbor as yourself" is an incomprehensible moral code without love.

{b]Me[/b]: No static code of laws, no matter how comprehensive, can possibly resolve all conflicts between various moral imperatives and human desires.
K2dave: No code made by man could ever live up to this, but God not only could make such a code but defines what is right and wrong.Well, perhaps He could, but it seems to be that He didn't. If God's laws required no interpretation, why did you have to use your own personal judgment as to whether it was acceptable to beat a slave, even if God said it was OK?

Me: You apparently do not see a problem with accepting rape, murder and slavery as moral,
K2dave: Not exactly, for believers in (Christan) God it is immoral, for belivers in other god(s), it dependsNo, it's not immoral for Christians, right, since God said they were OK. Or wait...are they immoral, since rape, murder, and slavery are not loving your neighbor as yourself? Hmmm...I think you're going to have to use your own personal moral judgment to decide which of God's laws should be followed...again.

For non belivers I see no morality.Well, you're displaying a distressing ignorance of nonbelievers, here. "Love your neighbor as yourself" is the heart of nearly every moral system, including that of many/most non-believers (different phrasing, different emphasis, same basic thing). Therefore not only do people who do not believe in the Christian God have a moral code, it's the exact same one as yours!

nothing is right or wrong because only such moral codes can come from a higher power.Why can moral codes only come from a higher power?

Unauthorized Cinnamon

09-19-2000, 03:47 PM

Gaudere, you are doing a bang-up job - too bad you are most likely banging your head on a brick wall.

FWIW, I say everyone on the planet gets their moral code from the same source: natural selection.

I'm willing to bet the scenario goes something like this:

As humans evolved, those that lived in cooperative societies and had an innate desire to "love others as themselves" were more likely to survive and reproduce. Therefore, these traits have become basic to the human animal.

As society evolved, our laws (secular and religious) reflected a desire to keep society stable - laws against murder, rape, larceny, etc. clearly allow society to function smoothly and thus people can reap the benefits of cooperative group living.

During this evolution, the relevant social group was a small clan, and the prohibition on "anti-social" behavior was limited to interactions within the clan. (E.g., that's why the Bible says murder is a sin, but instructs believers to kill enemy clans.)

We have now evolved to a point where we can extrapolate from basic social constraints (don't kill and steal) to more abstract ideas like fundamental human rights. We also are able to include more people in our "clan" due to technology, and the combined phenomena lead to such actions as sanctioning countries who trample the human rights of their own people.

That's it. Some people choose to believe their moral code comes from an "objective" religious source, but they use their evolving, societally-induced, relativistic (gasp!) personal morals to decide which religious edicts to follow and exactly what they mean.

Gaudere

09-19-2000, 04:11 PM

Yes, morality and empathy arising via natural selection is a a fairly well-established theory among many scientists, I believe. It makes perfect sense to me, too; the advantages of cooperation and understanding others to the continuation of the genes seem manifestly evident. Pack animals often display attributes that we would consider "moral" in humans; caring for injured, protecting others even at personal risk, etc. And like any genotype, there's some variation; some people seem inherently inclined to be moral, some simply can't seem to understand why it would be wrong to hurt people for selfish gain. Of course, with these fine big brains of our we can choose to become more or less moral of our own free will; also, we can intelligently determine which behaviors are most advantageous to all people and reinforce them, meaning we don't have to wait for natural selection to encourage "better" morality.

jmullaney

09-19-2000, 05:49 PM

Originally posted by Gaudere
Why can moral codes only come from a higher power?
Because, man's heart is inherently twisted. This so-called "empathy and intelligence" you speak of can not be taught unless man can get his heart untwisted, but he can't do that unless he is moral in the first place. Sure, today owning chattel is "bad" but that is merely a cultural more. You can't "prove" it is bad.

Gaudere

09-19-2000, 06:13 PM

This so-called "empathy and intelligence" you speak of can not be taught unless man can get his heart untwisted, but he can't do that unless he is moral in the first place.Really? I suppose all mankind utterly lacks empathy and intelligence, then, hm? We all have twisted hearts, and cannot get them untwisted since in order to do that we'd need to have untwisted hearts. Nevertheless, I see kindness and mercy and love from many people, regardless of what deities they may or may not worship. So I cannot agree with your bitter pessimism. (Nor do I particularly desire to endure another breast-beating lecture from you about the evils of property. If you wish to witness to K2dave, go ahead, but I have heard and understood your viewpoint; I simply don't agree with the divinity of Christ or the inherent evil of property.)

Sure, today owning chattel is "bad" but that is merely a cultural more. You can't "prove" it is bad.I can if one accepts as axiomatic that "what is distasteful to you, do not do unto another," which is a widely accepted and apparently quite useful and productive belief. You cannot "prove" anything without axioms, so I do not see how the inability to prove anything without accepting a certain number of axioms has any bearing on the discussion at hand. I can certainly use axioms from both my and k2dave's moral system to prove that slavery is bad, which is all that is necessary here. I also find it very odd that you say that you can't "prove" owning people is bad, yet you argue vehemently that owning anything else is the greatest of evil.

kanicbird

09-19-2000, 08:52 PM

Ah, but how can you have it both ways? God says "It's OK to beat a slave, as long as he doesn't die." Then God says "love your
neighbor as yourself." Now, these two laws conflict;

They would be, except that Jesus clearly stated that the 1st and 2nd comandment are the most important

God specifically said rape and infanticide were OK! {/quote]

For some people it WAS ok, the rape you mentioned was not rape but marrage - brutal and illeagal by todays standards and laws but normal back then. The commandment has been interpreted to be closer to thou shalt not murder. murder is not the same as killing.

[quote] Are you trying to say that back then, "love
your neighbor as yourself" was immoral, and rape, infanticide and slavery *were* moral?

God defines morality for us. before the commandmants, "love thy neighbor" was neither moral or immoral as God chose not to define it yet.

Why can moral codes only come from a higher power?
we (humans) don't have the wisdom to fully understand our actions and their long term implications. It is very presumptious of you to think otherwise.

. So's yours, dude. ;) "Love your neighbor as yourself" is an incomprehensible moral code without love.
while it is true that love varies from person to person - the comandment is there (i would say written in stone but don't know where the origionals are) The emotion part only factors in later. You appear to have come up with your version of 'love thy neighbor' (LTN) out of your own heart and mind - if this is so, who is to say that another non believer has the same code?

You still haven't shown how you can love your neighbor as yourself and yet enslave and beat him against his will.

Beeting is not what I'm talking about. Lets look into enslaving your neighbor. what would cause it and suspend the 13th admendment (slavery) and the 8th (cruel and unusual punishments). Maybe John didn't have enough money to pay his taxes so he went to you saying I need $100,000 or Clinton will throw him in irons and he will be tourchered till he can pay which he has no more income so he will never be able to pay. John, my neighbor, comes to me and says that he needs $100k to avoid this and is willing to be my slave if i will pay it off. John is treating me as he would want to be treated and not asking to give him the $, but willing to barter for it. Being a good neighbor I accept his offer and put him to work in the fields and don't mistreat him. Far fetched - yes but this has happened in the past.

An easy case for love thy neighbor can be made for POW slaves also.

I take it that your reason that slavery is immoral is that you thought you should love thy neighbor?

ChromiumGrin

09-20-2000, 01:29 AM

Deep thinkers here.

Anything is acceptable so long as the general populace believes it so. If there is a religion, and the priests believe actions are sanctioned and the populace agrees, then it is acceptable.

There was a time one could gun someone down in the streets with little fear of being arrested. The populace accepted it.

Slaves of all types were accepted for thousands of years because various religions and the populace accepted it.

Our Christian religion, taken in base context, states an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. That means if you accidentally kill my child, I have the right to slaughter yours. The populace no longer accepts this.

In some religions the woman is property, owned by the man, who can be killed by the man at whim. She has no status, no right to property of her own, and is nothing more than a slave. In most nations, but not all, the populace does not accept this.

In some cultures of the past, a man could and did kill his own sons if they offended him. The populace accepted it.

In some cultures, infidelity was allowed and the populace accepted it.

With knowledge and maturity comes understanding, compassion and laws. That is why, traditionally, law makers are among the older members of the population and best educated or wise.

In times past it was perfectly acceptable in war to plunder, pillage and rape. The populace accepted it. This is not so today.

In the future, who knows. Pot might become legal, you won't be able to sue over your own stupidity, suicide might be legal, the government will not, under any circumstances, take your land and home and basic services, like power and water might become a human right, not something to pay for.

Gaudere

09-20-2000, 10:00 AM

They would be, except that Jesus clearly stated that the 1st and 2nd comandment are the most importantNo, they still conflict. Say you have two laws: "Never ever steal" and "if you're starving, stealing is OK". Now, these laws clearly conflict; a wise-lawgiver would not create such laws. You seem to have changed your argument so that none of God's previous laws are as important as "loving your neighbor as yourself". This seems to discredit your previous statement "that there is no absolute ( = fixed unchangable) morality with atheist ... [theists have] a written, fixed underling code inspired by God." You have just shown that there is no fixed moral code given by God; He apparently changed His mind at some point as to what is moral and what is not.

For some people it WAS ok, the rape you mentioned was not rape but marrage - brutal and illeagal by todays standards and laws but normal back then. The commandment has been interpreted to be closer to thou shalt not murder. murder is not the same as killing.Please attempt to explain how killing helpless male infants is not "murder". Or how forced marriage and sex is not rape.

God defines morality for us. before the commandmants, "love thy neighbor" was neither moral or immoral as God chose not to define it yet.So a person who chose to not own slaves and loved his neighbor as himself was no more moral than one who owned slaves, beat them, killed infants and raped women?

while it is true that love varies from person to person - the comandment is there (i would say written in stone but don't know where the origionals are) The emotion part only factors in later.Um, "love your neighbor as yourself" does not work unless you can love. The commandment is utterly meaningless without the emotion. BTW, the original is only written in parchment if at all; Jesus left no stone tablets. Now, if you want to know "why follow a certain moral code", there are several reasons for both theist and atheist alike. Love (of man or of God or both). Fear of consequences/desire for reward. Conviction that the moral code is best for all. Any person may find one reason is their primarly motivator, but even them it is generally a combination of all of them that motivates a person to be "moral".

You appear to have come up with your version of 'love thy neighbor' (LTN) out of your own heart and mind - if this is so, who is to say that another non believer has the same code?Who indeed? Perhaps you should ask them. I must say in my experience, practically all non-believers accept "love your neighbor" as a good moral code. And if they say they accept it, they generally act that way. In my expereice, fewer non-believers than "religious" feel the need to pay vice's tariff to virtue: hypocrisy.

