Is Slavery Moral?

[Sanoy]

Uuuuum, you are using the argument from consciousness. I didn't just fall off the turnip truck. So please tell me why you mention 'intuition', 'apprehension', and 'consciousness', if it's 'unexplained mysticism' doesn't ultimately point to 'Yahweh'?

Why else would you speak of this topic? I doubt you are a neuroscientist, and attempting to demonstrating an alternative conclusion of non-supernatural means, are you? If so, I stand corrected I'm sure...

What the heck is the "argument from consciousness"?

 

[Belk]

Then don't use it when ginning up fictions like unknown common ancestors and a world without morals. You can bang your neighbor because it feels right and be totally wrong.

I don't

Triangles, squares, math equations for starters. All exist independent of human minds, time and space, discovered, not invented and are non material.

Thank you. Sanoy pointed out the same thing. I agree that non material objective things exist.

 

[cvanwey]

What the heck is the "argument from consciousness"?

The fallacy you just violated

 

[Sanoy]

I still do not understand how you are using the word here. My understanding of the word is as follows:

Definition of intuition
1 : quick and ready insight
2 a : immediate apprehension or cognition
b : knowledge or conviction gained by intuition
c : the power or faculty of attaining to direct knowledge or cognition without evident rational thought and inference

Can you define how you are using the term?



OK. You are free to believe you do not have cognitive function. I know that I do.



I do not require intuition to know I have consciousness. It is empirically proven with my every thought.



Fair enough. I agree that there are non material things that are objective. Now, how do we demonstrate that morality is one of those things?

Intuition - The experience in which a proposition seems true, correct, right without apparent justification.

Oh I do believe you have cognitive functions, but it has by no means been demonstrated by empiricism. So if you know you have cognitive functions then you are following your intuitions, not empiricism.

Thoughts are not empirically proven. Have you ever observed another persons thoughts? I haven't.

There is no 'proof' to the objectiveness of morality, it is much like mathematics in that we believe it correlates with reality if we abide by it and it appears to do so. However morality doesn't tell us about the material world but the spiritual world. So if morality correlates with the spiritual world then it should have a spiritual effect, and I would say it certainly does.

 

[dmmesdale]

I don't




Thank you. Sanoy pointed out the same thing. I agree that non material objective things exist.

Well i did not see it from Sanoy and i am glad it happened because it was an easy one.

 

[Belk]

Intuition - The experience in which a proposition seems true, correct, right without apparent justification.

Thank you. I will try re-reading your posts with this in mind.

Oh I do believe you have cognitive functions, but it has by no means been demonstrated by empiricism.

I would disagree with that statement. We have more then enough empirical evidence of cognitive function to meet burden of proof.

So if you know you have cognitive functions then you are following your intuitions, not empiricism.

Thoughts are not empirically proven. Have you ever observed another persons thoughts? I haven't.

Yes, I have.
Scientists Can Now Read Your Thoughts With a Brain Scan


Not only can we witness them we can induce them.

Brain-controlling magnets: how do they work? | Dean Burnett

There is no 'proof' to the objectiveness of morality, it is much like mathematics in that we believe it correlates with reality if we abide by it and it appears to do so. However morality doesn't tell us about the material world but the spiritual world. So if morality correlates with the spiritual world then it should have a spiritual effect, and I would say it certainly does.

Sorry. I have not seen any evidence of the spiritual world let alone evidence that morality effects it.

 

[Belk]

Well i did not see it from Sanoy and i am glad it happened because it was an easy one.

Indeed. I likely should of put a bit more thought into it. Thank you for pointing it out to me.

 

[Phil 1:21]

As stated from post #615 'the moral argument is one of the best 'tricks' theists will use to AVOID answering questions '

Repeating a strawman does not constitute defense of your position. I’m confident you’re better than that. So then...please try again. Thanks.

 

[cvanwey]

Repeating a strawman does not constitute defense of your position. I’m confident you’re better than that. So then...please try again. Thanks.

