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.
Apparently, God explained his morality imperfectly. He apparently did not completely understand man’s depravity.
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?
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.
Define “force.”
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.
Damn, there goes that whole omniscience thing.
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.
No. 
I hate it when basic concepts get buried in a morass of defintions. If you have an argument, make it.
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!”
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.
I never said people should not labor; in fact I said the opposite. Strikers do picket for example. Do you understand why they picket?
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:
What’s that little girl on the Pepsi commercial say? Oh yeah. “Duh-uh!” Your point?
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 isn’t the best approach if important things are on the line – Guerilla theatre is required to really get your message across. An excerpt:
(I add those insertions because Jerry’s audience knew about his previous theatrics)
:rolleyes: You are rather vain to think you can understand God, aren’t you?
Well, I would like to know k2dave’s response to this.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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?
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.
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?
jmullaney:
Um, no it doesn’t:
- The question was rhetorical–it was an attempt to make you understand my position.
- I stated clearly that my opinion of whether you are moral would be formed based on the answer to the question. This presupposes nothing.
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
Oh, what kind of parent when their child desires a fish, gives them a rock instead?
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?
But, if I’m encouraging them not to participate in the economy and they do not listen to me, whose fault is that?
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.
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.
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.
Other than proving, again, you can’t teach empathy and reason, thus you can’t show slavery is wrong using your moral system.
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.
Communication is imperfect. Try to cope.
jmullaney:
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
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.
*** 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.
Not because ‘a lot of people did stuff like that back then’ but because God didn’t say not to.
again immoral doesn’t equal not moral
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.
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?
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.
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?
“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:
Does that about wrap things up?
So, it is moral to kill helpless male infants as long as it’s “war”?
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?
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
…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?
it is not immoral in itself
-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).
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.
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.]
-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).
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’.
see above ***** right and wrong are morality terms not leagal. you seemed to use them in the law when talking about murder and rape.
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
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.
So if I’m raped by John Doe, it is morally acceptable for me to kill you?
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.
Ok, 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?
So 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.
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.
Well, 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.
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.
Anyone can say this…but do they?
Huh?
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]
Whoops, I misinterpreted you here, although fer gawrsh sakes’, please work on your phrasing a little to make yourself easier to understand. It would have been better if you had said it more clearly, like: “Yes, it is immoral for a raped women to do anything to prevent implantation of a fertilized egg, yet it is moral to force a woman to abort a near-full term fetus.” Then at least the syntax is clearer, although the moral reasoning still gives me the willies. But I demand you retract your snipes at “pro-choice” (or at least admit your mention as to all the “choices” a woman has is entirely besides the point) since you do not allow it even when it is clearly not the woman’s choice to be pregnant.