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?)
Any attempt to prove anything is a house of cards. But you can convince, based on shared axioms.
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 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.
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!
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.
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?
: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.
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.
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.
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.)
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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?
You are exactly right. Which is why I have come of late to believe in apostolic succession.
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. ;)]
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”.
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?
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.
Look, I don’t know why you keep going on about property ownership when that was not what that thread was about.
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.
Well, if someone would present logic, studies, or personal experience on this, I’m sure it could be judged fairly.
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.
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 can’t use isolated counter examples to refute a morality based on the Golden rule, or else the whole rule falls apart.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Explain further. I’m afarid you’re being a wee bit too gnomic here.
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?
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…
That is just blindness, God says which commandment superceeds all others.
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.
Before God gave us the rules, this would be correct since God’s Word defines morality
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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”?
Actually, 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.”
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!
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.
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.
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?
So our laws against murder and rape have no morality in them?
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.
