Man evolved equal?

[Redemptions]

And now we have the objective moralist engaging in slavery apologetics. Being in debt to someone of course means all your choices are free, and they could only beat them till it really hurt and not to death u guise! Yeahhhh, I'll pass

You do not feel that there are any objective morals?

 

[Dave Ellis]

It is wrongly assumed that any reference to slaves or slavery in the Bible necessarily refers to the New World slavery type of the plantations. This is not the case. Most were indentured servants. Which was a mutually contracted servitude into which the individual entered voluntarily. They sold themselves into the ownership of a person to whom they owed money or a somebody who paid off the debts which they owed to another, and paid off their debt with service. The individual was considered the property of their master because they could not leave until it was paid off.

Sometimes the poor would volunteer themselves as servants to wealthy families or people in order to obtain for themselves a superior standard of living or perhaps a different sort of perk.

In the ancient world poor father might sell his daughter into a well-to-do family in order to ensure her future security. The sale presumes a marriage to the master or his son.

Most types of slavery there did not exhibit the type of characteristics associated with "New World" slavery. Such as being treated as property and commodities or their use exclusively as labor and lack of freedom.

Freedom in the ancient Near East had a relative, not an absolute meaning, as the ambiguity of the term for "slave" in the regions shows. "Slave" could be used to refer to a subordinate in the social ladder. Thus the subjects of a king were called his "slaves," even though they were free citizens. Translation is often an inexact science.

And it is important to note that there are things which the Bible records which it does not approve of, as it is a book of History. Some figurative and metaphorical, some historical.

In any case, it does not say that it is okay to treat a servant poorly. And if they were being treated poorly at any point then it was right for them to leave. Just as the Israelites fled from Egypt. It is actually debated what sort of slaves the Israelites were in Egypt. Some think that they were of the indentured servant type, some say it was more like the modern day type which we associate with plantations etc. What is clear is that they were mistreated, so they left.


"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Galatians 3:28

The indentured servitude angle put forward by modern day Christians to justify slavery is sickening.

While you are correct that indentured servitude existed, that is not what a great deal of biblical slavery refers to. You were allowed to sell your daughter as a sex slave, any captured foreigners would be treated far more brutally than slavery as we know it in the US. You were allowed to beat them as hard as you wanted, as long as they didn't die within two days. And, if they did die, it wasn't considered murder, you had to simply pay a fine rather than face a death sentence.

Even the genuine indentured servants were susceptible to a biblical loophole in which the master could retain ownership of them for life by giving the slave a wife.

You are trying to justify, make excuses for and whitewash slavery. Stop and think about the moral ramifications of your position, and hopefully you'll see some sense.

 

[Gadarene]

You do not feel that there are any objective morals?

I don't believe that 'because god said so' is a basis for objective morals.

And when an objective moral system ends up endorsing slavery of any kind, I'll take my chances with subjectivity.

Really though, the whole objective vs subjective morals debate is simplistic. Moral systems typically contain a mixture of objective and subjective components.

 

[keith99]

I don't believe that 'because god said so' is a basis for objective morals.

And when an objective moral system ends up endorsing slavery of any kind, I'll take my chances with subjectivity.

Really though, the whole objective vs subjective morals debate is simplistic. Moral systems typically contain a mixture of objective and subjective components.

Actually technically speaking 'god said so' (and here is his list) is an objective moral standard. So is Plato said so.

Such a system is objective as the moral standard is adherence to what was said.

Sadly if seems most people have no idea what objective and subjective actually mean and have some vague notion that objective means good and subjective mean not as good.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Apparently I've been clear in conveying a point other than the exact one that I had in mind. That's readily obvious to me.

Let's see if I can understand you better my friend. What does it mean to you to say that all people are equal? Equal in what ways? And why do you feel that we are equal?

Why do you seem to think that religion promotes equality more than science does?

 

[Golden Yak]

Apparently I've been clear in conveying a point other than the exact one that I had in mind. That's readily obvious to me.

Let's see if I can understand you better my friend. What does it mean to you to say that all people are equal? Equal in what ways? And why do you feel that we are equal?

When I refer to social equality, I mean that in our society people are afforded equal rights and protections by law, regardless of their differences.

Ideally, this means that all people are afforded the same opportunities for life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, defense, and support regardless of their differences. Social equality does not assert that all people are equal in all senses of the word, because they clearly are not - it merely says that factors that make people different are not considered. Gender, race, belief systems, social status, height, weight, physical aptitude, mental acuity, age, health, wealth, etc. for the most part are not factors that are considered when determining equal rights and protection under the law (at least when it's working properly).

It is not that we don't acknowledge these factors exist - they do, and they are by definition why people are not 'equal' in all senses of the word. Differences would not exist if we were. These factors are simply not considered when determining social equality. We do this because we have determined that it works well for the society that we have made and desire to live in. I believe we chose to do this for ourselves.

We don't care that someone is taller or faster or older when it comes to affording social equality - why should we? There's nothing in nature or evolution or atheism that compels us to.

Presumably, you must believe that God is doing something similar when He calls for all people to be considered equal, despite the fact that some are created physically and mentally different from others. What do you think His basis is for declaring humans equal, and what do you think his rationale is for not considering factors like race, age, wealth, etc?

 

[JGG]

Many of you have accurately pointed out that certain Christians certainly do no behave as if they are equal and in fact act superior. This is true. Realize that they are acting like this because they are idiots. It is not because Christ taught us that we are better than anybody. In fact, Christ spent the majority of his time with outlaws and prostitutes etc. The Christians who act un-Christian do not represent the theology of the religion, but are confused. They are indeed sinning.