Beeting is not what I'm talking about. Lets look into enslaving your neighbor. what would cause it and suspend the 13th admendment (slavery) and the 8th (cruel and unusual punishments). Maybe John didn't have enough money to pay his taxes so he went to you saying I need $100,000 or Clinton will throw him in irons and he will be tourchered till he can pay which he has no more income so he will never be able to pay. John, my neighbor, comes to me and says that he needs $100k to avoid this and is willing to be my slave if i will pay it off. John is treating me as he would want to be treated and not asking to give him the $, but willing to barter for it. Being a good neighbor I accept his offer and put him to work in the fields and don't mistreat him. Far fetched - yes but this has happened in the past.Willing slavery is not true slavery. God specificially condones the capture and enslavement and beating of "enemies", which in no way resembles the willing contract you propose. You could accept him as a servant until he pays his debt; this would be a far more moral solution than enslaving him and his children.

An easy case for love thy neighbor can be made for POW slaves also.OK, make it.

I take it that your reason that slavery is immoral is that you thought you should love thy neighbor?Slavery is wrong for me because I know of no person who desires to be truly enslaved, and I do not think persons can or should be owned. As I desire to exist *not* as the possession of another, as do all the persons I know, I cannot morally allow a person to be enslaved against their will.

Ptahlis

09-20-2000, 10:42 AM

Originally posted by k2dave

They would be, except that Jesus clearly stated that the 1st and 2nd comandment are the most important
(snip)
God defines morality for us. before the commandmants, "love thy neighbor" was neither moral or immoral as God chose not to define it yet.

So, God's "fixed and immutable" moral code is temporally adjustable? When you say "neither moral nor immoral" do you mean to say that all actions God hasn't spoken to are necessarily morally neutral? So I can tinker about with viruses until I come up with a superflu capable of killing off all humanity, so long as I don't intend to release it, with a clean moral slate? I can try to genetically custom design my next child? Try and download my mind onto the internet? Artificially create manimals a la The Island of Dr. Moreau? plenty of other Christians would have problems with this. It seems that you and they might possibly be interpreting this moral code thing differently.

And really, you don't see any conflict between being expressly allowed to do something and then told to live by a code that forbids doing that very thing? Are you really so invested in the idea that you are following THE perfect moral code revealed in the Bible that you cannot see that there are problems with it as written?

For some people it WAS ok, the rape you mentioned was not rape but marrage - brutal and illeagal by todays standards and laws but normal back then.
In other words, it was morally ok in their society and not morally ok in today's society. Despite the fact that the Bible hasn't changed. Yet our moral code is fixed and immutable as given by God. Care to try that one again? Remember, we are working from the idea that God told them it was hunky-dory to do these things, and from your idea of this fixed moral code.

we (humans) don't have the wisdom to fully understand our actions and their long term implications. It is very presumptious of you to think otherwise.

Well, certainly we can't ever know the future. So what? Apparently, God chose not to inspire the authors of the Bible to write a consistent, non-contradictory set of rules. At the very least they wrote a set of rules that can be used to justify practically any interpretation you care to apply to it, or so it would seem according to history. Even if you are correct that we cannot ever devise a "perfect" morality on our own, God apparently hasn't been able to give us one either.

By the way, even if there is some ultimate objective moral code tucked away in the Bible, how presumptious of you to think we couldn't have figured it out without God's help.

who is to say that another non believer has the same code?
[/b]
And as has been pointed out before, not all believers have the same code either. If you would care to see how widely they diverge, I could provide many links to such wonderful groups as the Christian Identity. What is the difference?

From Gaudere:
You still haven't shown how you can love your neighbor as yourself and yet enslave and beat him against his will.

Beeting is not what I'm talking about. Lets look into enslaving your neighbor. what would cause it and suspend the 13th admendment (slavery) and the 8th (cruel and unusual punishments)(*snip* long description of indentured servitude)
[/B]

What you describe is merely one type of slavery, called indentured servitude. It is willingly (in your example anyway) entered into. How would you apply your arguments to the type of slavery practiced upon blacks or the OT Jews in Egypt? There certainly was no friendly agreement entered into in these cases. These slaves were born into their fate and bore their own children into it as well, and often had no protections or guarantees under the law. How is it that you can keep a slave, much less beat one, and still be loving thy neighbor as thyself?

Really, the arguments you are putting forth so far remind me of the square peg/round hole problem solved by judicious use of a sledgehammer. You may point to the battered and splintered peg and say "See! I told you it fits!" but it really is far from convincing. Here's a hint: try not to contradict yourself. If you do contradict yourself, rescind one of the contradictory assertions, or explain why they do not, in fact, contracidt. If you refuse to do so, you look like an illogical, hide-bound, non-thinker engaged in pointless sophistry to try and hold onto untenable viewpoints. Of course, that's just my POV, and plenty of people today seem to get a lot of mileage out of self serving rationalizations, incompatible beliefs, and dogma.

jmullaney

09-20-2000, 11:39 AM

Originally posted by Gaudere
I suppose all mankind utterly lacks empathy and intelligence, then, hm?
You know that is not what I mean. But, people in general lack the empathy to be perfect, and their various imperfect moralities provide a slippery slope for what is right and wrong. You don't believe in the virtue of charity, and I understand that. That you can either not understand why charity is important, or lack the empathy to see why it is right is a case in point.

I do not see how the inability to prove anything without accepting a certain number of axioms has any bearing on the discussion at hand.
Nor do I, but this axiom alone gets you no where. If fact, you can't get anywhere in any logical system with only one axiom. But you are using other, unspoken, axioms to make your case.

Gaudere

09-20-2000, 11:49 AM

You don't believe in the virtue of charity, and I understand that. That you can either not understand why charity is important, or lack the empathy to see why it is right is a case in point.I believe and understand the importance of charity. I do not, however, interpret charity precisely as you do, or demand that it be an "all-or-nothing" proposition: either have no possessions and "be perfect", or any attempt at morality is useless.

Nor do I, but this axiom alone gets you no where. If fact, you can't get anywhere in any logical system with only one axiom. But you are using other, unspoken, axioms to make your case.::shrug:: So long as the unspoken axioms are shared by the people discussing the issue, things can still be "proven". I do not think it is necessary to elucidate in every argument every single axiom we operate under, such as the axioms that we exist, that others exist, that the world is real, etc. etc. I still am not sure exactly what your point was, to bring up the unprovability of anything without axioms.

jmullaney

09-20-2000, 12:58 PM

Originally posted by Gaudere
I do not, however, interpret charity precisely as you do, or demand that it be an "all-or-nothing" proposition: either have no possessions and "be perfect", or any attempt at morality is useless.
I don't think I ever said that!

Not to equivocate, but as an example, if you own ten slaves and set one of them free, that could be seen as an attempt at morality, right? I wouldn't call that "useless."
I still am not sure exactly what your point was, to bring up the unprovability of anything without axioms.
I don't think I said that either, but in any case: I do think any attempt at showing anything is immoral by the method you suggest is ultimately just a house of cards. What axioms do you propose for defining your empathy and intelligence requirements without which your first axiom can not be understood?

Gaudere

09-20-2000, 03:16 PM

Not to equivocate, but as an example, if you own ten slaves and set one of them free, that could be seen as an attempt at morality, right? I wouldn't call that "useless."OK, so the fact that anyone still has some possessions does not show that s/he does not understand charity, or lacks empathy, even by your rather rigorous standards for "moral behavior", right? Therefore, you can work from the morality that *is* understood, to encourage people to "more moral" behavior, without necessarily needing recourse to a "higher power". Despite your claim that we need a higher power since our hearts are all inherently twisted, there is already a basis in man's heart from which to teach empathy and understanding of others. After all, nearly all are born with a certain degree of empathy, yet we learn to use it properly and improve upon it through our family. Don't you remember your mother saying, "how would you feel if someone hit you? You wouldn't like it, right? So you shouldn't do that to someone else." That is teaching someone to use their empathy to arrive at a consistent morality. Later, the child might be taught a more sophisticated empathy: "I know *you* like to swing really high on the swing, but Jamie doesn't. So you shouldn't push her so high if she doesn't like it." (Haven't we had this discussion before, by the way?)

I don't think I said that either, but in any case: I do think any attempt at showing anything is immoral by the method you suggest is ultimately just a house of cards.Any attempt to prove anything is a house of cards. But you can convince, based on shared axioms.

What axioms do you propose for defining your empathy and intelligence requirements without which your first axiom can not be understood?I don't follow you.

jmullaney

09-20-2000, 06:52 PM

Originally posted by Gaudere
(Haven't we had this discussion before, by the way?)
You said morality is based on the Golden Rule. I said you could justify a killing spree with such a rule. You said it requires empathy and intelligence which can be taught. And so I went off in another thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=34837) and tried this theory of yours out.

I was largely nonplussed. Not that I won no one over to my side which wasn't what I was interested in doing. What got to me was the number of people who jumped in just to say that they didn't see such an action as immoral, since they did not themselves feel harmed by such an action. No empathy there.

Just like the slavery debate, you can't make any headway against a cultural way of life this way. Weren't most of the abolishonists Bible thumpers? How's that Battle Hymn of the Republic go again?

I could go to parts of Russia and argue that capitalism is bad and plenty of people would agree with me.

There is a thread about communism around now and people are eagerly jumping on board to decry the evils of such an economic system.

So, if you have some axioms in addition to the Golden Rule that might better explain just what empathy and reason are so that they might be taught, let me know. I don't think this alone cuts it.

Gaudere

09-20-2000, 08:34 PM

What got to me was the number of people who jumped in just to say that they didn't see such an action as immoral, since they did not themselves feel harmed by such an action. No empathy there.Since you were arguing that one person owning property inherently hurt another, so it was therefore immoral, they were refuting that argument by saying that they were not hurt by others possessing things. The reason people did not agree with you was not because they were unempathetic; it was because they did not believe the mere fact of possessing property necessarily hurt another, nor that it made all people worse off. Many people argued quite eloquently that owning property could lead to greater benefits for all, and that choosing to disrespect property would not create a paradise. You have failed to adequately show that owning property is immoral, so do not be surprised that people can consider themselves moral and still respect property. You wish to blame other's "twisted hearts" because they do not perfectly agree with your morality...will you not perhaps consider the thought that others may not agree because you are wrong or misguided? You are so certain that your viewpoint alone is right that you think anyone who does not agree is immoral, unempathetic or willfully ignorant!

