Where do you get your morals from?

[DogmaHunter]

Let's use this one as an example. There are more black men in US prisons today, being forced into manual labour, than there were black slaves in the US in 1850. Slavery isn't gone - it has just changed its form. (And this isn't even counting all the wage slaves.)

I love when people sneakily try to alter the definition of "slavery", in order to make some ridiculous point.

 

[durangodawood]

...Prisoners are not owned by the state.....

Really? The state has powers that typically come with "ownership". Its comparable to owning an animal.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Really? The state has powers that typically come with "ownership". Its comparable to owning an animal.

You can sell animals. Can the state sell prisoners?

 

[durangodawood]

You can sell animals. Can the state sell prisoners?

Not all the privileges of ownership.

The state also cant slaughter (most of) the prisoners nor make any of them into bacon.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Not all the privileges of ownership.

The state also cant slaughter (most of) the prisoners nor make any of them into bacon.

Right, so really not all that alike to owning animals...

Prisoners have quite a few rights and can't be called "slave" in any sense of the word.

 

[ExTiff]

You can sell animals. Can the state sell prisoners?

Well .. . yes it can and does, . . in a way. Many prisons are run by private enterprise for profit. The state pays, the private companies 'clean up'. If there were no prisoners, the private companies would go bust. A private company would not want to 'buy into' a jail with no prisoners, because no prisoners means no money from the state.

So in effect the state sells its prisoners to the 'lowest bidder'. The private company which offers the state the 'best value'. It is just that it works the other way round with animals. The owner of the animal sells only to the 'highest bidder'. Animals (attracting the highest bidder), are more valuable therefore than human beings, (attracting the lowest bidder, once they are held in jail and considered a liability to the state).

And with regard to 'gay rights', which 'rights' that we all supposedly are awarded by the state, (or supposedly have automatically from birth), is it seriously proposed that 'gays' should be deprived of? Freedom? The right to pursue happiness so long as it does not interfere with everyone else's freedom to pursue happiness? Which parts of the American declaration of Rights should 'gays' be deprived of by non-gays? Is this not seen as a problem of a sort?
.

 

[Halbhh]

I think we might be becoming naturally good in that sense.

Yes, those who believe in Christ do change over time, and also these same principles from Christianity -- such as to forgive everyone for example instead of seeking revenge -- have also gradually spread, though it takes faith in something greater to forgive someone who has for instance harmed (or even murdered) someone you love. That's not in human nature, to forgive those serious attacks, but instead, it requires faith in something greater than us and the situation of this temporary life.

 

[Halbhh]

I say humans are progressively more moral over time.

Given your belief in our own human moral progression, then we can expect war to end entirely soon? No more ethnic cleansing, genocides, etc., and the U.S. will stop deporting refugees seeking to escape from a violent central American country, for instance?

Given your view, how long until the end of all sexual assaults in the world?

 

[Halbhh]

I didn't say he would!


It appears you've missed every point I made. My points was not about the God of war or the God of peace, it was about the people who worship the God of war, vs those who worship the God of peace.

Now you are talking more clearly.

Christians know God as showing both Justice and Mercy. He doesn't disregard or ignore or forget acts of cruelty (murder, rape, slander, you-name-it) on the Day of Judgement for those that do not sincerely repent, but He does forgive those who do sincerely repent.

 

[ExTiff]

When I read the bible and observe the many immoralities contained therein, I'm heavily inclined to disagree.

You are making the mistake of assuming the Bible is a book that describes and defines morality. It is not that kind of book. The Bible describes the behaviour of mankind accurately, and the behaviour attributed to God by mankind. Mankind was not always right about God though. The further back in history from 32 AD the more imprecise was mankind's assessment of God's behaviour.
.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You are making the mistake of assuming the Bible is a book that describes and defines morality.

I don't make that mistake, because I don't make that claim. It's theists that make that claim, to which I respond in that manner.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Well .. . yes it can and does, . . in a way.

In "a way". So, really: no. Only maybe, if you redefine what "selling" means.

And with regard to 'gay rights', which 'rights' that we all supposedly are awarded by the state, (or supposedly have automatically from birth), is it seriously proposed that 'gays' should be deprived of? Freedom?