So are you in the world, or of the world?

 

[PsychoSarah]

You do not feel that there are any objective morals?

Nope, and even if there were, everyone would interpret them differently so they would always be subjective in practice.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Actually technically speaking 'god said so' (and here is his list) is an objective moral standard. So is Plato said so.

Such a system is objective as the moral standard is adherence to what was said.

Sadly if seems most people have no idea what objective and subjective actually mean and have some vague notion that objective means good and subjective mean not as good.

Actually, you're wrong. Both standards are subjective as they are based on the opinions of God and Plato.

To be objective, it would have to be true regardless of someone's personal opinion.

 

[JGG]

Actually technically speaking 'god said so' (and here is his list) is an objective moral standard. So is Plato said so.

Such a system is objective as the moral standard is adherence to what was said.

Sadly if seems most people have no idea what objective and subjective actually mean and have some vague notion that objective means good and subjective mean not as good.

I agree that the standard would be objective. The morals would still be subjective. Which, really, is the important part.

If the standard was that one must slaughter a puppy and bathe in its blood on Tuesdays and then watch Two and a Half Men on Wednesdays, we could agree that the standard is objective. We would disagree that the morals are.

 

[KCfromNC]

Another thing I should state is that it does no good to explain to me how certain societies have held positions of equality. Because in my eyes, these people live in the same world that we do, under the same creator. So even if they do not worship the same as I do, they still exist in a world created by The Lord and have thus been influenced in some way by His morals. So by showing that other societies have had equality just further proves my point for me. For it is my submission that they could not have held a position of true equality for all if they did not exist in a world where a loving creator revealed morals to us in certain indirect ways. But they do hold people as equal. This is exactly my point.

Your point is that if you make bad assumptions and then attribute them to other people it is hard for you to understand why they come to the conclusions they do?

 

[KCfromNC]

You do not feel that there are any objective morals?

Weird the first thing you'd go to in a discussion of objective morality is our subjective feelings on the subject. Does something become objective if enough people's subjective feelings line up the same way?

 

[KCfromNC]

Exactly. So to what do they appeal to then?

Pretty much anything that isn't a god. It isn't like "atheists who believe in political equality" is a monolithic group of clones.

If you're really interested, there's libraries full of writings from enlightenment thinkers with various opinions on the subject. Look up any of the big names in the American or French revolution and you'll find more than you can digest.

 

[Redemptions]

Weird the first thing you'd go to in a discussion of objective morality is our subjective feelings on the subject. Does something become objective if enough people's subjective feelings line up the same way?

Everything comes down to our subjective understanding. The subjectivity of our opinions is the only thing which can be appealed to in a discussion where the exact topic in question is one which begs ones feelings.

 

[Redemptions]

Pretty much anything that isn't a god. It isn't like "atheists who believe in political equality" is a monolithic group of clones.

If you're really interested, there's libraries full of writings from enlightenment thinkers with various opinions on the subject. Look up any of the big names in the American or French revolution and you'll find more than you can digest.

Thanks for your responses.

What do you base your morality on? Why do you feel certain things to be right while others are wrong?

 

[Redemptions]

Nope, and even if there were, everyone would interpret them differently so they would always be subjective in practice.

What if I were to attempt to cut your head off one day? I'm assuming you would consider this wrong. And not wrong simply because it's an opinion of yours. You would think that it was obviously objectively wrong and would expect other people to see that it was wrong and would grow upset if people tried explaining to you that in their opinion I really did nothing wrong. You would be appealing to them to recognize the universal truth of what I did was wrong. And you would be absolutely right. There would be no arguing that what I did was wrong. And you would expect me to feel bad about it.

Or if I am wrong you would not feel this way, please correct me.

Thanks!

 

[selfinflikted]

What if I were to attempt to cut your head off one day? I'm assuming you would consider this wrong. And not wrong simply because it's an opinion of yours. You would think that it was obviously objectively wrong and would expect other people to see that it was wrong and would grow upset if people tried explaining to you that in their opinion I really did nothing wrong. You would be appealing to them to recognize the universal truth of what I did was wrong. And you would be absolutely right. There would be no arguing that what I did was wrong. And you would expect me to feel bad about it.

Or if I am wrong you would not feel this way, please correct me.

Thanks!

Most people agree that lopping someone's head off is a bad thing because they wouldn't want it done to them. It's part of being human - empathy; not some "universal truth."

 

[Redemptions]

Most people agree that lopping someone's head off is a bad thing because they wouldn't want it done to them. It's part of being human - empathy; not some "universal truth."

Of course it's part of human. I wholeheartedly agree.

The post you quoted of mine was in response to a poster who believed that morals are subjective.

Are you saying objective or subjective then? Your answer, while an important point, does not address the question which I posed to the poster. It rather dances around it in a vague way. Depending upon ones interpretation you have suggested both objective and subjective paramaters with regards to your philosophy on the topic. But whatever your opinion is on the matter, the other poster stated that she quite obviously believed that morals are subjective. Your answer is, therefore, off point. It bears relevance to the thread but bears no significance to my point in context with my conversation with the other poster.

 

[durangodawood]

Most people agree that lopping someone's head off is a bad thing because they wouldn't want it done to them. It's part of being human - empathy; not some "universal truth."

A universal truth? Who could say.

But among humans, its an objective truth, for sure.

 

[Nithavela]

That lopping peoples heads off is an universally bad thing is a relatively new notion. Sure, back then, heads weren't cut off completely willy nilly, but if you had a good enough reason...

So it can't be seen as an objective moral, unless objective morals can change over time.