Just like the slavery debate, you can't make any headway against a cultural way of life this way. Weren't most of the abolishonists Bible thumpers? How's that Battle Hymn of the Republic go again?As were many of those who spoke out against slavery. In the end, I believe the more moral choice won out. I think we are slowly becoming a more moral people; witness the fact that we now decry rape, slavery and child abuse much more than in the past. What is making this happen, if not reason and empathy slowly winning out over selfish, short-sighted desires? If reason and empathy cannot make others more moral, how can it be that we seem to be becoming culturally more moral than we once were? The fact that your viewpoint is terribly bitter and cynical does not make it any more likely to be true.

So, if you have some axioms in addition to the Golden Rule that might better explain just what empathy and reason are so that they might be taught, let me know. I don't think this alone cuts it.I thought I did explain how empathy and reason are taught, in my example of how a parent teaches it to a child. What do you find unsatisfactory about it?

[Edited by Gaudere on 09-20-2000 at 08:37 PM]

jmullaney

09-21-2000, 11:21 AM

Originally posted by Gaudere
Since you were arguing that one person owning property inherently hurt another, so it was therefore immoral, they were refuting that argument by saying that they were not hurt by others possessing things.
:rolleyes: Actually, if you read the thread more closely, you will see that that wasn't what I was arguing at all. I was only arguing against capitalism and socialism at the same time. (Antoher approach might be to show clearly that capitalism is superior to socialism, then show socialism is superior to capitalism, then show that the arguments cancel each other out.) But I still don't see how that is an empathic response. I don't mind being shot in the head, therefore, I can shoot others in the head. There were plenty of valid arguments made, but I can't see how to respect that as one of them.

The reason people did not agree with you was not because they were unempathetic; it was because they did not believe the mere fact of possessing property necessarily hurt another, nor that it made all people worse off.
I gave numerous examples of how others are hurt under capitalism and socialism. And I pointed out that while the economy might be good for people as a whole the ends do not justify the means. At least that would seem to be a condition of a moral system IMHO.

You are so certain that your viewpoint alone is right that you think anyone who does not agree is immoral, unempathetic or willfully ignorant!
But can't you see that as a problem with any moral system? I mean, it is easy to claim that people here who are saying "slavery is OK" are just playing the uncaring fool, because somehow everyone knows that slavery is wrong. I don't think that is anything more than a cultural asumption.

What is making this happen, if not reason and empathy slowly winning out over selfish, short-sighted desires? If reason and empathy cannot make others more moral, how can it be that we seem to be becoming culturally more moral than we once were?
Since when has rape not been decried? And child labor in the western world was largely a product of the industrial revolution I think, unless you think chores are wrong. Slavery has been done away with in almost all countries (although some would say communism is slavery, and some communists would say... oh, never mind) and I guess that is progress, but I'm not entirely convinced that our "moral" society is more than a short term trend. (and yes, I know my heart is just as twisted most as everyone elses and this may cloud my judgement.)

I thought I did explain how empathy and reason are taught, in my example of how a parent teaches it to a child. What do you find unsatisfactory about it?
Well, then pray tell, what is the difference between your parental concept and the parental concept of God? All parents can't be perfect teachers in all places at all times, right? You don't see "God" as a valid parental substitution, a gestalt perfect teacher?

Gaudere

09-21-2000, 01:53 PM

But I still don't see how that is an empathic response. I don't mind being shot in the head, therefore, I can shoot others in the head.It *is* a valid argument if the person is arguing to you that being shot in the head hurts all people; that can be refuted my showing an example of a person who isn't hurt by being shot in the head. But your comparison is disingenous; your claim that owning property hurts all people is not as clear-cut as a claim that being shot in the head hurts all people. A better anaology would be regarding those who come on our board to tell us that homosexual marriage hurts all marriages. A common response to this statement is a poster stating that they are married, and homosexual marriage has not hurt their marriage at all. Do you consider this an unempathetic response?

Overall, your arguments that people are hurt when others own property and that everyone would be better off if no one owned property were unconvincing. Therefore no one here considers owning property to be immoral. But you cannot claim they are unempathetic because of this; if I believe that it is moral for all to rub blue mud in their navels, yet I cannot convince anyone of this, it is my powers of persuasion and argument that have failed, not their morality. They may be perfectly moral, but unless I can convince them that not rubbing blue mud in their navels is hurting others, they will not see any need to start doing it.

But can't you see that as a problem with any moral system? I mean, it is easy to claim that people here who are saying "slavery is OK" are just playing the uncaring fool, because somehow everyone knows that slavery is wrong. I don't think that is anything more than a cultural asumption.When you own slaves, you possess someone against their will who would prefer to be free. This is not a cultural assumption; this is a statement of fact. If you would not desire to be a slave, it is wrong to enslave another who also does not desire to be a slave. This is a moral decision, predicated on the golden rule. Where is the cultural assumption here? The reason I think all should agree that slavery is wrong is that it can be fairly conclusively shown that people do not desire to be owned; they wish to be free to make their own decisions. I do not think you have shown as clearly how other people do not wish to have anyone own property; therefore, your calling people who do not agree with you as being unempathetic or having "twisted hearts" is wrong.

Since when has rape not been decried?Um, you *did* read the forced marriage-and-sex-and-casting-aside from the bible I mentioned, right? Even K2Dave mentioned theft of (and presumably, sex with) women. Rape of the enemies' women has been fairly well accepted at certain times.

And child labor in the western world was largely a product of the industrial revolution I think, unless you think chores are wrong.Children used to work from dawn til dusk in farmer's fields, I believe; I consider that a little more extensive than "chores". Nor were there any laws against child or spousal abuse.

Well, then pray tell, what is the difference between your parental concept and the parental concept of God? All parents can't be perfect teachers in all places at all times, right? You don't see "God" as a valid parental substitution, a gestalt perfect teacher?But you were saying God was the only source for a moral code, and I pointed out that parents are generally the ones who teach a moral code. I think I have shown that God need not be the only source for the teaching of morality. "God" could be a substitute for parents for teaching morality, if He existed and made His rules as clear as a parent's. Yes, I know *you* think they are clear, but I would submit that practically every theist here has a diferent interpretation of those "clear" rules. You're not above picking and choosing what you choose to take literally and what you choose to take metaphorically yourself; I've seen you do it. I think I'll trust a parent who believes firmly in the golden rule or similar to guide children toward morality, rather than hand the kids a Bible and assume the job is done.

jmullaney

09-21-2000, 02:40 PM

Originally posted by Gaudere
that can be refuted my showing an example of a person who isn't hurt by being shot in the head.
If I shoot Larry in the head, that doesn't hurt Tom. Thus, shooting Larry in the head isn't immoral? For an action to be wrong, you don't have to show it is universally wrong. If Tina is forced all day to work in a Chinese sweatshop for a bowl of rice, that doesn't hurt me, so screw Tina, right? Even Fascism is a wonderful system if you are Hitler.

A better anaology would be regarding those who come on our board to tell us that homosexual marriage hurts all marriages. A common response to this statement is a poster stating that they are married, and homosexual marriage has not hurt their marriage at all. Do you consider this an unempathetic response?
If you could show no heterosexual marriages were hurt by homesexual marriage (which I think would be quite easy) that would be a valid counter argument. "I'm Hitler; I just killed half of Europe's Jews, and now I'm going to Disneyworld." "Well, there you have it people. What a lucky guy."

Overall, your arguments that people are hurt when others own property and that everyone would be better off if no one owned property were unconvincing.
Again, I don't think you read the thread. But, even if the completely different argument I was making than you think I was making was unconvincing, that doesn't negate the fact that a fair number of people tried to make the unempathetic argument above in response. Which casts doubt on your idea that people have some sort of inherent empathy.

If you would not desire to be a slave, it is wrong to enslave another who also does not desire to be a slave.
I don't desire to be locked in a factory and be forced to work for a bowl of rice a day, so why isn't is wrong to participater in an economy that forces those conditions on such people?

Yes, I know *you* think they are clear, but I would submit that practically every theist here has a diferent interpretation of those "clear" rules. You're not above picking and choosing what you choose to take literally and what you choose to take metaphorically yourself; I've seen you do it. I think I'll trust a parent who believes firmly in the golden rule or similar to guide children toward morality, rather than hand the kids a Bible and assume the job is done.
You are exactly right. Which is why I have come of late to believe in apostolic succession.

Gaudere

09-21-2000, 03:12 PM

If you could show no heterosexual marriages were hurt by homesexual marriage (which I think would be quite easy) that would be a valid counter argument.Sure, I think I can interview every heterosexual marriage in the world, that'll only take about, oh, five thousand years or so. Then they'll all be dead and I'll have to start all over. On a context such as this message board, we rely on logic, studies and personal experience. You were essentially saying "The fact that I, jmullaney, own property hurts everyone, from you in the US to Chang in China." Many people spoke up to say that your owning property didn't appear to hurt them in the slightest. You were also, IMHO, unable to establish that your owning property here hurt Chang in China. And you still didn't answer my question: since we cannot interview every heterosexual marriage to determine whether they are hurt by homosexual marriage, is "well, homosexual marriage hasn't hurt *my* marriage" an immoral response to a claim that homosexual marriage hurts heterosexual marriages? I do not believe they were uncaring; you made a sweeping statement and they challenged it. Your evidence that owning property is immoral was not well enough established that your equating them with those who condone Hitler's actions was a valid comparison.

[Aside: instead of an obscenity filter, I want a Hitler-filter. Anytime anyone uses a Hitler analogy when a no one involved is actively practicing genocide will have his post replaced by "I have poor arguments and a sensationalistic yet weak command of analogy. And a tiny penis." Sorry, major pet peeve of mine. And I have faith you'll manage to find some argument to support your equating owning property with genocide within your moral code. ;)]

Which casts doubt on your idea that people have some sort of inherent empathy.Yet I strongly suspect these same people would not argue that if killing children does not hurt them, it is just fine, despite your attempt to equate the two responses. You don't seem to understand refutation by counter-example is not the same as "I don't give a shit about anyone else".

I don't desire to be locked in a factory and be forced to work for a bowl of rice a day, so why isn't is wrong to participater in an economy that forces those conditions on such people?If you truly believe that your owning property forces people 10000 miles away to be locked in a factory, then I can see why you would consider owning property as immoral. However, if you cannot adequately demonstrate how this is so to others, do not be surprised if they do not consider it immoral themselves. *I* may consider your "perfect morality" of divesting yourself of all property so you can live upon the largess of those of us who do own property to be immoral...unless I wish to see you starve I must work, not only for my food, but for yours. Aren't you forcing me to work by refusing to work yourself? Therefore, isn't your choice to live off the efforts of those who do own property immoral?