Prove my assertion is actually a strawman, by actually responding with your answer to my repeated requests for an answer. And every post you DO NOT provide an answer further produces evidence for my assertion (we are over 70 posts deep now).. Otherwise:

'As stated from post #615 'the moral argument is one of the best 'tricks' theists will use to AVOID answering questions '

But here's some more 'fuel' for kicks, grins, and giggles...

Premise 1 – If god doesn't exist, objective morals don't exist.
Premise 2 – Objective morals do exist.
Premise 3 – Therefore god exists.


Now lets use this attempt at reason and attempt at logic to expose the absurdity of his model using an adjacent example.....


Premise 1 – If the 'Monopoly guy on the box' doesn't exist, objective economics do not exit.
Premise 2 – Objective economics do exist.
Premise 3 – Therefore, the 'Monopoly guy on the box' exists.


If the above (3) premise claim for morality were presented to a presuppositional theist, this argument may re-enforce their belief. However, when viewing the second (3) premise claim, using the 'economics' model, it's much easier to see the severe flaws in logic, on more than one level; by removing the bias of the theistic position from the equation.

**************

Okay, please DON'T answer in any capacity, (yet again), so we may continue this vacuous circle until one of us gets overly bored.

 

[Phil 1:21]

Prove my assertion is actually a strawman, by actually responding with your answer to my repeated requests for an answer.

I trust you see the irony in that statement.

If you can’t defend your position, it’s silly to demand others do so. But I’m confident that given enough grace you will formulate a defense of some variety. Let’s keep working toward that.

 

[cvanwey]

I trust you see the irony in that statement.

If you can’t defend your position, it’s silly to demand others do so. But I’m confident that given enough grace you will formulate a defense of some variety. Let’s keep working toward that.

Rinse/repeat...

'As stated from post #615 'the moral argument is one of the best 'tricks' theists will use to AVOID answering questions '

I've already stated that you claim morals are 'objective'. I've already demonstrated my above assessment, via your lack in response to my question. I've already stated morals are subjective. I'm simply asking for your asserted conclusion, which apparently differs from mine. If your 'objective' foundation is grounded in theism, then you can then demonstrate the folly of 'my' ways now, can't you?

Please help a lost soul out, won't you? Please advise/instruct me accordingly. 'I now realize the error of my ways.' 'Without appealing to your 'objective standards,' I have no bases for truth.'

Now please, please, please bless us all with your wisdom.

The goal was intellectual honesty. You appear to possess none.

Is slavery moral? Yes or no

 

[Phil 1:21]

Rinse/repeat...

'As stated from post #615 'the moral argument is one of the best 'tricks' theists will use to AVOID answering questions '

I've already stated that you claim morals are 'objective'. I've already demonstrated my above assessment, via your lack in response to my question. I've already stated morals are subjective. I'm simply asking for your asserted conclusion, which apparently differs from mine. If your 'objective' foundation is grounded in theism, then you can then demonstrate the folly of 'my' ways now, can't you?

Please help a lost soul out, won't you? Please advise/instruct me accordingly. 'I now realize the error of my ways.' 'Without appealing to your 'objective standards,' I have no bases for truth.'

Now please, please, please bless us all with your wisdom.

The goal was intellectual honesty. You appear to possess none.

Is slavery moral? Yes or no

So still no defense of your position? Perhaps tomorrow will bring about some change. A good night sleep can be a wonderful thing.

 

[cvanwey]

So still no defense of your position? Perhaps tomorrow will bring about some change. A good night sleep can be a wonderful thing.

The irony exists in the fact you further illuminate post 615.

Let's try one last approach, since you are stuck in neutral...

I'm asking you for your opinion. You simply refuse. And it's fairly apparent you know why.

Regardless of my possible differing opinion, it further lends credence to a point...

The fact that I inherently disagree with slavery would mean my mind is not built with an intrinsic moral nature, which aligns with your asserted God (as the opposite is allowed in your asserted holy book - slavery).

So continue to avoid the question, in which you know demonstrates the apparent inconsistency in your asserted objective truth.

I will look forward to yet another response, (not answering the basic question referencing your opinion), while instead replying with the 'broken record' responses of the last few dozen...