It was not that long ago that gay people weren't allowed in the military.
Gay marriage still is very much of an issue.
Discrimination of LBGT's still is very much of an issue.

But, it gets better overtime.
Relatively speaking, it's actually not that long ago that gay people were executed - they actually still are in some parts of the world. Most of them, unsurprisingly I might add, in theocracies.

The right to pursue happiness so long as it does not interfere with everyone else's freedom to pursue happiness? Which parts of the American declaration of Rights should 'gays' be deprived of by non-gays? Is this not seen as a problem of a sort?

Well, many sure seem to oppose gay marriage, right?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Given your belief in our own human moral progression

I'm not talking about individuals. I'm talking about humanity in general.
As a collective, we have a more developed morality then before.

Going back through time, while there are peaks and valley's on that graph, I see the overal trend as being "more moral".

Like I said, we no longer keep slaves. We no longer engage in apartheid. Animal rights is a thing today. Etc.

These are all the result of more developed social awareness and an increasingly more sophisticated sense of ethics and morality.


[qutoe]then we can expect war to end entirely soon[/quote]

Why "soon"? Or even "ever"?
I don't think I said anything that implied that.

? No more ethnic cleansing, genocides, etc., and the U.S. will stop deporting refugees seeking to escape from a violent central American country, for instance?

The very fact that things like "ethnic cleansing" and "genocide" have such disturbing evil aura's attached, makes my point.

There was a time when ethnic cleansing, genocide, infantacide was not only considered not evil, but even a good thing.

Today, it's rather shocking to hear such a thing is occuring somewhere at the other side of the world, far out of your own sight even.

Given your view, how long until the end of all sexual assaults in the world?

You seem to be confusing "overall moral progression" with "nodody being immoral, ever"

 

[durangodawood]

Right, so really not all that alike to owning animals...

Prisoners have quite a few rights and can't be called "slave" in any sense of the word.

Well even animals have various legal protections against cruelty and so on.

Basically for both prisoners and animals you give them a pen, tell them when they can and cant come out, tell them what feed they can eat, what objects then can access, what other animals they can associate with. Its radically restrictive in both cases.

 

[Halbhh]

I'm not talking about individuals. I'm talking about humanity in general.
As a collective, we have a more developed morality then before.

Going back through time, while there are peaks and valley's on that graph, I see the overal trend as being "more moral".

Like I said, we no longer keep slaves. We no longer engage in apartheid. Animal rights is a thing today. Etc.

These are all the result of more developed social awareness and an increasingly more sophisticated sense of ethics and morality.


[qutoe]then we can expect war to end entirely soon

You wrote: "There was a time when ethnic cleansing, genocide, infantacide was not only considered not evil, but even a good thing."

Do you think that's ended?

 

[Ken-1122]

Really? The state has powers that typically come with "ownership". Its comparable to owning an animal.

We breed animals all the time in order to get a desired outcome of offspring. Do you know of any cases of the state doing that to prisoners?

 

[durangodawood]

We breed animals all the time in order to get a desired outcome of offspring. Do you know of any cases of the state doing that to prisoners?

Instead we compel prisoners, by force, against doing any breeding.

 

[Jon Osterman]

Slavery is when one man is owned by another. Prisoners are not owned by the state, they are being punished by the state.

I think you just proved my point. We have swapped one evil for another and you don't even see it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Well even animals have various legal protections against cruelty and so on.

Sure. But not against selling/buying them or claims of ownership.

Basically for both prisoners and animals you give them a pen, tell them when they can and cant come out, tell them what feed they can eat, what objects then can access, what other animals they can associate with. Its radically restrictive in both cases.

Sure. But that's not what defines slavery, by any means.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You wrote: "There was a time when ethnic cleansing, genocide, infantacide was not only considered not evil, but even a good thing."

Do you think that's ended?

I think today, there's a LOT more social awareness concerning such practices, yes.
I think today, you'ld be hard pressed to find people who would think such things are okay.

Back in the day, it was a lot easier to get people to engage in it AND get away with it.
Today, you won't be getting away with it. The world will be coming after you.