Smartass

09-21-2000, 04:18 PM

This is the kind of thread that really pisses me off: It started off really interesting, then headed off down the road toward minutiae. Gaudere, I commend your efforts in this thread. The fact that the other contestants are having to stake off smaller and smaller areas to defend is a testament to how well you have argued.

In an effort to make this thread interesting again, I have a hypothetical for k2dave and jmullaney. You seem to think that morality that doesn't stem from God is, perforce, based on nothing. As it turns out, I think that a morality that is based solely on religious dogma is a sign of a lack of character. I think many of the non-theists here understand your position, but you don't understand ours. Maybe this will help:

Suppose you performed an act of outstanding holy righteousness. It was such a wonderful deed, that God chose to speak to you about it and reward you for it. Let's say that you have just given away your last dollar to a beggar and are walking down the street when a bush bursts into flame and God begins to speak:

"[Insert you name here], I am the Lord your God, and I am very pleased with you. Your acts of holy righteousness have forwarded the cause of goodness beyond description. In order to reward you, I have chosen to release you from the bounds of normal morality for 24 hours. Starting at dawn tomorrow, I define anything you choose to do as moral and good. Whatever acts you commit are acts committed in my name and are above reproach. Further, I will use my power to ensure that no harm or punishment, by human or other means, comes to you as the result of your actions during this period. You have 24 hours to do anything that you please without fear of punishment or reprisal in this life or the next."

Now, my question for you is, what would you do during that 24 hours?

To my way of thinking, your answer to this question indicates whether you are truly moral.

-VM

jmullaney

09-21-2000, 04:27 PM

Originally posted by Gaudere
You were essentially saying "The fact that I, jmullaney, own property hurts everyone, from you in the US to Chang in China."
Look, I don't know why you keep going on about property ownership when that was not what that thread was about.

Many people spoke up to say that your owning property didn't appear to hurt them in the slightest.
Since you apparently have not read the thread in question, I don't know how to respond to this, since nothing of the sort occured in the thread in question.

since we cannot interview every heterosexual marriage to determine whether they are hurt by homosexual marriage, is "well, homosexual marriage hasn't hurt *my* marriage" an immoral response to a claim that homosexual marriage hurts heterosexual marriages?
Well, if someone would present logic, studies, or personal experience on this, I'm sure it could be judged fairly.

I want a Hitler-filter.
Sometimes, arguing ad hitlorem is a valid way of showing the absurdity of an argument. If you say an action Y is not harmful because person X is not harmed, numerous examples of how such an argument fails can be found, ad hitlorem being just a little over-the-top rubbing in of the nose.

Yet I strongly suspect these same people would not argue that if killing children does not hurt them, it is just fine, despite your attempt to equate the two responses.
Which again is just a cultural more. (gotta find that accented "e" key). Who does infanticide hurt? If you wanted to extend abortion to the fourth trimester, not many two month olds are going to show up on this board to complain. It doesn't hurt me because I am not an infant.

You don't seem to understand refutation by counter-example is not the same as "I don't give a shit about anyone else".
You can't use isolated counter examples to refute a morality based on the Golden rule, or else the whole rule falls apart.

unless I wish to see you starve I must work, not only for my food, but for yours. Aren't you forcing me to work by refusing to work yourself? Therefore, isn't your choice to live off the efforts of those who do own property immoral?
So you don't believe in the principal of solidarity? (http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/commune.html#SOLIDARITY)?

sailor

09-21-2000, 04:41 PM

Who is the principal of solidarity?

jmullaney

09-21-2000, 04:47 PM

Smartass -- your question praetersupposes that I'm a moral person, which I am not by my own admission. If I were a moral person, I would presume this was a trick in any case and would continue doing the will of God.

Er... priciple. Sorry. Although I think John Paul II contributed to this idea.

Mr2001

09-21-2000, 05:17 PM

jmullaney:

Your response seems to be a common sidestep. Theist ABC says "My morality comes from God - whatever he says is right, that's what is right, by definition." Skeptic XYZ responds with "OK, what if God told (or in this case, allowed) you to do <something which is morally appalling to you>."

And the least weaselly response I've seen from ABC is "Well, you know, if God told me to do it, I'd have to! I'd have no choice!" More often it's "I don't believe God would say that, so I refuse to answer your question."

Why doesn't ABC believe God would say that? Because ABC has his own morality, independent of what God says - he just doesn't like to admit it. He cannot believe God would support something that violates his personal morality because he defines God as infinitely moral.

Gaudere

09-21-2000, 05:22 PM

Since you apparently have not read the thread in question, I don't know how to respond to this, since nothing of the sort occured in the thread in question.I assure you I did read the thread. I was, however, attempting to address your morality as a whole as well. In the thread you argue against money; previously you argued against property. As the thread went on, it seemed you were not objecting to money per se; money is simply a measure of exchange, and we if got rid of money we would simply switch to barter, which I believe you also objected to. You seem to see oppression whether we use cash or whether we trade ducks. You were apparently objecting to any method of ritualized exchange of goods by their owners determined by their value, the entire concept of private property. So I tried to pull it into a whole. I think my arguments still hold whether you object to money or property; I am simply disagreeing with your assumption of immorality for people who offered counter-examples to your argument. You stated "If I love my fellow man as I love myself, I shouldn't want them to be slaves of money either," whereupon others spoke up to dispute that they were slaves to money. It is quite similar to telling a person who claims that homosexual marriage ruins heterosexual marriage that their marriage was not hurt at all by homosexual marriage.

You can't use isolated counter examples to refute a morality based on the Golden rule, or else the whole rule falls apart.No, but if I insist that it is immoral for people to not rub blue mud on their navels because it hurts others, and these others speak up to say they are not hurt at all when you do not rub blue mud on your navel and they can't for the life of them see the connection, well... For you, it is simply proof that they are blind and immoral that they do not see that just because rubbing blue mud in their navels does not hurt them, that it does not mean that Chang in China is not hurt by them not rubbing blue mud in their navels! For them...they think your argument is too weak to convince them that their actions are immoral. Morality is based on intelligence and empathy; you simply cannot claim that any arbitrary action hurts another and expect people to immediately cease doing that action. You must establish through reason *and* empathy that that action hurts another. We can fairly clearly see that slavery hurts the slave, and infanticide hurts the infant; it is much less clear that money or property hurts all mankind, and that your solution is superior. Do not decry another's morality when it is your argument that is at fault.

Me: unless I wish to see you starve I must work, not only for my food, but for yours. Aren't you forcing me to work by refusing to work yourself? Therefore, isn't your choice to live off the efforts of those who do own property immoral?
Jmullaney: So you don't believe in the principal of solidarity?
Explain further. I'm afarid you're being a wee bit too gnomic here.

PS--principle ;)

xenophon41

09-21-2000, 05:54 PM

Just now, describing a thread referenced by jmullaney, Gaudere summarized:
Many people spoke up to say that your owning property didn't appear to hurt them in the slightest.

jmullaney spluttered:
Since you apparently have not read the thread in question, I don't know how to respond to this, since nothing of the sort occured in the thread in question.

However, when first referencing that thread, j whined:
What got to me was the number of people who jumped in just to say that they didn't see such an action as immoral, since they did not themselves feel harmed by such an action.

And that's all I have to say about that.

sailor:
Who is the principal of solidarity?

I don't know, but Lech Walensa had the job in Poland some years ago...

jmullaney

09-21-2000, 06:28 PM

Originally posted by Mr2001
Because ABC has his own morality, independent of what God says - he just doesn't like to admit it.

Er, look dude -- there would be no independant way of verifying the "voices in my head" did not in fact come from some other source. But, playing along, were I a moral person, I still would not want to do anything which harmed others, as their immunity does not seem to be part of the deal. Is this the answer you seek?

Xenophon41 -- I think I am within my right not to have Gaudere mischaracterize my argument in that thread as an attempt to make it into something it is not in what might be seen as a blatant and repeated attempt to change the subject from an agrument which I have worked through using only her rules already, to an argument I have not.

Anyway, Gaudere, if you want to own slaves, you aren't harming me. Thus, slavery is not immoral. Please refute if you are able.

No, I know some people claimed they were not slaves to money, and I only suggested that they quit their jobs, give all their money away, and come back in six months to tell us how it went. That sort of "I can quit anytime I want to" mentality doesn't go too far in my book.

But, beyond that, that doesn't mean some people in the economy are not in an even worse condition that they couldn't even quit if they wanted to, because their local laws forbid it.

And I also made clear that even if you don't buy goods made by workers under these conditions, that doesn't mean the next person you give your money to won't either. You are still a part of the economy. No one argued that point.

Solidarity, as an example you might understand, can mean worker Larry wants to go on strike for better compensation. Oh, but poor worker Bob doesn't want him to go on strike, because then Bob would have to work twice as hard to keep his employer happy. Of course, Bob could go on strike also, and they both could wind up with better compensation. But, you seem to think it would be wrong for Bob to be in solidarity with Larry, and Larry is a bad person for wanting to go on strike because Bob would have to work so much harder. Is that a fair evaluation of your position?

xenophon41

09-21-2000, 06:54 PM

-- I think I am within my right not to have Gaudere mischaracterize my argument in that thread as an attempt to make it into something it is not in what might be seen as a blatant and repeated attempt to change the subject from an agrument which I have worked through using only her rules already, to an argument I have not.

Having read through this entire idiotic thread, my honest assessment is that the only one constantly reworking your argument is you.

Anyway, Gaudere, if you want to own slaves, you aren't harming me. Thus, slavery is not immoral. Please refute if you are able.

Easy. It's a non-sequitur (http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/nonseq.htm). (Specifically, denying the antecedent (http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/deny.htm).)

Fortunately, she never made the statement "slavery is immoral for this reason only: the act of owning a slave harms everyone." Sheesh! Only an jackass would argue from that standpoint...

kanicbird

09-22-2000, 08:57 AM

They would be, except that Jesus clearly stated that the 1st and 2nd comandment are the most important
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, they still conflict

That is just blindness, God says which commandment superceeds all others.

Please attempt to explain how killing helpless male infants is not "murder". Or how forced marriage and sex is not rape.

