How do you justify moral actions?

[FireDragon76]

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.

You are right, it wasn't the most strict "biblicist" approach- abolitionists appealed to the brutality of slavery and the humanity of enslaved peoples. I think that's part of the point. It goes back to the notion that one must use reason and experience to read the Bible as well, something Methodists and mainline Protestants agree on. Bigoted, racist southern white Christians appealed to gotcha passages and clobber verses lifted out of any sense of context.

It's one reason conservative Evangelicals resisted using the word "slave" in their ESV translation. So much of the modern project of Neo-Fundamentalism/Evangelicalism rests on obscuring the cultural context the Bible was written within.

 

[Tuur]

You are right, it wasn't the most strict "biblicist" approach- abolitionists appealed to the brutality of slavery and the humanity of enslaved peoples. I think that's part of the point. It goes back to the notion that one must use reason and experience to read the Bible as well, something Methodists and mainline Protestants agree on. Bigoted, racist southern white Christians appealed to gotcha passages and clobber verses lifted out of any sense of context.

It's one reason conservative Evangelicals resisted using the word "slave" in their ESV translation. So much of the modern project of Neo-Fundamentalism/Evangelicalism rests on obscuring the cultural context the Bible was written within.

By our standards, Northerners in the US were bigots, too. We can find quotes by one A. Lincoln that some today would find quite racist.

At the moment I can't remember who wrote "The past is like a foreign country. They do things differently there." They also think quite differently, in ways those looking back may find hard to grasp. Perhaps the hardest is the concept of owing another human as property is not in of itself a racist or dehumanizing idea because the concept that it was possible to own and sell your fellowman was accepted regardless of race. Which is why the Norse had thralls and where we get the term Slavs, and Muslims engaged in slavery without regard to race.

Before there are howls of outrage, at the moment we aren't looking at the morality of slavery; we are looking the different mindset. So when we come across racist quotes (by our standards) by Abraham Lincoln, we shouldn't be shocked that an abolitionist would hold to ideas we think would be embraced only by slave owners.

So, being that North and South were equally racist by our standards, the difference came down to how most saw the morality of slavery, and if you were in the US in 1860 and were a Christian, you'd have reached for your bible and started looking. An example that comes to mind is the split that led to the Northern Baptists and Southern Baptists. There were issues such as a different vision for the cooperative program on missions, but there was also the question of whether cooperative funds should be spent for missionaries who had slaves. I'd be surprised if both weren't turning pages in their bibles and making biblically based arguments for their position.

To muddy the waters even more, I know of a Baptist minister who owned a slave, voted against Secession, and after the war publicly welcomed members of the Union occupying force to the church he pastored.

This is why I'm interested in the biblically based period arguments for and against slavery. They had to have existed.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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.

Yep. I personally think they're ungrounded, humanistically speaking---which is what I was referring to earlier in my convesation with Paulos. Yet, folks continue to attempt to ground them ... as best they can.

 

[FireDragon76]

By our standards, Northerners in the US were bigots, too. We can find quotes by one A. Lincoln that some today would find quite racist.

At the moment I can't remember who wrote "The past is like a foreign country. They do things differently there." They also think quite differently, in ways those looking back may find hard to grasp. Perhaps the hardest is the concept of owing another human as property is not in of itself a racist or dehumanizing idea because the concept that it was possible to own and sell your fellowman was accepted regardless of race. Which is why the Norse had thralls and where we get the term Slavs, and Muslims engaged in slavery without regard to race.

Before there are howls of outrage, at the moment we aren't looking at the morality of slavery; we are looking the different mindset. So when we come across racist quotes (by our standards) by Abraham Lincoln, we shouldn't be shocked that an abolitionist would hold to ideas we think would be embraced only by slave owners.

So, being that North and South were equally racist by our standards, the difference came down to how most saw the morality of slavery, and if you were in the US in 1860 and were a Christian, you'd have reached for your bible and started looking. An example that comes to mind is the split that led to the Northern Baptists and Southern Baptists. There were issues such as a different vision for the cooperative program on missions, but there was also the question of whether cooperative funds should be spent for missionaries who had slaves. I'd be surprised if both weren't turning pages in their bibles and making biblically based arguments for their position.

