How do you justify moral actions?

[FireDragon76]

Many Christians on this site have argued that slavery was fine and consequently not evil.

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.

 

[Jonaitis]

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".

God is real, He simply doesn't exist, similar to the narrative of "me" and "you."

 

[Tuur]

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.

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.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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.

.... 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.

Our realizing this, and our avoiding all of the Neo-Atheistic chutzpah that goes on today in the attempt to besmirch the Bible and equivalate modern issues regarding our 'human rights' with political and religious issues from ancient, biblical times ...., matters as well.

And why does what I'm citing additionally also matter? It matters because for us to realize this justifiably pulls the rug out from under those persons who claim to be Christian yet think they're going to play the hero by pushing political agendas laced with racism and/or putsches for supposedly 'Christian' theocracy.

 

[Ken-1122]

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.

No, I will not exist 150 years from now, but I do matter now.

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.

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.

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.

I’ve already told you why the gratification of sensory pleasures or inward desires matter; because I value them now while I am living.

 

[Ken-1122]

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).

No, as an intelligent being, I decide what I find meaningful, or what matters to me.

 

[FireDragon76]

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.

Could you elaborate on this?

What do you mean by "universal"? Human morality can really only apply to human beings, that is my understanding.

 

[FireDragon76]

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.

I think being a moral person is difficult, whether or not you believe in God. We don't live in a culture that values cultivating things like sociability and compassion anymore, in many churches or outside of them.

 

[FireDragon76]

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.

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.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Could you elaborate on this?

What do you mean by "universal"? Human morality can really only apply to human beings, that is my understanding.

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.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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.

Happily, I can also honestly say that Fred Rogers has been a moral influence on me and Jerry Fallwell never has. Not that my having watched Mr. Rogers as a kid has made me a 'good person' today, but every little bit has helped, I suppose.

 

[Tuur]

.... 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.

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.

 

[FireDragon76]

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 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.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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.

It did exist, both pro and con even into the 1860s, and although the enslavement of various African peoples for the Atlantic slave trade entailed a confluence of several factors, one of the biblical ones centered upon the "convenient" distortion and all too easily plied "Curse of Ham" abstracted as it was from Genesis 9, along with the misconstrued "Curse of Cain" from Genesis 4.

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.

Fortunately, the progress of the fields of history and hermeneutics have aided to put this problem away.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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.

Yes, I agree, but this isn't so much the case where the definition and application of human rights is concerned.

 

[rjs330]

Good is relative to the situation.

And who decides what is good in that situation?

 

[rjs330]

I think too many Christians do t really know how to articulate things. We are not very versed at times when dealing with concepts of moral issues.

For example often Christians will say something about what's to stop you from doing "X"? That leaves the reader or listener to say "what you only dont do X because God says so?" As if it weren't for God those people would just be running around doing "X".

As we see in life, there are a lot of folks that don't do "X" who are not Christians. They have something inside themselves the tells them "X" is bad. They just wouldn't do it.

You see there are worldly people with morals. They just wouldnt go around raping and murdering. Cause intrinsically they believe it's wrong and not because someone with a Bible said it is.

It becomes the whole morality concept of good and evil. What's good and what's evil and how do we know what is?

 

[FireDragon76]

And who decides what is good in that situation?

If it's relative to the situation at hand, then that question does not apply.

 

[FireDragon76]

Yes, I agree, but this isn't so much the case where the definition and application of human rights is concerned.

Are human rights "real"? It seems all too often it's just used to justify things people are going to do anyways, for reasons that have nothing to do with the logic of human rights.

 

[Tuur]

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.

You could also make the argument that abolitionists also were searching the bible to look for justification of their position, which is why I was interested in the actual biblically based arguments of the time. Both sides were utterly convinced they were right, and it would be interesting to see their reasoning.