Again, killing and murder are not the same. This is the way societies went to war and a good way to make sure that the looser socitey won't be able to counter attack for many years to come. Forced marriage is not rape (wasn't there a court case where a wife charged her husband of raping her and it was thrown out because you can't rape your wife?). Probally there was no such term as rape back them - it was just called sex. Women didn't have the right to choose her husband, she would either be sold by her father or lost to the other side in a war or other conflict. The woman had no choice of who she married - all marrage was forced.

So a person who chose to not own slaves and loved his neighbor as himself was no more moral than one who owned slaves, beat them, killed infants and raped women?

Before God gave us the rules, this would be correct since God's Word defines morality

An easy case for love thy neighbor can be made for POW slaves also.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OK, make it.

suspending the Genovia convention:
Simple - during war you can morally kill the enemy (which I must point out is not murder). If you capture him you could kill him, but instead you allow him to live as a slave. again this is assuming you are not beeting you slave.

Slavery is wrong for me because I know of no person who desires to be truly enslaved,

So why does that make it immoral? I know of no person (in their right mind) who desires to be homeless/in jail/ etc. Just because you don't want something doesn't make it right or wrong

and I do not think persons can or should be owned.

But people are owned even today and societies are based on it (not even talking about slavery, women and children are property of their husbands in some societies) - what makes their societies wrong? I believe that parents should own their children until they get old enough - not that this is true in the US.

As I desire to exist *not* as the possession of another, as do all the persons I know, I cannot morally allow a person to be enslaved against their will.

Just because you don't want to be a slave and a slave probally doesn't want to be a slave doesn't make it wrong. I'm sure there are things you have to do that you don't want to but that doesn't make it wrong.

One problem I think we have is the definition of morality and good/bad - to me God defines them and we w/ our finite knowleage can't. We have laws that we have established to help society as best we can but there is no morality established in them. So w/o God, no one can define morality because we can't possibly know enought.

Also to other posts about God effectivally changing moral codes throughout time - God chose to give us our moral code in pieces for His reasons. I personally think that it was needed for us to advance to where we are today but that is just a guess.

jmullaney

09-22-2000, 09:46 AM

Originally posted by xenophon41
Only an jackass would argue from that standpoint...
My point exactly.

Ptahlis

09-22-2000, 10:56 AM

Originally posted by k2dave
Also to other posts about God effectivally changing moral codes throughout time - God chose to give us our moral code in pieces for His reasons. I personally think that it was needed for us to advance to where we are today but that is just a guess.

And you accuse us of moral relativism?

Gaudere

09-22-2000, 10:58 AM

That is just blindness, God says which commandment superceeds all others.Yet before, it didn't; love your neighbor as yourself was at one time not moral, according to you. Then God apprently changed his morality so that it *was* moral, thereby negating his previous moral laws. They do conflict; they cannot co-exist. Just becuase you are told which one to follow does not mean they don't conflict; if they didn't conflict at all there would be no need to have one overrule the other.

Again, killing and murder are not the same. This is the way societies went to war and a good way to make sure that the looser socitey won't be able to counter attack for many years to come.So, killing helpless male infants is not murder, then, because it was accepted by society? Why do I get the feeling that you do not accept this argument when it comes to abortion?

Forced marriage is not rape (wasn't there a court case where a wife charged her husband of raping her and it was thrown out because you can't rape your wife?).Actually, in most states you *can* rape your wife/husband, I believe. Do you think it is a moral act to force someone to marry you and force them to have sex with you? Having sex with someone without their consent is considered "rape", and I don't see that the woman consented during any part of these proceedings.

Probally there was no such term as rape back them - it was just called sex.Well, actually it was probably whatever is Aramaic (?) for "rape". Even if the word "rape" didn't exist, the concept of having sex with a woman against her will undoubtably existed.

Women didn't have the right to choose her husband, she would either be sold by her father or lost to the other side in a war or other conflict. The woman had no choice of who she married - all marrage was forced.Do you think it is moral to have sex with a woman against her will? Do you realize you are attempting to justify what you consider to be God's timeless, perfectly moral code by saying "well, a lot of people did stuff like that back then, so it's OK"?

Me: So a person who chose to not own slaves and loved his neighbor as himself was no more moral than one who owned slaves, beat them, killed infants and raped women?
K2dave: Before God gave us the rules, this would be correct since God's Word defines moralityActually, I spoke less strongly than I should have. Killing infants and raping women was not equally moral as loving your neighbor as yourself, it was *more* moral, since God explicitly commanded the killing of babies and rape of women. G'wan, I want to hear you say it: "At one time, loving your neighbor as yourself was an immoral act. God commanded us to kill children and rape women, so anyone who chose not to do so was immoral." :)

Simple - during war you can morally kill the enemy (which I must point out is not murder). If you capture him you could kill him, but instead you allow him to live as a slave. again this is assuming you are not beeting you slave.This is like saying, "I can morally kill a person in war, so if I choose not to do so I can do whatever I want to him since it's better than killing him." You could justify, say, shooting the guy's hands off this way. The fact that you could have killed him does not make it moral to enslave him against his will, any more than it makes it moral to shoot his hands off!

But people are owned even today and societies are based on it (not even talking about slavery, women and children are property of their husbands in some societies) - what makes their societies wrong?You should consider it wrong since you consider it moral to love your neighbor as yourself (at least until God releases V3.0 of His Perfectly Moral Laws, which could include genocide and sexual abuse of children for all we know--and if God said sexual abuse of children was moral, it would be, right? I'm sorry, I have trouble with a God whose actions are considered equally perfect whether He tortures children or blesses them. I am glad most of the Christians I know do not think the way you do.) Assuming the "owning" is not willing (which would make it cease to be slavery), you should consider it immoral for people to be owned.

I believe that parents should own their children until they get old enough - not that this is true in the US.Are you loving your neighbor as yourself to treat a human as just a piece of property? If you do not wish to be treated like a piece of property, and you love your neighbor as yourself, you cannot treat others as a piece of property against their desires.

Just because you don't want to be a slave and a slave probally doesn't want to be a slave doesn't make it wrong. I'm sure there are things you have to do that you don't want to but that doesn't make it wrong.Yes, but if you force me to do something that I do not wish to do, is that loving your neighbor as yourself? If you do not wish to be enslaved against your will, and you love your neighbor as yourself, you cannot morally enslave them. If you do not wish to be tortured, and you love your neighbor as yourself, you cannot morally torture a person who does not desire it. If you do not wish to be stolen from, and you love your neighbor as yourself, you cannot morally steal from them. See how this works?

We have laws that we have established to help society as best we can but there is no morality established in them.So our laws against murder and rape have no morality in them?

So w/o God, no one can define morality because we can't possibly know enought.But you see, humans have to interpret God's moral code. You have come to the conclusion that slavery is acceptable, and rape and murder of babies was once more moral than loving your neighbor as yourself. Other Christians do not believe slavery and rape and killing of children was ever acceptable. How is the "perfection" of God's moral code better than a secular morality if no human knows what God's moral code really is? Each person thinks they're right, and it's entirely possible none of them are.

Gaudere

09-22-2000, 11:23 AM

Solidarity, as an example you might understand, can mean worker Larry wants to go on strike for better compensation. Oh, but poor worker Bob doesn't want him to go on strike, because then Bob would have to work twice as hard to keep his employer happy. Of course, Bob could go on strike also, and they both could wind up with better compensation.The problem here, again, is that your theory that withdrawing from the economic system would result in the greatest happiness for all does not seem to be as clear as the premise behind stiking for better conditions. For me, it's like you are claiming that if everyone stops eating on their own and requires others to forcefeed them, it will result in paradise. Now, I don't really see the connection, and am understandably irritated at having to forcefeed you, not to mention that it seem to hurt your goal of making everyone stop eating on their own since I have to eat even more to get the energy to feed you, which you consider immoral. A more moral action, IMHO, would be to find others who are perfectly happy to not eat themselves and forcefeed you, and then you won't be forcing others to continue actions you consider immoral because of their desire to prevent you from starving. You have stated that you will live off the labors of thse who do participate in the economy, thereby requiring them to work harder to help you. Even given your end goal of everyone ceasing to participate in the economy, someone is still going to have to produce food. It is not immoral for you to provide for yourself, then, if you don't participate in the economy, and it would prevent those who do participate from being further drawn into the evil web on commerce. Therefore, I think your actions would be more "perfect" if you did not live off those who worked and instead provided for yourself.

jmullaney

09-22-2000, 11:28 AM

Originally posted by Gaudere
Then God apprently changed his morality so that it *was* moral, thereby negating his previous moral laws.
Apparently, God explained his morality imperfectly. He apparently did not completely understand man's depravity.

God explicitly commanded the killing of babies and rape of women.
To the charge of being the voice in the head of some tribal leader 5000 years ago, my Client would like to enter a plea of "no contest." Is there a statute of limitations on this kind of thing?

Simple - during war you can morally kill the enemy (which I must point out is not murder).....This is like saying, "I can morally kill a person in war, so if I choose not to do so I can do whatever I want to him since it's better than killing him."
Wait a minute. Who declares war? Only God? Or can I morally just declare war on a nearby McDonalds and fire up my uzi?

Of course, if I wanted to declare war, and only God can declare war, I suppose claiming God told me to do so would be the best option.

Yes, but if you force me to do something that I do not wish to do, is that loving your neighbor as yourself?

Define "force."

How is the "perfection" of God's moral code better than a secular morality if no human knows what God's moral code really is? Each person thinks they're right, and it's entirely possible none of them are.
Whoever keeps Jesus's commandments has the Holy Spirit. We know the apostles did so and recieved the Spirit, and we do not have to understand what Christ taught to see this plainly. These people then are able to teach the next group down the line what to do to get the Spirit, who taught the next group, who taught the next, etc. Now, the problem is figuring out who to listen to at the present time, but the most likely answer is IMHO, it is either:
a) the Catholic Church
b) some other apparently invisible church.
Although, IIRC, the Catholic Church claims to be only the visible part of another invisible church, which is interesting in and of itself, but I'm doing more research.

Gaudere

09-22-2000, 11:46 AM

Apparently, God explained his morality imperfectly. He apparently did not completely understand man's depravity.Damn, there goes that whole omniscience thing.

Wait a minute. Who declares war? Only God? Or can I morally just declare war on a nearby McDonalds and fire up my uzi?Tangental to the main point. I was working with k2dave's statement, which was "if I can morally kill someone, that makes it OK to enslave them if I decide not to kill them." I accepted the existence of "moral killing" for the purposes of the argument so as to not get hopelessly sidetracked.

