Do Atheists have any moral and ethical backstops?

[Bradskii]

And then with homosexuals I said that if it met said requirements I would not oppose it, going with both again, I do not see it as intrinsically evil.

I think we're done.

 

[Bradskii]

No, it's much more complicated than this. The article that Abaxvahl cited goes into some of the details. We are at a level of theological depth that is too much for CF, but in the end the Catechism is not a dogmatic document, so citing the Catechism contra Dulles does not settle the question. Even the Catechism waffles and subtly contradicts itself. Consider its summation of the position (emphasis mine):

2455 The moral law forbids acts which, for commercial or totalitarian purposes, lead to the enslavement of human beings, or to their being bought, sold or exchanged like merchandise.
​

Abaxvahl is not being inconsistent. This is a controversial theological issue that has not been settled by the Church, but it receives very little attention in the 21st century. It is one of those things that is seldom talked about. The Catechism is essentially telling Catholics to err on the side of anti-slavery, and only those who have studied the issue in depth have any qualification to go beyond what the Catechism says.

Which part of this is theologically debatable?

2455 The moral law forbids acts which, for commercial or totalitarian purposes, lead to the enslavement of human beings, or to their being bought, sold or exchanged like merchandise.

Seems like that's almost a dictionary definition of slavery. And it is forbidden.

 

[zippy2006]

Which part of this is theologically debatable?

2455 The moral law forbids acts which, for commercial or totalitarian purposes, lead to the enslavement of human beings, or to their being bought, sold or exchanged like merchandise.

Seems like that's almost a dictionary definition of slavery. And it is forbidden.

Presumably being bought, sold, or exchanged like merchandise for commercial or totalitarian purposes would not be a moderate form of slavery, and would be prohibited (see Abaxvahl's statement). Abaxvahl has affirmed that certain forms of slavery are impermissible.

 

[Occams Barber]

Which part of this is theologically debatable?

2455 The moral law forbids acts which, for commercial or totalitarian purposes, lead to the enslavement of human beings, or to their being bought, sold or exchanged like merchandise.

Seems like that's almost a dictionary definition of slavery. And it is forbidden.

This is an excellent example of what happens when your morality is handed to you as a set of rules.

The question shifts from "what is moral" to a legalistic argument about what the rules say - morality is assumed. The result, in broad terms, is what I have described in the past as 'moral immaturity'.

OB

 

[Estrid]

This is an excellent example of what happens when your morality is handed to you as a set of rules.

The question shifts from "what is moral" to a legalistic argument about what the rules say - morality is assumed. The result, in broad terms, is what I have described in the past as 'moral immaturity'.

OB

"If by slavery, you mean that grim and hideous crime against
man and God that rips apart families, dashes hope and
trammels the very foundation of all humanity, why, I'm against it.

But if by slavery you mean......"

 

[Bradskii]

Presumably being bought, sold, or exchanged like merchandise for commercial or totalitarian purposes would not be a moderate form of slavery, and would be prohibited (see Abaxvahl's statement). Abaxvahl has affirmed that certain forms of slavery are impermissible.

I guess there must be a kind of slavery where you aren't classed as property. It would be convenient if we had another term for it. But then we wouldn't be talking about slavery. I say we stick with slavery as described. The one that the church says is immoral and scripture says is ok. Same as stoning homosexuals.

I guess we could toss a coin...

 

[Estrid]

I guess there must be a kind of slavery where you aren't classed as property. It would be convenient if we had another term for it. But then we wouldn't be talking about slavery. I say we stick with slavery as described. The one that the church says is immoral and scripture says is ok. Same as stoning homosexuals.

I guess we could toss a coin...

If by stoning homosexuals you mean...

 

[zippy2006]

I guess there must be a kind of slavery where you aren't classed as property. It would be convenient if we had another term for it. But then we wouldn't be talking about slavery. I say we stick with slavery as described. The one that the church says is immoral and scripture says is ok. Same as stoning homosexuals.

I guess we could toss a coin...

I admit this is confusing, but it requires more analytic rigor than you're giving it. For example, the Catechism clauses talk about merchandise, not property. Yet you've now erroneously brought in the concept of property as if this is what the Catechism is talking about.

