Is Slavery Moral?

[Phil 1:21]

This was my point from that post:

'My point is to demonstrate that the human moral compass does not appear to align with a claimed 'good' God's moral character. Meaning, if many humans disapprove of slavery, then the notion that humans are built with instilled morals from God becomes a suspect notion... Why? Because God condones slavery, while most humans oppose it...'

Back on track...

Upon what do you base your opinions of right and wrong?

 

[cvanwey]

Back on track...

Upon what do you base your opinions of right and wrong?

Okay, I'll bite.... 'Good' acts 'may' be based upon any/all of the following - consequences, empathy, sense of community, cooperation, culture, upbringing, homeostasis, and fear of loneliness, all which are actually demonstrably proven to exist, via the existence of the human race. Unless you wish to go down the whole 'brain in a vat' or 'Matrix' argument...

Another snippet...

If humans do not exist, the cognitive concept of 'morals' don't exist...
If humans must exist for morals to exist, then the human race must remain in existence....
If humans kill humans, humans will soon cease to exist....
It then becomes a necessity for humans to exist, for morals to actually exist....

So we must first agree that humans must exist for morals to even have a chance to exist. If you and I agree, then this may be considered somewhat 'objective', but certainly not 'absolute'. But again, I'm honest in that one can spin this a multitude of ways....

Which I'm sure you are going to do very soon.

• 
  

 

[Phil 1:21]

Okay, I'll bite.... 'Good' acts 'may' be based upon any/all of the following - consequences, empathy, sense of community, cooperation, culture, upbringing, homeostasis, and fear of loneliness, all which are actually demonstrably proven to exist, via the existence of the human race.

Are you saying this upon what you base your opinions of right and wrong? (We're very, very close to moving on)

 

[Sanoy]

I remember receiving some fairly acrobatic answers, in regards to claims of 'inspiration'. If you choose not to fulfill your assertion (or burden of proof), then that's fine. Asserting it is just so, is not sufficient, any more than a Muslim or a Hindu blankly justifying theirs...

So rather than try to correct my statement that your comment, "people strive to justify their beliefs," is exemplified in your many demands of proof, you choose to go with "so did you". Well I must object as Gods general revelation and it's inspiration of moral epistemology is well attested in theological thought and scripture. I even gave you a test that would confirm the hypothesis, which turns out to be the case. If you call relying on theology an acrobatic move then I have to wonder why you initiate theological debate in the first place.

 

[cvanwey]

Are you saying this upon what you base your opinions of right and wrong?

Okay, I'm done. Either answer the question, provide your counter answer, or move on. I'm too old for trickery. This is a forum. If you have 'answers', give them. There is nothing new under the sun. I'm sure I've already heard your conclusion, so please provide it or move on.

Thx

 

[Phil 1:21]

Okay, I'm done. Either answer the question, provide your counter answer, or move on. I'm too old for trickery. This is a forum. If you have 'answers', give them. There is nothing new under the sun. I'm sure I've already heard your conclusion, so please provide it or move on.

Thx

I can't answer your question until you define the terms you're using. So then...

Okay, I'll bite.... 'Good' acts 'may' be based upon any/all of the following - consequences, empathy, sense of community, cooperation, culture, upbringing, homeostasis, and fear of loneliness, all which are actually demonstrably proven to exist, via the existence of the human race.

Are you saying this is upon what you base your opinions of right and wrong?

 

[cvanwey]

So rather than try to correct my statement that your comment, "people strive to justify their beliefs," is exemplified in your many demands of proof, you choose to go with "so did you". Well I must object as Gods general revelation and it's inspiration of moral epistemology is well attested in theological thought and scripture. I even gave you a test that would confirm the hypothesis, which turns out to be the case. If you call relying on theology an acrobatic move then I have to wonder why you initiate theological debate in the first place.

Uuum, this category is in the 'debate' section. That's why. If your brand of theology is so well attested, then why do most apologists still use the same old tired debunked methods for argumentation? You do not see such forums about ham sandwiches, proof of humans, or any other material known object. Philosophers have argued for the existence of God for thousands of years, and are no closer to demonstrating proof.