Define "force."No. :p I hate it when basic concepts get buried in a morass of defintions. If you have an argument, make it.

Now, the problem is figuring out who to listen to at the present time, but the most likely answer is IMHO...Right-o, and your phrasing proves my point: the whole "One True Morality" thing depends on people's subjective judgment--the same reason some theists get so hot under the collar about atheist morality. "But it's just your opinion!" they say. To which I can say, "but your interpretation of God's Laws/which is the true church is "just your opinion" too!"

jmullaney

09-22-2000, 12:44 PM

Originally posted by Gaudere
The problem here, again, is that your theory that withdrawing from the economic system would result in the greatest happiness for all does not seem to be as clear as the premise behind stiking for better conditions.
Why don't you just answer me plainly: do you believe in solidarity, in principle, or do you not?

And I have not claimed that my system would provide the "greatest happiness for all", at least not the way you define it, because you allow for the ends justifying the means.

For me, it's like you are claiming that if everyone stops eating on their own and requires others to forcefeed them, it will result in paradise.
I never said people should not labor; in fact I said the opposite. Strikers do picket for example. Do you understand why they picket?

You have stated that you will live off the labors of thse who do participate in the economy,
But, practically everyone does that already. Do you grow all your own food? No. You live off the labors of others.

There is an old story you remind me of, I'm not sure of the exact authorship:
One story the Rabbi said goes like this: There once had been a righteous man all his life, and God asked him what he wanted as a gift. He replied saying he wanted to see the difference between Heaven and Hell. When they went to Hell, people there had forks in their hands, but could not bend their arms. Many tables of food were set out, but the people could not eat it, so the people were hungry. When they went to Heaven, though, there was the exact same situation. The difference was that the people had fed each other.

Even given your end goal of everyone ceasing to participate in the economy, someone is still going to have to produce food.
What's that little girl on the Pepsi commercial say? Oh yeah. "Duh-uh!" Your point?

I think your actions would be more "perfect" if you did not live off those who worked and instead provided for yourself.
Of course. I don't believe in salvation through faith alone. Faith without works is dead.

(if you have real audio, Jerry Rubin's 1968 address to the Yippie convension reminds a picket line (http://www.historychannel.com/speeches/ra/970830.ram) isn't the best approach if important things are on the line -- Guerilla theatre is required to really get your message across. An excerpt: But, people who are into a very literal bag, I mean, a heavy word scene you know, don't understand the use of communication in this country, and the use of media. I mean, they, say, give a ten page speech on and against Imperialism and everyone listens and understands and say "yeah." But you throw money out [onto the floor of] the stock exchange [and people scramble to pick up the money] and people get that right away. They go, "Oh yeah, I get what that's about. I know what you are doing." And if they don't know what you are doing, &*^! 'em! &*^! em, who cares?" (I add those insertions because Jerry's audience knew about his previous theatrics)

jmullaney

09-22-2000, 12:55 PM

Originally posted by Gaudere
[B]Apparently, God explained his morality imperfectly. He apparently did not completely understand man's depravity.Damn, there goes that whole omniscience thing.
:rolleyes: You are rather vain to think you can understand God, aren't you?

I accepted the existence of "moral killing" for the purposes of the argument so as to not get hopelessly sidetracked.
Well, I would like to know k2dave's response to this.

If you have an argument, make it.
I was just curious. Slaves aren't technically forced to be slaves, except out of the fear of punishment if they are not good slaves. I'm just wondering whether that is what you meant.

the whole "One True Morality" thing depends on people's subjective judgment
But, there has to be one true morality. Every action is either right or wrong, right? You are again vain to think you can figure that out yourself. I think there is some advantage to looking at the storehouse of human knowledge on the subject that has been written over the past 5000 years. You think somehow you are as smart, if not smarter, than everyone who has ever lived and can just figure it out on your own.

Gaudere

09-22-2000, 02:19 PM

You are rather vain to think you can understand God, aren't you?:) Chill, dude. Most religions proclaim that God is all-knowing, so your statement that God underestimated man's evil struck me as funny. I don't think any of the theists I know would agree that God could underestimate anything.

You are again vain to think you can figure that out yourself.Then everyone is equally vain, for even if you accept another person's (or God's) morality, you had to make a personal choice to do so (and a personal interpretation of that morality, as well)...you had to decide, "yes, this morality is correct, and *this* is what this person/deity meant when they said X."

I think there is some advantage to looking at the storehouse of human knowledge on the subject that has been written over the past 5000 years.Oh, agreed. And even prior to it being written, I believe morality was passed down through the generations. Even cavemen probably accepted that needlessly killing your children was Bad and taught their offspring the same.

You think somehow you are as smart, if not smarter, than everyone who has ever lived and can just figure it out on your own.What do you mean? I have read a great deal about ethics and morality, and pay close attention to moral debates here and in RL. However, as with everyone else, the final determiner of what I consider moral is my own empathy and reason. It is just the same with you; you have chosen to believe that the words of Jesus, in the particular way you interpret them, are the ultimate morality and so think owning property is immoral. I have chosen to go with a basic Kantian outlook, which is quite similar to many of the things J.C. said, although it doesn't necessarily demand lack of property/participation in commerce. We both have chosen our morality. How am I more arrogant than you?

Gaudere

09-22-2000, 02:37 PM

Why don't you just answer me plainly: do you believe in solidarity, in principle, or do you not?Yes, but... You have to be damn careful. If your actions harm others and the good you believe will come from it is not clear-cut and reasonably certain, it allows the possibilty for gross misapplication. It is fairly certain that if you do not provide for yourself, others will have to work to provide for you. It does not seem so certain that your choosing to not participate in the economy will bring about paradise. If it does at all, it will be very, very long in coming, and in the meantime you will ingrain others even deeper in the economy because of your chose not to work; the very thing you say you are leaving the economy to prevent, the "enslavement" of others to money. When people consider it acceptable to choose active harm in return for very nebulous good, they can justify all sorts of evils with little evidence needed that good will come of it. I really, really want people to think hard about the likelyhood of the good results they can expect in return for the near-certainity of evil that they do; sometimes the mere chance of the nebulous good is not worth the certain evil.

Of course. I don't believe in salvation through faith alone. Faith without works is dead.Are you saying you will indeed work to provide for yourself? You did say once that you will live off the work off others who *do* participate in the economy.

jmullaney

09-22-2000, 03:15 PM

OK, I'm vain too. Sorry. Everything is vanity.

Anyway, my point was, man in sin is not a part of God. Thus, God can't really know man. Pure Love can't understand hate, I don't think; it would be a complete mystery to such a being.

Originally posted by Gaudere
If your actions harm others and the good you believe will come from it is not clear-cut and reasonably certain, it allows the possibilty for gross misapplication.
If Bob doesn't go on strike with Larry, Bob is only hurting himself. Maybe, Larry's demands are unreasonable, and management will never give into them. If management is certain to give in, then it isn't much of a strike -- a long lunch break if that. And if it was certain, Bob would strike for the five minutes it takes management to give in, right? But that is not how a strike works. There are no guarantees.

It is fairly certain that if you do not provide for yourself, others will have to work to provide for you.
One more time: you, Gaudere, do not, I am reasonable certain, provide for yourself. You don't grow your own food and cotton, you don't knit all your own clothing. That doesn't make you a bad person.

So, I'll ask you again: why do strikers picket? They could be home watching Oprah, but instead they are marching around making a fuss. Management knows they are on strike, right?

If it does at all, it will be very, very long in coming, and in the meantime you will ingrain others even deeper in the economy because of your choice not to work; the very thing you say you are leaving the economy to prevent, the "enslavement" of others to money.
So Bob has to work twice as hard to keep the factory going. Larry can just picket all day and management never has to settle because Bob is working so much harder they really don't need Larry anymore. Why is Larry bad, but Bob is good?

I really, really want people to think hard about the likelyhood of the good results they can expect in return for the near-certainity of evil that they do; sometimes the mere chance of the nebulous good is not worth the certain evil.
What is the nature of this certain evil? Oral Roberts teaches morality, supposedly, and gets millions of dollars for it. But he is OK in your book, I guess. But if someone taught morality and only hoped for food and clothing for some reason this is certain evil. Is it the nature of teaching which disturbs you -- is anyone who teaches what you do not agree with an unproductive and evil member of society?

You did say once that you will live off the work off others who *do* participate in the economy.
I think solidarity, even if you do not "picket", is better than not have solidarity with your fellow man at all. As Paul argues, not all have the same gifts, and some have none of them. As long as your heart is in the right place. But those who are able should work.

But you seem to think the only valid work is that for which you get paid. Which is way more dangerous an idea than any I have espoused.

Gaudere

09-22-2000, 04:10 PM

One more time: you, Gaudere, do not, I am reasonable certain, provide for yourself. You don't grow your own food and cotton, you don't knit all your own clothing. That doesn't make you a bad person.I thought that you thought that by participating in this economy, by choosing to work in exchange for money that I can use to buy food, I was a bad person. I do provide for myself; I produce things of value that other people are willing to give me symbolic counters that I can use to buy food with. This is considered "providing for myself" in most ordinary aspects of the word.

Why is Larry bad, but Bob is good?Larry is bad if he thinks active evil is acceptable for a very nebulous reward. I am not saying Larry is bad in your example, since the reward for people if they strike is not terribly nebulous; it is quite evident that striking works well as a means of improving a worker's lot. However, you seem to be justifying what you see as certain evil in the hopes fo nebulous good, and I consider that a very tenuous position. It depends on the degree of evil and the chance and degree of the hoped-for good, but such an act can most certainly be immoral. It is up to you to weigh the hoped-for good against the certain evil. If Larry's striking is apparently doing no good and clearly is doing evil, he should find another way that is more likely to have good results. How long do you think Larry should continue striking if it is apparent that it is useless and is doing more harm than good?

What is the nature of this certain evil?In your morality, it is wrong to encourage ("force") people in any way to participate in the economy. Yet if people do not wish you to starve, they will have to work even harder to provide for you as well as for them. Since you are assuming that people will feed you if you do not provide for yourself, you must also assume that they must particpate in the economy to feed you.

But if someone taught morality and only hoped for food and clothing for some reason this is certain evil.If your teaching is good enough that people give you food as "payment", that is perfectly acceptable. If you simply get handouts although you do nothing of value to anyone, do not wish to provide for yourself, and simply play upon other's desire to not see you starve, so that they must work harder in a manner you find immoral, I do not think this is very moral. Let's say I decry prostitution, so I choose not to be a prostitute. However, I don't provide for myself, so I rely on the handouts from other prostitutes for me to survive, thereby requiring them to turn more tricks. Do you think this is a moral act? Wouldn't it be better for me to provide for myself so as to not add to the prostitutes' labor?

