How is it consistent to criticize the left for hating America AND not having an objective morality ?

[Hammster]

In the USA Christianity was used to justify slavery. It was said by purchasing people already doomed for a lifetime of slavery and introducing them to Christianity in the USA, they would at least have their souls saved; thus they were better off being brought to America than somewhere else.

Why was that wrong?

 

[Ken-1122]

So if it was consistent, then by your definition it was right.

Consistent has nothing to do with being right. Consistent means applied the same to everybody

Actually, you can’t. You can say that something is right or wrong. You just cannot explain why.

I can explain why just as easily as a Christian can.

 

[Ken-1122]

Why was that wrong?

Indoctrinating them into Christianity does not make it right.

 

[Hammster]

Consistent has nothing to do with being right. Consistent means applied the same to everybody

Just so I’m clear, you are saying that being consistent is the right thing to do, correct?

 

[Hammster]

Indoctrinating them into Christianity does not make it right.

I asked why was it wrong.

 

[Niels]

In the USA Christianity was used to justify slavery. It was said by purchasing people already doomed for a lifetime of slavery and introducing them to Christianity in the USA, they would at least have their souls saved; thus they were better off being brought to America than somewhere else.

In the USA and elsewhere, Christianity was also used to end slavery. An appalling institution that had been around for at least as long as recorded history. Unfortunately, we didn't end it as quickly as the British did but better late than never.

That being said, I'm not a fan of the far left or the far right and I think moral behavior is accessible to all who seek. Most of it tends to be pretty pragmatic if you look for the "why" behind things.

 

[Ken-1122]

Just so I’m clear, you are saying that being consistent is the right thing to do, correct?

When it comes to the law, it should be applied equally. But if the law is unjust, it shouldn't be applied at all

 

[Ken-1122]

I asked why was it wrong.

The slave owners were treating the slaves in a way they would not want to be treated.

 

[Ken-1122]

In the USA and elsewhere, Christianity was also used to end slavery. An appalling institution that had been around for at least as long as recorded history.

Good people will do good, and bad people will do bad regardless of religion. The difference is; the religious person will often use his religion to justify his deeds regardless whether they be good or bad.

 

[Niels]

Good people will do good, and bad people will do bad regardless of religion. The difference is; the religious person will often use his religion to justify his deeds regardless whether they be good or bad.

It's basically the same with any school of thought. Which is why I think individuals should be held accountable as individuals.

This is one thing that Christianity, and some other religions, get right. The Atheist has more room to hide behind "just following orders" than an individual who expects to answer to his creator one day. This isn't to suggest that the Atheist doesn't have a conscience. He probably does, and his reasoning may be sound, but he's more of an island to himself. He can't point to scriptures to convince his peers that what they're doing is wrong. All they have are the tenets of the political party or social movement that they're part of. And in the end, if they really mess things up, they don't expect that they'll have to answer to their creator and therefore may feel less pressure to do the right thing. Then again, they might. Who knows what really goes on in somebody else's head?

 

[Ken-1122]

It's basically the same with any school of thought. Which is why I think individuals should be held accountable as individuals.

This is one thing that Christianity, and some other religions, get right. The Atheist has more room to hide behind "just following orders" than an individual who expects to answer to his creator one day.

I think that only applies to the "hardcore" Christians. Most people claiming to be Christian are not that hardcore and don't live their lives as if they expects to answer to a creator one day.

 

[Hammster]

When it comes to the law, it should be applied equally. But if the law is unjust, it shouldn't be applied at all

Why is equally the right thing to do? Who makes that determination?

 

[Hammster]

The slave owners were treating the slaves in a way they would not want to be treated.

And why is that wrong?

 

[Hammster]

Good people will do good, and bad people will do bad regardless of religion. The difference is; the religious person will often use his religion to justify his deeds regardless whether they be good or bad.

What measuring stick do you use to determine good and bad?

 

[gaara4158]

What makes it a bad thing?

It is undesirable.

In the USA Christianity was used to justify slavery. It was said by purchasing people already doomed for a lifetime of slavery and introducing them to Christianity in the USA, they would at least have their souls saved; thus they were better off being brought to America than somewhere else.

A bad faith argument to be sure, as they could have simply not enslaved them.

 

[Hammster]

It is undesirable.

I’m just trying to extrapolate here, so correct me if I’m wrong. Things that are undesirable, following the the trajectory of your arguments, are immoral.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

But that's your 'principle'. It's about as insightful as saying that people prefer to breathe in and out ocassionally.

No, it's not the principle. Go find and reread what I said and stop the strawmanning. If you want to ignore my little principle in order to assert your own viewpoint on the structures of human morality, that's fine with me. But don't strawman me if you don't understand me in the first place.

 

[gaara4158]

I’m just trying to extrapolate here, so correct me if I’m wrong. Things that are undesirable, following the the trajectory of your arguments, are immoral.

Close. Actions intended to cause undesirable things to happen to people is immoral. Subjugating someone as a slave is undesirable to that person. Therefore, slavery is immoral.

 

[Bradskii]

No, it's not the principle. Go find and reread what I said and stop the strawmanning. If you want to ignore my little principle in order to assert your own viewpoint on the structures of human morality, that's fine with me. But don't strawman me if you don't understand me in the first place.

That's all you said. People don't like to be 'uncle'd'. You've spent about 4 posts and umpteen words saying that people would rather avoid being hurt...

'Here's food for thought regarding a Unwritten Universal Moral Principle: There's not one sane or mostly sober soul on this entire planet who wishes to have "cry uncle" applied to them at any time or at any moment'.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That's all you said. People don't like to be 'uncle'd'. You've spent about 4 posts and umpteen words saying that people would rather avoid being hurt...

Bradskii, if you don't have the ability to put your best foot forward rationally and give people the best of what you "demand" in return (ie. not strawmanning your interlocutor), how do you expect anyone on this entire forum to take you seriously?

As it stands at the moment, there's only one other person on CF whom I (until you improve your attitude) take less seriously than you.