Your assertion, that you are right, without evidence, further demonstrates your ethnocentrism. And since I know you were not aware of the meaning of this word until recently, I will kindly define it for you; your welcome:

'the belief in the inherent superiority of one's own ethnic group or culture. a tendency to view alien groups or cultures from the perspective of one's own.'

I fully admit I have not the first clue if and why humans exist. You demonstrate the exact antithesis of such a notion, and yet use your own crafted buzz words to blankly assert your own conclusion of absolute reality.

It's either dishonest to yourself, or to others. You do not possess any knowledge in which I do not, in regards to any possible postmortem conclusions. So stop pretending like you do.

Thanks

 

[cvanwey]

I can't answer your question until you define the terms you're using. So then...
Are you saying this is upon what you base your opinions of right and wrong?

'Without God, there is no objective standard' :-0 Now all you need to do is demonstrate the existence of your specific God, while also disproving all other claimed Gods, and we can then start

Good luck!

 

[Sanoy]

Uuum, this category is in the 'debate' section. That's why. If your brand of theology is so well attested, then why do most apologists still use the same old tired debunked methods for argumentation? You do not see such forums about ham sandwiches, proof of humans, or any other material known object. Philosophers have argued for the existence of God for thousands of years, and are no closer to demonstrating proof.

Your assertion, that you are right, without evidence, further demonstrates your ethnocentrism. And since I know you were not aware of the meaning of this word until recently, I will kindly define it for you; your welcome:

'the belief in the inherent superiority of one's own ethnic group or culture. a tendency to view alien groups or cultures from the perspective of one's own.'

I fully admit I have not the first clue if and why humans exist. You demonstrate the exact antithesis of such a notion, and yet use your own crafted buzz words to blankly assert your own conclusion of absolute reality.

It's either dishonest to yourself, or to others. You do not possess any knowledge in which I do not, in regards to any possible postmortem conclusions. So stop pretending like you do.

Thanks

That's great and all but I didn't see anything regarding how using theology in a theological discussion is considered acrobatics. One would think that in a discussion on theology one would expect theology to be used. Now if one was merely operating under the idea that "people strive to justify their beliefs" I can fully see why someone would want to call a solid and well attested theological explanation acrobatics while absurdly demanding proof for various other things.

 

[Phil 1:21]

@cvanwey,

So you're unable to articulate your basis for right and wrong? That's strange.

 

[cvanwey]

@cvanwey,

So you're unable to articulate your basis for right and wrong? That's strange.

I did... You just don't appear 'articulate' enough to assess the answer. I'll start with only one of the many. Consequentialism.

Okay, your turn...

Is slavery moral??????

On a side note, the moral argument is one of the best 'tricks' theists will use to AVOID answering questions

 

[cvanwey]

That's great and all but I didn't see anything regarding how using theology in a theological discussion is considered acrobatics. One would think that in a discussion on theology one would expect theology to be used. Now if one was merely operating under the idea that "people strive to justify their beliefs" I can fully see why someone would want to call a solid and well attested theological explanation acrobatics while absurdly demanding proof for various other things.

God exists because I said so. There... Now I just summed up your many many posts.

 

[Moral Orel]

"You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. " - That alone overturned a large chunk of the law code as it was all written with equality of harm in mind.

He isn't overturning actual laws, though. Murderers and thieves are doing "evil", but He isn't advocating letting them get away with it.

"Owning" people that submit themselves voluntarily for 7 years is not wrong. It is akin to our modern contractual labor agreements. When you get hired on a fish boat you are hired for a week, when you get hired as an actor you are obligated for years. Unlike with Actors you can actually get out of this agreement. They could be purchased back, or buy themselves back, or run away and not return without any worry of being caught. The Bible even says some of these servants loved the master so much that they committed their entire lives to them. Israel was Camelot. Think about it as someone being poor and destitute. You can't get a job because you need a place to live. This was an opportunity for people to get room and board and a paycheck and get back on their feet. It is nothing at all like the rest of the ANE. I am sorry but there is nothing wrong with voluntary servitude at all. If I was poor and homeless I would love such an opportunity.