But you seem to think the only valid work is that for which you get paid.Valid work is either directly providing for yourself or work that provides enough value to others that people are willing to support you, not out of charity, but in fair trade for the work you do. I could spend my days rolling a lima bean along the road with my nose, but if no one thinks this is valuable enough that they will give me food/money/etc. in return I don't consider it terrible valid work, no. Humans have to provide the necessities of life for themselves or else they will starve; this is just the way the world is. Do you think it is wrong of the universe to not feed you if you are unwilling to do what is necessary to provide yourself with food?

But those who are able should work.Are you unable to work?

I'd really just as soon drop this, honestly; I mentioned from the first that I didn't really want to get into your particular "property is evil" bit, but we ended up there again. I think our respective positions are clear enough, and it's not really contributing to the original topic.

Mr.Zambezi

09-22-2000, 04:26 PM

Oh God, here we go again with the "working for money is enslavement" thing again. Didn't this get beat to death in teh "I a menslaving others by working thread?

Smartass

09-22-2000, 05:02 PM

jmullaney:

your question praetersupposes that I'm a moral person...

Um, no it doesn't:

1) The question was rhetorical--it was an attempt to make you understand my position.
2) I stated clearly that my opinion of whether you are moral would be formed based on the answer to the question. This presupposes nothing.

If I were a moral person, I would presume this was a trick in any case and would continue doing the will of God.

You may assume, for the sake of this hypothetical, that it is not a trick and it is God actually speaking to you. Your answer seems to imply that you know that God would never do that. Who is being arrogant?

I notice that you have made a point of not considering the implications of the question. Then again, looking at the way this thread has grown, I see you making a point of misunderstanding a lot of people's observations and have, therefore, carried this thread into an area that is not only completely off-topic, but also distinctly uninteresting.

-VM

jmullaney

09-22-2000, 05:47 PM

Originally posted by Gaudere
I produce things of value that other people are willing to give me symbolic counters that I can use to buy food with. This is considered "providing for myself" in most ordinary aspects of the word.
Oh, what kind of parent when their child desires a fish, gives them a rock instead?

However, you seem to be justifying what you see as certain evil in the hopes fo nebulous good, and I consider that a very tenuous position.
One of the oldest symbols of the devil in Christianity is that of a dog chasing his own tail. Even merely imprefect people waste their efforts. What can you hope to do about it?

In your morality, it is wrong to encourage ("force") people in any way to participate in the economy. Yet if people do not wish you to starve, they will have to work even harder to provide for you as well as for them. Since you are assuming that people will feed you if you do not provide for yourself, you must also assume that they must particpate in the economy to feed you.
But, if I'm encouraging them not to participate in the economy and they do not listen to me, whose fault is that?

If your teaching is good enough that people give you food as "payment", that is perfectly acceptable.
What does it profit them if they gain everything, but are immoral? Is profit more important than morality to you?

In reality, food comes from nature not from people. It is a gift which should be shared. But, you either don't think it is moral to share food, or your don't see the importance of it. I don't think a souless economy should be the sole judge of what work is acceptable and what is not, and you do.

Wouldn't it be better for me to provide for myself
Lucky are the lillies of the field, for neither to they reap, nor do they sow, and yet nature takes care of them.

What farmer who has a field is not going to plant and harvest whatever grows there? Will he, for lack of payment, not grow as much food? Ha! He would try to grow even more next season to make up for the payment he has not gotten.

Valid work is either directly providing for yourself or work that provides enough value to others that people are willing to support you, not out of charity, but in fair trade for the work you do.
How can I ever lift the veil from your eyes? You have already said you believe in charity. Now you don't. Make up your mind.

You are again saying, only other people have the right to dictate to me what I must do for my provision. But I don't have the right to dictate to them what they must do for their provision? You don't have to give me your answer -- I am sure there is some perfectly moral explanation for this disparity.

it's not really contributing to the original topic.
Other than proving, again, you can't teach empathy and reason, thus you can't show slavery is wrong using your moral system.

jmullaney

09-22-2000, 05:53 PM

Originally posted by Smartass
I notice that you have made a point of not considering the implications of the question.
Perhaps this thread would be more interesting were you to read it, for I already gave you your answer above: I would do whatever I wanted that did not harm others.

I see you making a point of misunderstanding a lot of people's observations
Communication is imperfect. Try to cope.

Smartass

09-22-2000, 07:00 PM

jmullaney:

Perhaps this thread would be more interesting were you to read it

Ignored my post again and answered in insults. I think I've seen enough of your version of debate.

Gaudere: Good luck--I am afraid I am not a generous enough person to put up with more of this crap.

-VM

kanicbird

09-24-2000, 12:44 PM

So, killing helpless male infants is not murder, then, because it was accepted by society? Why do I get the feeling that you do not
accept this argument when it comes to abortion?

Not because it was accepted by society, but because it was war. I would accept this argument for abortion - if you don't distort it. This is how I would accept it - In a war lets say 5500 years ago, You finally are willing and break their main defenses into their village. you kill all males AND abort (kill) all male fetuses but that wasn't possible back then. That is a far cry from todays abortion which goes something like this:
a woman choose to go home with a man
a woman chose to stay a little longer
a woman chose to take off her clothes.
a woman chose not to use protection
a woman chose to spread her legs
a woman chose to have sex
(btw this is why I can't accept the term pro choice.)
a woman having all these choices now decides to take a life and contracts with a hit man (doctor) to carry this out.

Actually, in most states you *can* rape your wife/husband, I believe. Do you think it is a moral act to force someone to marry you and force them to have sex with you? Having sex with someone without their consent is considered "rape",

*** remember this, I will bring this up later
Before love thy neighbor - it was not immoral - please stop confusing not moral (and not immoral) with immoral or moral.
Some of your arguments are based on this as I've pointed out.

Do you realize you are attempting to justify what you consider to be God's timeless, perfectly moral code by saying "well, a lot of people did stuff like that back then, so it's OK"?

Not because 'a lot of people did stuff like that back then' but because God didn't say not to.

At one time, loving your neighbor as yourself was an immoral act

again immoral doesn't equal not moral

believe that parents should own their children until they get old enough - not that this is true in the US. -me

Are you loving your neighbor as yourself to treat a human as just a piece of property? If you do not wish to be treated like a piece of
property, and you love your neighbor as yourself, you cannot treat others as a piece of property against their desires. -you

What is wrong w/ treating your children as your property - they are to be watched by you and you are fully resonncible for their actions. YOu must also love (as commanded) them which you will probally say conflicts with something but I say no - there are people who love their cars as their children.

So our laws against murder and rape have no morality in them?

Laws by man are based on what society thinks is best (in many cases) Our laws are based on proof beyond a reasonable doubt and as I'm sure you'll admit especially in the case of rape that many people are wrongly accsued and serve time. Is this the morality you speak of? yes them seem to agree with God's laws but mans interpretation might make it illeagal man can't really determine if it was truly moral, that is only for God.
now back to ****
You have said that a husband/wife can leagally rape their spouse - is that moral in your book? is it leagal. I would guess your answer whould be no - so man's laws do not establish morality. Then who does? and what if your's is diffrent from someone elses'

As you have pointed out God gives us a brain. you like to use your's to determine your own moral code - very well God allows free will. I believe we are to use our brain in those situaltion which are not 'cut and dry' moral/immoral. and use our brain to follow God's laws when they are. Diffrent paths - are they going to the same place?

jmullaney

09-24-2000, 05:05 PM

Originally posted by k2dave
Lets start out here, is slavery wrong - if there is no God? - if there is a God?
Let's look at it this way. You are by your birthright a sovereign person -- I think we all agree that. Slavery -- being a slave -- is merely then giving your sovereignty over to another. You are free to do so. But, what if the person you are serving does evil? Aren't you, by serving your master being a collaborator in that evil? Now, what if your master isn't evil, but serves another who is evil? At what point does your collaboration become wrong? Can you instead serve one master who is good, and one that is evil, and thus by serving good make up for serving evil?

So if you are going to serve a master, you must make sure that master does not serve evil, nor your master's master. In that case, yes, it is perfectly OK to be a slave. Although a master who was not evil would always hold out the offer to return your sovereignty to you.

I believe Gaudere's system answers that rest of your questions. She might not believe in solidarity, and she would probably say she doesn't believe in collaboration either, but which is moral is not an either/or proposition -- she may simply have not discerned which is right yet.

If so what is enforcing it? And who sets
it? What if one's code differs from another?
I've had yet another change of heart. Through the application of Love (what Gaudere calls empathy) and Reason, you should be able to know the code, and there can only be one, although some guidance is important. As far as enforcement -- well, what is to keep people from breaking into prison? If people want to punish themselves by being immoral -- because we all have a nature which is punished by this -- let them. It doesn't matter if they are punished in the "next life" -- they are punished plenty in this one.

Do you believe in life before death?

Now lets say there is a God
So when did God say thou shall not own people?
"Those who seek God in sciptures and in churches are jackasses and God does not truly dwell in them" -- Marguerite Porete (slight paraphrase, but that is the gist -- the Free Spirit is going to save my soul one of these days, I hope).

But, just to satisfy you, Matthew 4:8-10 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=MATT+4:8-10&language=english&version=RSV&showfn=on):
Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them; and he said to him, "All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me."
Then Jesus said to him, "Begone, Satan! for it is written, 'You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve.'"

Does that about wrap things up?

Gaudere

09-24-2000, 06:18 PM

Not because it was accepted by society, but because it was war.So, it is moral to kill helpless male infants as long as it's "war"?

you kill all males AND abort (kill) all male fetuses but that wasn't possible back then. That is a far cry from todays abortion which goes something like this:
a woman choose to go home with a man
a woman chose to stay a little longer
a woman chose to take off her clothes.
a woman chose not to use protection
a woman chose to spread her legs
a woman chose to have sex
(btw this is why I can't accept the term pro choice.)
a woman having all these choices now decides to take a life and contracts with a hit man (doctor) to carry this out.Pardon me, but what the heck are you arguing? That if they could have aborted the eight-month fetuses of pregnant women against that woman's will that would have been moral (and BTW, abortifacents and contraceptives were in existence at that time, they just ranged from unreliable to ineffective to downright dangerous), but a woman today who gets a morning-after pill after she has been raped is immoral?