To muddy the waters even more, I know of a Baptist minister who owned a slave, voted against Secession, and after the war publicly welcomed members of the Union occupying force to the church he pastored.

This is why I'm interested in the biblically based period arguments for and against slavery. They had to have existed.

Lincoln was a Republican who opposed the expansion of slavery into western territories. He wasn't running for President as an abolitionist. Southern propagandists portrayed him as such, but his views about slavery were more nuanced than most actual abolitionists.

The serious abolitionist movement in the North was much more willing to grant equal citizenship to people of African descent. The Congregationalist and Unitarian traditions in the North, the dominant religious institutions in that part of the country at the time, had a long history of opposition to slavery and advocacy for the rights of African people (John Adams being a good example of this in the case of the Mende people's imprisonment aboard the Amistad). They were not, by the standards of the time or today, implicitly racist, generally speaking.

 

[FireDragon76]

Yep. I personally think they're ungrounded, humanistically speaking---which is what I was referring to earlie in my convesation with Paulos. Yet, folks continue to attempt to ground them ... as best they can.

Western conceptualization of human rights come out of the Christian legal and ethical tradition. But I'm not necessarily arguing for that, more of a generalized humanism.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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.

Oh, if we just open our eyes today to see the various ways people read the bible and thereby louse it up when interpreting it, I wouldn't be surprised that Abolitionists were also guilty of fudging by using their own favored "proof-texts" methods.

I hate proof-texts of any sort---which is one reason folks don't see me quote Scripture very often. I think that if the Bible has any cogency to it, it should be handled and read a whole other way than it typically is by this or that sectarian crowd these days. Moreover, simply having the "freedom" to read the Bible as one wishes according to one's own lights is a poor reason by which to promulgate one's own moral understanding or to disown this or that social issue ... like slavery

Anyway, I've digressed from the locus of your comment about how it'd be interesting to see the reasoning on either side.

Well, it is interesting to see it, although from what I've seen, there's usually not much thought that goes into a "bad biblical interpretation."

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Western conceptualization of human rights come out of the Christian legal and ethical tradition. But I'm not necessarily arguing for that, more of a generalized humanism.

Right. But tell that to Secularists today, especially the younger ones. They talk as if it's all a done deal via secular considerations and Christians just need to ... step to the side and stay out of it.

Hence, this is one reason we see all the Secularist talk that's going about regarding just how dastardly they think God is in the Old Testament, and in very dogmatic fashion at that!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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.

As a follow up to my previous post to you: sources are available by which to vet this area of inquiry, particularly these days. I've read and studied a few of those sources, but I'm sure more have been published since I studied this morally laced hermeneutical issue 20 years ago.

After the dust of study settles, I'm sure the only reasonable conclusion one can come to is that the Atlantic Slave Trade wasn't morally or biblically "ok." And by 'biblically,' I don't just mean that the concept, whether pro or con, can "be found in the bible." No, I mean a bit more than that.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

By our standards, Northerners in the US were bigots, too. We can find quotes by one A. Lincoln that some today would find quite racist.

At the moment I can't remember who wrote "The past is like a foreign country. They do things differently there." They also think quite differently, in ways those looking back may find hard to grasp. Perhaps the hardest is the concept of owing another human as property is not in of itself a racist or dehumanizing idea because the concept that it was possible to own and sell your fellowman was accepted regardless of race. Which is why the Norse had thralls and where we get the term Slavs, and Muslims engaged in slavery without regard to race.

Before there are howls of outrage, at the moment we aren't looking at the morality of slavery; we are looking the different mindset. So when we come across racist quotes (by our standards) by Abraham Lincoln, we shouldn't be shocked that an abolitionist would hold to ideas we think would be embraced only by slave owners.