I doubt this conversation will go anywhere. As I said, it is far too complicated for CF. The take-away is that extreme forms of slavery are intrinsically evil and can never be permitted, but some moderate forms of slavery can be permitted in a fallen world, even though they are still bad and should be avoided when possible.

 

[Bradskii]

I doubt this conversation will go anywhere. As I said, it is far too complicated for CF. The take-away is that extreme forms of slavery are intrinsically evil and can never be permitted, but some moderate forms of slavery can be permitted in a fallen world...

Yeah, tricky terms like merchandise and property will get us all in knots. I would have thought that if you own a slave and sell her, she's merchandise. And if I purchase that merchandise then she's my property. But let's see if we can't get some book learnin' and sort this out. How about a moderate form of slavery? Let's have an example of that and see where it takes us.

 

[Occams Barber]

The take-away is that extreme forms of slavery are intrinsically evil and can never be permitted, but some moderate forms of slavery can be permitted in a fallen world, even though they are still bad and should be avoided when

Hi Zip

You realise this sounds suspiciously like legalistic double talk?

Are you able to formulate a personal (as opposed to Christian rule-driven) view on this?

OB

 

[zippy2006]

But let's see if we can't get some book learnin' and sort this out. How about a moderate form of slavery? Let's have an example of that and see where it takes us.

There are definitely some books you could read if you are interested. Dulles recommends The Rights of Man and Natural Law.

I am not going to have an in-depth discussion on the historical forms of slavery, but you might start a thread on it or do a search. I know that topic has come up on CF before.

Hi Zip

You realise this sounds suspiciously like legalistic double talk?

Are you able to formulate a personal (as opposed to Christian rule-driven) view on this?

OB

The idea that some act is only intrinsically evil in certain circumstances is not "legalistic double talk." It's very common. For example, gambling, taxation, and punitive deterrence are a few things that pretty much everyone agrees need to be distinguished based on the form in question.

 

[zippy2006]

The other thing to point out is that this is a matter of moral freedom in Catholicism. If someone wants to hold that every form of slavery is intrinsically evil, they can (but they will have to provide an explanation of the OT Law). If they want to hold the traditional view that only extreme forms of slavery are intrinsically evil, they can. As far as I can tell the Church has not settled the issue with a definitive pronouncement.

 

[Bradskii]

There are definitely some books you could read if you are interested. Dulles recommends The Rights of Man and Natural Law.

I am not going to have an in-depth discussion on the historical forms of slavery, but you might start a thread on it or do a search. I know that topic has come up on CF before.l

The idea that some act is only intrinsically evil in certain circumstances is not "legalistic double talk." It's very common. For example, gambling, taxation, and punitive deterrence are a few things that pretty much everyone agrees need to be distinguished based on the form in question.

I don't want an in-depth discussion. I can't see this taking long. And it's relevant to the op in any case. I just want an example of what you think is a moderate form of slavery.

 

[zippy2006]

I don't want an in-depth discussion. I can't see this taking long. And it's relevant to the op in any case. I just want an example of what you think is a moderate form of slavery.

As Abaxvahl has noted, the Old Testament forms of permissible slavery are considered moderate. The way that his initial conversation with VirOptimus began is instructive for the entire issue.

But my purpose was only to defend Abaxvahl, not to further derail the thread. I've done that, so I will probably move on.

(I admit it is a difficult issue, I admit Catholicism is undecided on the issue, I admit that that looks bad, and I admit that I haven't solved it here...)

 

[Occams Barber]

There are definitely some books you could read if you are interested. Dulles recommends The Rights of Man and Natural Law.

I am not going to have an in-depth discussion on the historical forms of slavery, but you might start a thread on it or do a search. I know that topic has come up on CF before.



The idea that some act is only intrinsically evil in certain circumstances is not "legalistic double talk." It's very common. For example, gambling, taxation, and punitive deterrence are a few things that pretty much everyone agrees need to be distinguished based on the form in question.

Great deflection Zip. I think we were talking about slavery or (perhaps) homosexuality.

I was actually interested in your personal view without quoting slabs of Biblical interpretation or what some arcane philosopher once said.

Do you have a personal view?

OB

 

[zippy2006]

Great deflection Zip. I think we were talking about slavery or (perhaps) homosexuality.

I was actually interested in your personal view without quoting slabs of Biblical interpretation or what some arcane philosopher once said.

Do you have a personal view?