So until you actually answer a simple and honest question of opinion (no different than asking any other question of opinion), I will let you have the last word, by regurgitating the same rhetoric.

 

[Sanoy]

Thank you. I will try re-reading your posts with this in mind.


I would disagree with that statement. We have more then enough empirical evidence of cognitive function to meet burden of proof.



Yes, I have.
Scientists Can Now Read Your Thoughts With a Brain Scan


Not only can we witness them we can induce them.

Brain-controlling magnets: how do they work? | Dean Burnett



Sorry. I have not seen any evidence of the spiritual world let alone evidence that morality effects it.

I'm not trying to be obtuse here but what empirical evidence do you have for cognition? Brain states? That is not evidence of cognition, that is just evidence of electrical activity. The only evidence we have of cognition is ostensive through our intuitions and experience and that is not empirical. So I would need to hear what you mean here.

I don't usually read links in lieu of conversation, but in this case I have already heard of this via the headline. That is not reading your thoughts, it is mapping your brain states. You cannot see a thought, you can only see a brain state and map it to a thought by asking the person what they are thinking. If you could see a thought then the whole mapping process that is done by literally asking the person what they are thinking about wouldn't be required.

You can witness your own thought, but we cannot witness anothers thoughts. Inducing a thought has nothing to do with the empiricism of observing a thought. All we can observe are brain states. Our thoughts are not our brain states per the law of identity. Human experience of qualia is not reducible to an identical state of affairs that is observable through empiricism.

 

[Moral Orel]

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?

That isn't "context", that's part of the definition of what we're talking about. If the person reserves the right to change their mind or if the "enslavement" is temporary, then they aren't owned, they're rented at worst. Like I told Sanoy, voluntary indentured servitude isn't inherently immoral, it's just a bad system because it's so prone to exploitation. So many people want to muddy the distinction between these two things, I want to ensure we both mean the same thing by "owning" if we're going to discuss it.

So, let's say we have Jim and Bob. If Jim says one day that he wants to be Bob's slave, you're saying it's no immoral for Bob to take control of all of Jim's rights, retain the ability to sell/loan Jim to his friends, inherit him to anyone he names in his will, physically abuse him up to and including killing him, and to ignore any pleas of protest should Jim ever change his mind?

I could accept a less expansive definition, but I'd rather not leave things open to a bunch of "what about this specific thing or that specific thing?".

 

[Moral Orel]

He is overturning it, it called for equivalent harm and now He calls for complete forgiveness. I don't see any scenario where the proposition that Jesus confirms the national law as maintained is true when He is literally and explicitly changing it. You will have to draw that proposition out such that the result of Jesus's statements are exactly the same as the law. That plainly can't be achieved.

So, the whole "eye for an eye" concept calls for the death of murderers. They took a life, so their life is taken. You're saying Jesus overturned this by calling for complete forgiveness? Or should we say that we can only assume that any changes He called for only apply to the specific things He mentioned. All it takes to "condone" something is to say nothing about it.

They don't own the people in the sense you imagine, they still have certain rights. They do however give up certain rights voluntarily. Anything can be abused. What is interesting is that it was their unfaithfulness to God that led to such abuses. Your comment about attacking other cities is far off the topic of slavery. We can talk about that but I'd prefer to finish our current topic to your satisfaction. If we complete this topic and you do decide that you want to talk about it I need to know a bit more about what you are referring too.

I already said that indentured servitude isn't inherently immoral. Time to move on to slavery. Those cities that are "at a distance" are not off topic. That's part of the real slavery in the Bible. The cities near to them within their promised land would be off topic, because then we would only be talking about genocide. Those aren't the cities I'm talking about though.

When you draw near to a city to fight against it, offer terms of peace to it. And if it responds to you peaceably and it opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall do forced labor for you and shall serve you. But if it makes no peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it. And when the LORD your God gives it into your hand, you shall put all its males to the sword, but the women and the little ones, the livestock, and everything else in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as plunder for yourselves. And you shall enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the LORD your God has given you. Thus you shall do to all the cities that are very far from you, which are not cities of the nations here. -- Deuteronomy 20:10-15​

That is slavery, and that is the topic.