Me: At one time, loving your neighbor as yourself was an immoral act
K2dave: again immoral doesn't equal not moralSorry dude, you can't wiggle out of this one. God told people to kill children and rape women. A person who did not do so was not following God's laws. Therefore, a person who thought it was wrong to kill children was immoral, right, since it is immoral to refuse to do God's bidding?

What is wrong w/ treating your children as your property - they are to be watched by you and you are fully resonncible for their actions. YOu must also love (as commanded) them which you will probally say conflicts with something but I say no - there are people who love their cars as their children.Hm, can you turn up the line in the Bible that says men and women should love their children? And if it never explicitly says "love your children", is it not immoral to not love them? If you need not love them, and can treat them as your property, you can pretty much do whatever you want to them and it won't be immoral, right?

Laws by man are based on what society thinks is best (in many cases) Our laws are based on proof beyond a reasonable doubt and as I'm sure you'll admit especially in the case of rape that many people are wrongly accsued and serve time. Is this the morality you speak of?The laws say that rape and murder is wrong; the laws also say that sending an innocent person to jail is wrong. Therefore the fact that people are sometimes wrongly accused does not mean the laws are not moral, any more than the fact that people are sometimes raped means the laws are not moral.

yes them seem to agree with God's laws but mans interpretation might make it illeagal man can't really determine if it was truly moral, that is only for God.Saying man cannot determine what is truly moral is a belief, not necessarily a fact, and one you have yet to back up with facts, IMHO. If man cannot determine what is moral, then we have a problem with all the differing interpretations of God's word. If man cannot determine morality, how can he determine what interpretation of God's word's is correct? And if he can't do that, he can never have any correct morality at all.

You have said that a husband/wife can leagally rape their spouse - is that moral in your book? is it leagal. I would guess your answer whould be no - so man's laws do not establish morality.I don't believe I ever said they did; I did say man's laws could be moral. But the laws come from our morality (ideally), our morals don't come from the law. According to my morals, it is wrong to have sex with a woman against her will, whether you are married to her or not.

I believe we are to use our brain in those situaltion which are not 'cut and dry' moral/immoral. and use our brain to follow God's laws when they are...and use your brain to interpret God's laws. For example, you have determined that slavery is morally acceptable according to God, while other Christians do not agree with you. How to know which is right? If you claim that the varying moral laws of non-theists is proof that their morals are arbitrary, what does the varying moral laws of Christians then say of *their* morals?

kanicbird

09-24-2000, 08:16 PM

So, it is moral to kill helpless male infants as long as it's "war"?

it is not immoral in itself

Pardon me, but what the heck are you arguing? -1-
That if they could have aborted the eight-month fetuses of pregnant women against that woman's will that would have been moral -2-
(and BTW, abortifacents and contraceptives were in existence at that time, they just range from unreliable to ineffective to downright dangerous), but a woman today who gets a morning-after pill after she has been raped is immoral? -3-

-1 - you brought up abortion and wanted my views on abortion. I was just making a fair comparison - if God commands you kill all males in a war- then you kill all males in that war - if you had the ability to find out who was pregnant w/ males and abort them as well - that would be following the command of God.
-2- if commanded by God, it would be immoral to disobay adn moral to follow the Word of God. and even though abortions were available, determining the gender without killing the baby was not.
-3- yes, why if an immoral act was inflicted on you give you the recorse to inflict death on another person (who is not the rapist).

Sorry dude, you can't wiggle out of this one. God told people to kill children and rape women. A person who did not do so was not following God's laws. Therefore, a person who thought it was wrong to kill children was immoral, right, since it is immoral to refuse to do
God's bidding?

see -2- above, and btw the rape you speak of is marrage - not rape. you have even pointed out by most laws as you pointed out you can't rape your spouse.

Hm, can you turn up the line in the Bible that says men and women should love their children? And if it never explicitly says "love your children", is it not immoral to not love them? If you need not love them, and can treat them as your property, you can pretty much do whatever you want to them and it won't be immoral, right?

Nope, It does say that you should disipline your children, actually strike them w/ a rod, when they misbehave so they will become good people and goes on to saying that this form of disipline is love. so indirectly we are to love them - well how about that. and I can also fall back on love thy neighor

[Proverbs 13
24
He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is careful to discipline him. ]

and

[Proverbs 19
18
Discipline your son, for in that there is hope; do not be a willing party to his death.]

and I would like to add
[Ephesians 6
4
Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord.]

*****The laws say that rape and murder is wrong***** -1-; the laws also say that sending an innocent person to jail is wrong -2-. Therefore the fact that people are sometimes wrongly accused does not mean the laws are not moral, any more than the fact that people are sometimes raped means the laws are not moral -3-.

-1- Show me a law that says rape and murder is wrong . My guess is that it states the cost of such an act. Something like 'if found guitly of murder int e 1st degree the guilty will serve a min of 10 yrs with a max of life or if so ordered by a judge, he shal be executed...' - if your willing to do the time - why not commit the crime - it's not wrong then is it? it just the price society places on that action.
-2- see -1-
-3- legislation doesn't produce morality - if you actually did it or not doesn't matter to society if they find the opposite in a court(except for OJ).

Saying man cannot determine what is truly moral is a belief,

if so it is one that you believe in too, as all non believers come up w/ their own moral code and they are diffrent. Does anyone say that they actually know the moral decision to make in all situations? You as a non beliver have to accept this as a fact at least with current technology or contact with the 'spirt world'.

You have said that a husband/wife can leagally rape their spouse - is that moral in your book? is it leagal. I would guess
your answer whould be no - so man's laws do not establish morality. - me

I don't believe I ever said they did; I did say man's laws could be moral. - you

see above ***** right and wrong are morality terms not leagal. you seemed to use them in the law when talking about murder and rape.

How to know which is right? If you claim that the varying moral laws of non-theists is proof
that their morals are arbitrary, what does the varying moral laws of Christians then say of *their* morals?

I would like to here their justification against slavery (which was part of the OP) - this is a reason I started this post.

Wow 2 heavy posts in one day

Gaudere

09-24-2000, 08:57 PM

-2- if commanded by God, it would be immoral to disobay adn moral to follow the Word of God.G'wan, K2dave, spit it out: "At one time, a person who loved their neighbor as themself, and refused to kill helpless infants, keep slaves or rape women, was immoral." You may add on a gratuitous "praise the Almighty God for His timeless, perfect, absolute Good morality!" too, if you wish. :p

-3- yes, why if an immoral act was inflicted on you give you the recorse to inflict death on another person (who is not the rapist).So if I'm raped by John Doe, it is morally acceptable for me to kill you?

see -2- above, and btw the rape you speak of is marrage - not rape. you have even pointed out by most laws as you pointed out you can't rape your spouse.No, actually I believe I said in most states you *can* rape your spouse--it's not legal to have sex against someone's will even if you're married to them. (I would defer to any legal expert on this, though.) Nor is it legal *or* moral to force someone into marriage. Nor will I concede that just because a thing is legal that it is moral.

and I can also fall back on love thy neighorOk, so you should love you child since you should love your neighbor as yourself. If you love your neighbor as yourself, how can you morally treat him as property against his will? If you would not desire another to do this to you, how can you do this to your neighbor?

He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is careful to discipline him....Discipline your son, for in that there is hope; do not be a willing party to his deathSo it says a person who loves their son should discipline him. And additionally, you should discipline him. This does not say "love your child"...it says "if you love him, do X." Then it goes on to tell you to do X anyhow. The verses you quote do not tell you to love your son. Nor do they tell you to love your daughter, even by your rather loose reading of it. If you will say slavery is moral even today because God does not specifically weigh in against it, I think I have a right to be equally nitpicky in literal readings of the Bible.

Show me a law that says rape and murder is wrong . My guess is that it states the cost of such an act. Something like 'if found guitly of murder int e 1st degree the guilty will serve a min of 10 yrs with a max of life or if so ordered by a judge, he shal be executed...' - if your willing to do the time - why not commit the crime - it's not wrong then is it? it just the price society places on that action.Generally it is accepted that society uses laws to punish people who do actions considered "wrong" by society. So the punishment and laws say that such actions are wrong. Additionally, punishments are not "payments"; no one would think it acceptable to kill someone just becuase you are willing to serve the time. It's still wrong to kill; the punishment is meant to discourage others and encourage you to reform. But it's not a valid point anyway, since I already pointed out that laws should come from morals, not morals from laws.

legislation doesn't produce morality - if you actually did it or not doesn't matter to society if they find the opposite in a courtWell, if the court sytem is decent it will generally find and punish the guilty party, right? It's not like they pick a name out of a hat and send that person to jail. If you truly believe that laws cannot encourage moral behavior, we may as well scrap them all, right? A truly moral person will not act solely out of fear of punishment or desire for reward, but good laws and punishments offer basic guidelines and incentives for behavior that is conducive to the health and well-being of all.

if so it is one that you believe in too, as all non believers come up w/ their own moral code and they are diffrent.No more different than theist's moral codes; even Christians differ wildly as to what they consider moral. Actually, most atheists I know keep to the golden rule pretty strictly, and as such are more consistent among themselves than the Christians I know, who may or may not also factor in ancient rules about sexual morality. PS: you didn't answer this: "For example, you have determined that slavery is morally acceptable according to God, while other Christians do not agree with you. How to know which is right? If you claim that the varying moral laws of non-theists is proof that their morals are arbitrary, what does the varying moral laws of Christians then say of *their* morals?" Please address this one too: "If man cannot determine what is moral, then we have a problem with all the differing interpretations of God's word. If man cannot determine morality, how can he determine what interpretation of God's word's is correct? And if he can't do that, he can never have any correct morality at all." ...according to your argument, right? He can never determine, and therefore never have, "correct morality" according to you...if he can't determine what is moral, he can't determine which interpretation of God's laws is right.

Does anyone say that they actually know the moral decision to make in all situations?Anyone can say this...but do they?

You as a non beliver have to accept this as a fact at least with current technology or contact with the 'spirt world'.Huh?

I would like to here their justification against slavery (which was part of the OP) - this is a reason I started this post.Bloody 'ell! I did this quite some time ago; it is immoral if you love your neighbor as yourself to enslave him against his will. If you don't take an atheist's word for Christian moral reasoning, I can call in a Christian, but I think my interpretation would be generally considered correct by those Christians who do not agree with slavery. (Tho' Lib would probably prefer the reasoning that God gave us rights to our bodies, and while we may give these away freely, it is immoral to take them away.)

[Edited by Gaudere on 09-24-2000 at 09:13 PM]