Indentured servitude isn't slavery. At worst, it's "renting" people, not "owning" them. I don't think it's inherently immoral, it's just too prone to exploitation to be a good system. Even the Israelites ended up using it to exploit their own people. It was supposed to be a means to get out of poverty, but they paid so little, that when their time was up, they had to re-up on their contracts and go right back into perpetual servitude. But since that isn't slavery, this is just one big straw man to the argument. I already gave you an example of the terrible sort of slavery in my last post, and you ignored it.

Think about this...If Israel were mistreated slaves in Egypt, and Moses fled Egypt because he killed a man beating an Israelite slave. And Moses wrote this law regarding servitude. Why would he institute the same system as the ANE?

Eye for an eye. Notice that indentured servitude was reserved for Hebrew men, and only foreigners could be forced into real slavery. The Israelites were chosen by God and therefore undeserving of such treatment, but foreigners enslaved the Israelites so they were deserving of slavery.

He wouldn't, and if there is ambiguity in the text it should lean in the direction of the circumstances Israel was coming out of...real slavery. You don't even need to believe the historicity of that, it is in the same progressive narrative. You could believe the Bible was a complete hoax, but textual criticism would still require you to lean in that direction because both events are in the same narrative.

Now I want to take special note of this. You've just called Egyptian slavery "real slavery" so we can do away with this claim of comparisons being anachronistic. "It was a different time and place" holds no water anymore.

 

[Phil 1:21]

I did... You just don't appear 'articulate' enough to assess the answer.

Actually, you didn't. You said (see below) "Good acts 'may' be based upon..." You didn't say that was upon what you based your opinions of right and wrong. Once you define your terms used, we can proceed. (this is progress)

Okay, I'll bite.... 'Good' acts 'may' be based upon any/all of the following - consequences, empathy, sense of community, cooperation, culture, upbringing, homeostasis, and fear of loneliness, all which are actually demonstrably proven to exist, via the existence of the human race.

So then...

Are you saying this is upon what you base your opinions of right and wrong?

 

[cvanwey]

Actually, you didn't. You said (see below) "Good acts 'may' be based upon..." You didn't say that was upon what you based your opinions of right and wrong. Once you define your terms used, we can proceed. (this is progress)

So then...

Are you saying this is upon what you base your opinions of right and wrong?

(Cut and paste from prior post)...

I'll start with only one of the many. Consequentialism.

Okay, your turn...

Is slavery moral??????

On a side note, the moral argument is one of the best 'tricks' theists will use to AVOID answering questions

 

[Moral Orel]

So in your worldview nothing is right or wrong on it's face? Right or wrong (moral or immoral) is simply a matter of individual opinion? Would that be a fair assessment?

You see, I cannot answer your question without first knowing how you define "moral."

Morally right things are things that people should do, morally wrong things are things people shouldn't do. Why someone believes any given thing is something that should or shouldn't be done is irrelevant to the question of whether you believe it should or shouldn't be done.

If I hold an opinion that something shouldn't be done, and you believe you know it is a fact that thing shouldn't be done, we agree that thing shouldn't be done, and whether it is opinion or fact is tangential to the actual question.

 

[Sanoy]

God exists because I said so. There... Now I just summed up your many many posts.

So says the sincere one.

 

[Ana the Ist]

If someone decides that they want to be a slave in their 20s, should they be able to change their mind in their 50s, or is that up to their owner to decide?

I would imagine slavery as a no "take-backs" kinda situation. I'm sure people could set up rules though.

Why even ask? Does context matter?

 

[Phil 1:21]

(Cut and paste from prior post)...

I'll start with only one of the many. Consequentialism.

So in your world view, if there are no adverse consequences to an action it is therefore not wrong? Would that be correct?

 

[cvanwey]

So says the sincere one.

I'm plenty sincere, when I state I have no clue what happens postmortem. I'm also sincere when I state I have never received any needed evidence of justification for a God. I am furthermore sincere when I state when I read many Bible passages, they appear to be the works and writings of humans, whom use 'God' in an attempt to produce objective moral dictates.

So yes, one of us, for sure, is fully justified in their sincerity...