You say owning people is bad because your moral intuition about men being free is compelling you. However infringing on ones right to be a servant is a restriction on that persons free will which would leave that person stuck in poverty. Your moral intuition is right to see the freedom of mankind as the proper course but it's being inappropriately applied. Where do you suppose your moral compass points to?

If someone wants to be a servant, have at it. They should always have the right to change their mind though (not necessarily without any consequences whatsoever), and they shouldn't be forced to be a servant. The "owner" in this scenario is the immoral one who offers no choice to the "servant" other than enslavement to alleviate their poverty.

 

[Moral Orel]

If folks always agreed, that would be correct. But as we know, that’s not always the case. So these things are important.

That still doesn't matter. You can agree or disagree with him, and then discuss why you both arrived at your conclusions. You don't need to know why he arrived at his belief before you can state yours.

 

[Phil 1:21]

That still doesn't matter. You can agree or disagree with him, and then discuss why you both arrived at your conclusions. You don't need to know why he arrived at his belief before you can state yours.

I don’t recall saying anything about “need” (pretty sure I covered this a few times). But if he can’t defend his position, it’s silly of him to expect others to defend theirs.

 

[Kemet]

Is slavery moral?

Here are some interesting quote's

“It [slavery] has exercised absolute mastery over the American Church. With the Bible in their hands, her priesthood have attempted to prove that slavery came down from God out of heaven. They have become slaveholders and dealers in human flesh.”—William Lloyd Garrison, Abolitionist leader

“There was no place in the land where the seeker could not find some small budding sign of pity for the slave. No place in all the land except one, the pulpit. It yielded at last; it always does. It fought a strong and stubborn fight and then did what it always does, joined the procession at the tail end. Slavery fell. The slavery text in the Bible remained; the practice changed; that was all.”—Mark Twain

“Let the gentleman go to Revelation to learn the decree of God, let him go to the Bible. I said that slavery was sanctioned in the Bible, authorized, regulated, and recognized from Genesis to Revelation. Slavery existed then in the earliest ages and among the chosen people of God; and in Revelation we are told that it shall exist till the end of time shall come. You find it in the Old and New Testaments, in the prophecies, psalms, and the epistles of Paul; you find it recognized and sanctioned everywhere.”—Jefferson Davis, president of the Confederate States of America

“In all the ages the Roman Church has owned slaves, bought and sold slaves, authorized and encouraged her children to trade in them. There were the texts; there was no mistaking their meaning; she was doing in all this thing what the Bible had mapped out for her to do. So unassailable was her position that in all the centuries she had no word to say against human slavery.”—Mark Twain

“The delegates of the annual conference are decidedly opposed to modern abolitionism and wholly disclaim any right, wish, or intention to interfere in the civil and political relation between master and slave as it exists in the slave-holding states of the union.”—Methodist Episcopal Church, 1836 General Conference, Cincinnati, Ohio

What did Frederick Douglas a former slave who escaped slavery, became one of the preeminent African-American civil right leaders and Abolitionist leaders of his time-- think regarding "Is Slavery Moral"

“I assert, most unhesitatingly, that the religion of the South is mere covering for the most horrid crimes, a justifier of the most appalling barbarity, a sanctifier of the most hateful frauds, and a dark shelter under which the darkest, foulest, grossest, and most infernal deeds of slaveholders find the strongest protection. Were I to be again reduced to the chains of slavery, next to that enslavement, I should regard being the slave of a religious master the greatest calamity that could befall me.

 

[HypnoToad]

Yup, so appealing to circular reasoning (i.e.) the Bible, is instead a sound justification.

Did I say that? Apparently you have no real response to what I did actually say.

And until you can demonstrate anyone other than humans wrote such verses, you are merely adhering to ancient human opinions.
Thnx

Right. And still no justification for skeptics/athiests who claim slavery (or anything else for that matter) is demonstrably immoral beyond personal feelings.