So, being that North and South were equally racist by our standards, the difference came down to how most saw the morality of slavery, and if you were in the US in 1860 and were a Christian, you'd have reached for your bible and started looking. An example that comes to mind is the split that led to the Northern Baptists and Southern Baptists. There were issues such as a different vision for the cooperative program on missions, but there was also the question of whether cooperative funds should be spent for missionaries who had slaves. I'd be surprised if both weren't turning pages in their bibles and making biblically based arguments for their position.

To muddy the waters even more, I know of a Baptist minister who owned a slave, voted against Secession, and after the war publicly welcomed members of the Union occupying force to the church he pastored.

This is why I'm interested in the biblically based period arguments for and against slavery. They had to have existed.

Right. Both Slavers and Abolitionists of the pre-20th century thought within a different paradigm than we do today.

 

[FireDragon76]

Right. But tell that to Secularists today, especially the younger ones. They talk as if it's all a done deal via secular considerations and Christians just need to ... step to the side and stay out of it.

The time of heady rhetoric of human rights has passed, anyways, so it's a moot point. There's no way to easily put Humpty-Dumpty back together again, however much reactionaries wish otherwise. The US is becoming a de-Christianized society, even faster than Europe. We have alot of religion in parts of the US that's a mile wide, an inch deep, and divorced from any deep theological reflection or even traditional orthodoxy. Politics (often based on fear, particularly fear of the Other) and simplistic moralism has replaced real religion.

I think the best we can do is think more deeply about the basis of our ethical commitmets in the first place, and be willing to challenge those who presume a firm foundation. But I do think a broadly humanistic ethic is written into the human condition (which sounds like a bit of a tautology but I think it's not obvious to some people as true), and we have every right to insist on that as the minimum in civil discourse in our society and around the world. Religious fundamentalism should get no purchase.

 

[Chriliman]

Well, it doesn't really matter if it is true for you or not, you're having an experience in consciousness. Everything you know as reality appears only in consciousness, and we all share it.

I get what you’re saying, my question is whether there’s a reality that consciousness depends on or not?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The time of heady rhetoric of human rights has passed, anyways, so it's a moot point. There's no way to easily put Humpty-Dumpty back together again, however much reactionaries wish otherwise. The US is becoming a de-Christianized society, even faster than Europe. We have alot of religion in parts of the US that's a mile wide, an inch deep, and divorced from any deep theological reflection or even traditional orthodoxy. Politics (often based on fear, particularly fear of the Other) and simplistic moralism has replaced real religion.

I think the best we can do is think more deeply about the basis of our ethical commitmets in the first place, and be willing to challenge those who presume a firm foundation. But I do think a broadly humanistic ethic is written into the human condition (which sounds like a bit of a tautology but I think it's not obvious to some people as true), and we have every right to insist on that as the minimum in civil discourse in our society and around the world. Religious fundamentalism should get no purchase.

I like what you've said, FD. The only difference is, being the skeptic that I am, I don't think any form of fundamentalism, whether it's Right or Left in its political stature, should get purchase.

My chagrin in this is that both sides will continue to do what they do and I know they won't be asking me or you about it all along the way. And I have to live with that.

 

[Ken-1122]

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.

I think one of the reasons Christians use that logic is because they believe the moral issue is one of the principle reasons for being Christian; so they articulate it into their reasoning the best way they can

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

I've always considered good to be any action I consider helpful, and bad as any action I consider harmful.

And who decides what is good in that situation?

The person judging something good or bad

 

[FireDragon76]

I like what you've said, FD. The only difference is, being the skeptic that I am, I don't think any form of fundamentalism, whether it's Right or Left in its political stature, should get purchase.

Unless you are using a metaphor, I don't really think the term "fundamentalism" applies to the Left. I'm speaking specifically to fundamentalism associated with Islam and Christianity: Abrahamic religion and the associated dynamics and hermeneutics. Because in most western countries, leftist extremism and violence isn't a significant threat to civil society. It's people gravitating around notions of Christian and/or white nationalism that the FBI now considers the greatest domestic terror threat, for instance, an in Europe, most of the unrest there comes from disaffected Islamic fundamentalists and "Euro-Christian" nationalists.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Unless you are using a metaphor, I don't really think the term "fundamentalism" applies to the Left. I'm speaking specifically to fundamentalism associated with Islam and Christianity: Abrahamic religion and the associated dynamics and hermeneutics. Because in most western countries, leftist extremism and violence isn't a significant threat to civil society. It's people gravitating around notions of Christian and/or white nationalism that the FBI now considers the greatest domestic terror threat, for instance, an in Europe, most of the unrest there comes from disaffected Islamic fundamentalists and "Euro-Christian" nationalists.

