Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Many Christians on this site have argued that slavery was fine and consequently not evil.
God is real, He simply doesn't exist, similar to the narrative of "me" and "you."And Meister Eckhart, or Jakob Boehme, BTW.
God is just a grid over which people see the world, and a spiritual ideal. But God is no more real, and no less so, than the narrative of "me" and "you".
Yet the deity of Judaism and Christianity addresses exactly this. Otherwise all of the law and the prophets wouldn't be supported by two points: Love the Lord you God with all your heart, and all your soul and all your mind, and you neighbor as yourself. The latter is the point of the parable of the Good Samaritan.I don't think whether God exists or not would be relevant to what is ethical. I don't accept divine command ethics as relevant when it involves questions of duties to ones fellow human beings.
American-style chattel slavery was definitely evil, and dehumanizing, regardless of how one defend slavery in the abstract as present in religious texts (or not). And that's really what matters.
No, I will not exist 150 years from now, but I do matter now.Yes it is like asking that. If it's going to be as if you don't exist 150 years from now, then you don't matter now.
Inherent value is not necessary in my view; give me my flowers now while I am living, because putting them on my grave after I’m dead us of no use to me.That which is transient has no inherent value, the only way transient things find value is if they produce or impact something that continues to exist.
I’ve already told you why the gratification of sensory pleasures or inward desires matter; because I value them now while I am living.If the basis for what matters is the gratification of sensory pleasures or inward desires like posted above, then you need to have a reason as to why those things matter rather than just assuming that they do.
No, as an intelligent being, I decide what I find meaningful, or what matters to me.In order to have meaning within a being, the being needs to exist so the cessation of the being = cessation of meaning (or it mattering).
Yeah, I get what you're saying, but all we're left with then is the idea that you think slavery is evil, not that slavery is indeed evil.
Insisting that anyone "should be" doing anything requires more substance than merely the relative outcome of results. Morality, for it to be of universal significance and social potency, really needs a metaphysical substantiation to avoid being more than just a cultural, or even just a pedestrian, form of pragmatics. As for people changing their morals in order to change culture: that idea in and of itself only qualifies as social activism rather than a full-fledged morality working itself out from some identifiable Ethical System of thought.
That's ok. I don't accept divine command ethics either. So we have that in common.
The upshot is this, however: since I think Human Rights are non-axiomatic, I probably NEED MORE by which to 'be' a moral person than you do.
Yes, you're exactly right, Paulos, but honestly I wasn't attempting to make an argument so much as to offer an axiological clarification of my points. As you've said, God isn't showing up in the way we'd like for Him to-- assuming He even exists--and I readily agree with you that this absence makes it 'seem' like we need to come up with our own ethical answers. It's just that all things considered, and being existentially belabored as I am, I choose to "go with Jesus," as cliche as that may sound.
Could you elaborate on this?
What do you mean by "universal"? Human morality can really only apply to human beings, that is my understanding.
That's not really a cliche, if you meant an honest and critical inquiry into Jesus' teachings. Note, that isn't the same as "Christianity", necessarily. I honestly think some in liberal, mainline churches and even "New Age gurus" (see below) have done a much better job of this, though, than Evangelicals. I think following Jesus should look more like Fred Rogers or Marianne Williamson and less like Jerry Fallwell.
.... but to be more clear, though, European and American-style chattel slavery wasn't only evil, it was also unjustified even on 'biblical terms.' It really had no place to be promulgated other than for one single reason: Making Money.
By "universal significance" I simply mean to refer to a moral proposition or Ethical principle of such quality [X] that it is valued similarly by all people everywhere and will be similarly prescribed and enforced by them, regardless of cultural diversity.
However, I think it takes more than the common practicality of shared humanity for us to deem that we "should indeed" recognize moral propositions as having "universal moral significance" and therefore recognize that we must abide by those propositions in order to be truly moral agents.
I'm curious as to the theological background to this argument. It likely had to have existed into the 1860s, along with a counter-argument.
Note that this is a request for information, not debate.
I see alot of common moral principles across cultures (particularly large agricultural societies), but moral strictures vary from society to society, depending on the cultural context.
And who decides what is good in that situation?
Yes, I agree, but this isn't so much the case where the definition and application of human rights is concerned.
It's probably an understatement to say that white slavers of the Early Settlement Era in the Americas, and the Colonial and Industrial Eras didn't care one wit that their biblical exegesis was utterly pathetic and grossly misapplied. But such is the world we live in, even today.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?