OB

I haven't studied the issue in depth. If I say that all forms of slavery are intrinsically evil, then I am committing to the view that even things like wage slavery are intrinsically evil and must be unilaterally eradicated. That seems a bit much to me.

I do believe that the sort of slavery we are familiar with (the trans-Atlantic slave trade) is intrinsically evil. So yes, the thing that you think of as "slavery" is something I believe to be intrinsically evil.

 

[Occams Barber]

I haven't studied the issue in depth. If I say that all forms of slavery are intrinsically evil, then I am committing to the view that even things like wage slavery are intrinsically evil and must be unilaterally eradicated. That seems a bit much to me.

I do believe that the sort of slavery we are familiar with (the trans-Atlantic slave trade) is intrinsically evil. So yes, the thing that you think of as "slavery" is something I believe to be intrinsically evil.

I'm no bible expert but years of CF have taught me that there were two forms of slavery mentioned in the Bible. One was what we know as chattel slavery - effectively no different to the American form of slavery (which was also common in the past). The other is the bonded servant arrangement where an individual enters servitude voluntarily - presumably your 'moderate' slavery.

I assume you see the first form as 'intrinsically evil. I understand the Bible finds it acceptable.

How do you reconcile these opposing views?

OB

 

[zippy2006]

I'm no bible expert but years of CF have taught me that there were two forms of slavery mentioned in the Bible.

I will leave you with some threads that may be helpful:

• Is slavery in the Bible different than modern slavery?
  
• Slavery of Any Sort Is Immoral
  
• Slavery - and particularly the Ethics of Slavery
  
• Torah's view on slavery (Mishpatim) EX 21-24
  
• Does the Bible condone slavery?
  
• Slavery, a Guide
  
• The so-called "biblical" view on slavery ...

 

[MehGuy]

Interesting. What do you think are the origins of these 'sensations of guilt and shame'?

Origins as in evolutionarily ones? Well, I think shame is a more primitive social emotion compared to guilt. Guilt being more empathy centric. The main difference between the two is that shame compels one to hide, and guilt compels one to confess and make amends. Shameful people despise eye contact, and guilty people find eye contact relieving.

Shame is less altruistic and more selfish compared to guilt and often times has little to do with issues of morality. For example feeling shamed about being seen with an overweight woman or mingling with someone who is beneath your social class. Or something from within. Shame compels people to hide aspects of themselves that others will probably find them less sexually desirable over. Shame perhaps evolving from and being a morphed version of an even more primitive emotion of disgust. Still.. shame has adapted and perhaps further evolved to encompass moral issues. Shame is a useful (good or bad) tool for discouraging sexual behavior, or at the very least making it less socially accepted and underground.

Guilt on the contrary being more altruistic, and evolving from animals who have a higher developed theory of mind. With guilt often extending beyond the self. Collective guilt, generational guilt and so on. Guilt being a useful tool in the evolving nature of society throughout the generations. Spurring new generations who are less rigid in their thinking to more readily adopt new polices that make for a healthier and more productive society? Many of our moral lessons stem from generational guilt. From the sin of Adam and Eve to the guilt of American slavery and Jim Crow. Social changes seem to heavily rely on pointing at the moral failings of previous generations (real or imagined), and for good or bad most people cannot help but feel complicit for things they haven't done. While often unfair and prone to being illogical, guilt has some useful social benefits.

 

[Occams Barber]

I will leave you with some threads that may be helpful:

• Is slavery in the Bible different than modern slavery?
  
• Slavery of Any Sort Is Immoral
  
• Slavery - and particularly the Ethics of Slavery
  
• Torah's view on slavery (Mishpatim) EX 21-24
  
• Does the Bible condone slavery?
  
• Slavery, a Guide
  
• The so-called "biblical" view on slavery ...

You seriously want me to wade through 7 threads and this is helpful?

I've seen the pattern of avoidance on CF before. Typically the trick is to pretend that all Hebrew slaves were happy little Vegemites living in a kind of paternalistic, bonded domesticity. All mention of chattel type slavery is avoided.

The slaves (the real slaves) who worked the mines and fields or manufactories or acted as beasts of burden under violent and extreme conditions are ignored or recast in some dreamlike Southern image of happy slaves singing in the fields. The role of female slaves is tactfully covered up.

I have yet to see this question of Biblical slavery addressed with the honesty it deserves

OB