Do Atheists have any moral and ethical backstops?

[Kylie]

Depends on the context, but other than in some very specific circumstances I would have a problem with it.

Please describe a context in which you would find it acceptable to be sold as property.

 

[Kylie]

But disliking something and believing it to be immoral are two different things. I dislike losing money at the poker table, but that doesn't mean that I think the winner has done something immoral.

I'm not talking about a person who says, "It is right for me to keep people as slaves, but I would not like to be a slave myself."

I'm talking about a person who says, "It is right for me to keep people as slaves, but it is not right for me to be a slave myself."

 

[Kylie]

I'm not sure that 'their views (or opinion) could not be objective' makes sense. As Zippy said, it's two different things. If an act is objectively immoral then it's immoral because of the indisputable facts of the matter and personal opinions are relevant.

I'm not even sure that one's views on the facts of the matter are relevant either. The facts must be shown to be wrong as opposed to offering an opinion as to their veracity. And just thinking out aloud here - would those facts then have to be true in an absolute sense?

I think it's quite clear that I was talking about their views based on objective facts.

 

[Abaxvahl]

Please describe a context in which you would find it acceptable to be sold as property.

I will take "acceptable" to mean "not immoral" or "just" based on your post above. One context (possibly the only) being I deserved it via something like Exodus 22:3. Would I ever like it? No, I don't even like the cause-and-effect of my own actions which are in my control most of the time, let alone that.

 

[MehGuy]

He is wondering whether atheists can have prohibitions on behavior that hold no matter what. It's not really a backstop, but that's what he means:

Alright. I guess I would say I do not know. I cannot predict the future.. nor know what my mind is capable of given the circumstance. Looking at how brutal humanity can be, I do not see myself as morally superior to them. Given the same circumstances.. I or anyone else could very well be capable and morally changing their mind about once atrocious deeds.

I remember watching a documentary about German soldiers who were in a British POW camp. The British secretly recorded their conversations. A few of the soldiers talked about how morally repugnant they found the idea of shooting women and children was. When they were pressured to actually kill them by their superiors many said they initially felt terrible and guilt ridden.. but a few said that gradually they found the experience of executing them enjoyable.

 

[Kylie]

I will take "acceptable" to mean "not immoral" or "just" based on your post above. One context (possibly the only) being I deserved it via something like Exodus 22:3. Would I ever like it? No, I don't even like the cause-and-effect of my own actions which are in my control most of the time, let alone that.

So you think that under certain conditions, people should be reduced to property.

 

[VirOptimus]

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.

Or, its just that morals have changed since biblical times and that christians have no ”backstops”.

 

[Bradskii]

As Abaxvahl has noted, the Old Testament forms of permissible slavery are considered moderate.
(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...)

Did you mean to say are considered moderate? We don't need to go into details. We both know what the OT says one can and cannot do to one's property.

If your view has been based on the concept of 'Well, it could have been worse' then I can see why you haven't solved it yet. Actually, no. I can't really see it. But at least you got two out of four.

 

[Abaxvahl]

So you think that under certain conditions, people should be reduced to property.

Yes.

 

[Abaxvahl]

You might also admit that you are unable to form a moral decision without a set of rules to tell you what your decision should be. Your attitude is not "What is morally right". It's "What do the rules tell me is morally right."

This is typical of many Christians and is what I mean when I use terms like 'moral immaturity'.

OB

What does forming a moral decision look like to you? For I fail to understand why having principles established and reasoning from them is not thinking what is morally right, considering that most everyone I know has principles they follow and work from Christian, atheist, and all the other varieties of man. Not to mention that Christian moral theology extremely frequently simply requires you to make a judgment about an act that is based on what your reason can see, which is why people have a variety of positions on many things, including what even counts as murder all working from the same principles, so it isn't really "what do the rules say" from my perspective.

 

[Larniavc]

Yes

Abhorrent. I hope one day you realise how evil slavery is.

 

[Abaxvahl]

Abhorrent. I hope one day you realise how evil slavery is.

I do.

 

[VirOptimus]

I do.

And yet you think its morally justified.

 

[Moral Orel]

I do.

I dunno, I can kind of see it... I'm gonna get crucified by my atheist brethren for agreeing with you even in the slightest, but isn't prison sort-of-kind-of slavery? What's the difference, really? Loss of freedom, can't quit, can't move, room-and-board provided, but at the cost of forced labor...

I mean, colloquially if someone asks, "Is slavery bad?" then yeah, sure, of course, always. But if we're looking for circumstances that might make it okay, then yeah, we can find reasons to feel okay about it, can't we?

 

[VirOptimus]

I dunno, I can kind of see it... I'm gonna get crucified by my atheist brethren for agreeing with you even in the slightest, but isn't prison sort-of-kind-of slavery? What's the difference, really? Loss of freedom, can't quit, can't move, room-and-board provided, but at the cost of forced labor...

I mean, colloquially if someone asks, "Is slavery bad?" then yeah, sure, of course, always. But if we're looking for circumstances that might make it okay, then yeah, we can find reasons to feel okay about it, can't we?

Prison is not slavery.

 

[Moral Orel]

Prison is not slavery.

Like I asked, how does it differ?

 

[VirOptimus]

Like I asked, how does it differ?

In lots of ways, for starters we dont trade in prisoners.

Forced labour is not slavery either.

 

[Abaxvahl]

And yet you think its morally justified.

I think all death is evil ("God did not make death") but it can be morally justified to kill in self-defense. A thing can be bad in one sense while being moral justified at the same time.

 

[VirOptimus]

I think all death is evil ("God did not make death") but it can be morally justified to kill in self-defense. A thing can be bad in one sense while being moral justified at the same time.

And the justification for slavery is…?

 

[Moral Orel]

In lots of ways, for starters we dont trade in prisoners.

Okay, so your masters aren't interchangeable. That counts, sure. Seems kind of tangential to the things people hate about slavery though.

Forced labour is not slavery either.

It's an aspect of it though, no? You don't get to choose what you do, your masters do.