So, no one on the Left, whether in the U.S. or in any other nation, harbors any political, social or even spiritual ideas which they treat as axiomatic in nature? It's only the Right that needs vetting and the Left can be well enough left alone? Seriously?

 

[FireDragon76]

So, no one on the Left, whether in the U.S. or in any other nation, harbors any political, social or even spiritual ideas which they treat as axiomatic in nature? It's only the Right that needs vetting and the Left can be well enough left alone? Seriously?

Of course they do. I am on the political Left myself, but I consider strident ideologues a bore. However, I don't consider that "fundamentalism" properly. Also, in this contemporary cultural moment, there is a great deal of unchecked, unacknowledged power in reactionary forces in society. It just doesn't necessarily look as obviously salient as liberal college professors or media who are the usual whipping-boys (whipping persons?)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Of course they do. I am on the political Left myself, but I consider strident ideologues a bore. However, I don't consider that "fundamentalism" properly. Also, in this contemporary cultural moment, there is a great deal of unchecked, unacknowledged power in reactionary forces in society. It just doesn't necessarily look as obviously salient as liberal college professors or media who are the usual whipping-boys (whipping persons?)

Yeah, I think I agree with that.

 

[Jonaitis]

I get what you’re saying, my question is whether there’s a reality that consciousness depends on or not?

I would say everything is dependent on consciousness, and this is not an uncommon view among quantum physicists. Max Planck once said, "I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness." We know intuitively that consciousness is, even though it cannot be objectively observed. It is known through that which it knows, so what is it absent of content?

 

[Chriliman]

I would say everything is dependent on consciousness, and this is not an uncommon view among quantum physicists. Max Planck once said, "I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness." We know intuitively that consciousness is, even though it cannot be objectively observed. It is known through that which it knows, so what is it absent of content?

Do you see a possibility that consciousness has always co-existed with non-consciousness(or things that aren’t conscious?)

 

[Jonaitis]

Do you see a possibility that consciousness has always co-existed with non-consciousness(or things that aren’t conscious?)

In a sense, yes, but I personally subscribe to a perspective similar to that of Gaudapada's 'ajativada' (non-origination). If the appearing world is impermanent, transient, and illusory, then it cannot have an origin or an end, therefore, it could be said to be co-existent and non-existent at the same time. It is like how a dream was real as an experience, but not real as an actual event affecting the world in the waking-state. The dream and the way it would play out has always been there present in the subconscious mind, it simply wasn't manifested as an experience until you were directly aware of it.

Well, think about it like this, if I placed before you a banana, you, assuming that all of your senses work, would be aware of the form, smell, taste, feel, and sound of a banana. We would rightly say that the banana's nature is being, because it appears to be. We cannot say, then, that a banana is a banana by nature, that is, a thing in itself. Why not? If a banana was a banana by nature, it would not be. Do you get it? The essential reality of that banana is being, not a banana. If a banana was a banana by nature, it would not-be as well as unknowable. We do not know what a banana is in itself. We are only aware of surface information like the smell, the taste, the form, the sound, etc., but the object itself is completely unknowable in itself. Therefore, what? A banana is just an appearance of being. Our knowledge of a banana stops there. All that there is to the world, then, is a perception, a sensation, and a thought, but not the world itself. We do not know what a world is without it appearing. We only know it as an experience, but not anything else.

We, therefore, cannot speak of non-conscious things apart from our experience of them. They only exist in our experience of them. So I would say, because a non-conscious object appears in consciousness, it has always co-existed, but not always manifested.