Needing justification for morality

[ThinkForYourself]

Where does the Bible say that?

It is the people like YOU who destroyed this nice system.

(Exodus 21:20-21 ESV) When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

You have no idea what Christianity teaches on the subject. None.

I've read the bible. The whole thing. Something tells me you haven't:

(Exodus 21:20-21 ESV) When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.

 

[lesliedellow]

It's not really that hard to think up of reasons why the Nazis were evil and should be opposed.

The irony is the theistic view does not account for morality, the atheistic one is grounded in reason.

I didn't ask whether you could think of reasons why the Nazis are evil. They doubtless regarded themselves as entirely moral.

So why should your idea of what is moral take precedence over their idea of what is moral, unless there is some source of absolute morality, which takes precedence over both?

 

[Dave Ellis]

Where does the Bible say that?

It is the people like YOU who destroyed this nice system.

Exodus 20:20-21 - “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.


This is not a "nice system" You are allowed to beat your slaves as hard as you want, as long as they don't die within a day or two. There it is in black and white for you.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Correction, everything he's said is allowed according to his interpretation of the scriptures.
This kind of interpretation that I had seen is (thankfully) rare from my experience with other kinds of Christians.
I won't group him with the other Christians, as I consider that to be insulting to them.

Usually "misinterpretations" like this come down to a verse clearly saying you're allowed to beat your slaves as long as they don't die within two days, or that your female slaves must please their master and having believers plug their ears and go "nuh-uh, that's not really there".

It's because those believers are more moral than their holy book is. They can't admit the barbarism and horror contained within it's pages, or they'd be morally forced into abandoning it.

 

[quatona]

I didn't ask whether you could think of reasons why the Nazis are evil. They doubtless regarded themselves as entirely moral.

So why should your idea of what is moral take precedence over their idea of what is moral,

If and because I could convince them that they hadn´t taken into consideration good and important reasons, aspects and criteria that might change their minds.
That´s the only way to convince them that they should change their ways.
No amount of reference to an allegedly "absolute" morality would be successful. And, obviously, it didn´t keep them from doing what they did.

unless there is some source of absolute morality, which takes precedence over both?

Well, since this is the method of your questions, let´s apply it consistently:
Why should an "absolute" morality take precedence over my or anyone else´s morality?
In effect, this supposedly "absolute" morality didn´t and doesn´t take precedence over anything. Thus, as a solution to actual problems and conflicting moral opinion it is as toothless as it can get.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I didn't ask whether you could think of reasons why the Nazis are evil. They doubtless regarded themselves as entirely moral.

So why should your idea of what is moral take precedence over their idea of what is moral, unless there is some source of absolute morality, which takes precedence over both?

It's quite simple, even though there is no "absolute" morality (and that's true even if your god exists by the way), that doesn't change the fact that the damage, murder and torture caused by the Nazis was objective.

It's not up to subjective opinion that millions were pushed into the gas chambers.

Under any coherent definition of morality, a rule like the golden rule would apply. The Nazis wouldn't want to be starved and executed, so they shouldn't be doing that to others.

The error in your line of thought is that you're assuming all subjective opinions are equal. They aren't, and you don't consider subjective opinions equal in your day to day life either. The reason why they aren't equal is if they can be backed by objective facts or principles.

For example, if a man thought he was Napoleon Bonaparte, and I think he isn't.... those are subjective opinions, and they are not equal. Your doctor's opinion over what medication should be prescribed is of higher value than someone that isn't a doctor.

The point is, some people are right, some people are wrong. That by necessity shows that subjective opinions are not ever equal. What matters is how well you can rationally back them using objective facts. The Nazis can not defend their actions using any coherent definition of morality, and we can defend our position easily that they were immoral monsters.

 

[Blessedj01]

With the whole atheist morality debate I heard a consistent idea from theists is that atheists do have morals, just no reason to adhere to them. But, they do admit that atheists have morals, so why is there any need for justification? Do theists think that atheists will suddenly abandon their morals randomly at some later date? I'm not saying that there is no justification, but why does it matter anyway? If a theist had no justification, would their actions change?

We know about morality because we were made in the image of God, so it's on our hearts already.

If you don't believe that, then consider this - when morality fails it's always a good thing to know that there's a God that we should respect and fear if we are going to go around perpetuating evil.

You only have to turn on your television to find out that there are some people out there who make a conscious decision to do as much evil as possible. They probably don't believe in God either and if they do they don't fear, respect, or love Him as much as they should.

Lastly, we didn't just learn our morals in a vacuum. You probably don't know this, but after 400 years of slavery under the egyptians the Jews didn't really have great morals. They had to be told not to do things like have sex with family members, or kill each other simply because they were bigger or stronger than each other. Slavery did that to some of them, because they had lived in a culture so long that they had abandoned it's morals.

If you look at ancient history, it isn't the most moralistic place. If you look at the post-Christian world, it has many of the signs that Christianity established some long-held morals in this current age. Look at Hospitals for instance, or the constitution of America.

The fact is that morals were passed onto us from our ancient forefathers. Some of us haven't learned very good morals because we come from traditions that worshiped things that went against the morals of God. Some of us do. The rest of us rely on that innate sense.

That's my take.

 

[Dave Ellis]

We know about morality because we were made in the image of God, so it's on our hearts already.

If you don't believe that, then consider this - when morality fails it's always a good thing to know that there's a God that we should respect and fear if we are going to go around perpetuating evil.

You only have to turn on your television to find out that there are some people out there who make a conscious decision to do as much evil as possible. They probably don't believe in God either and if they do they don't fear, respect, or love Him as much as they should.

Lastly, we didn't just learn our morals in a vacuum. You probably don't know this, but after 400 years of slavery under the egyptians the Jews didn't really have great morals. They had to be told not to do things like have sex with family members, or kill each other simply because they were bigger or stronger than each other. Slavery did that to some of them, because they had lived in a culture so long that they had abandoned it's morals.

If you look at ancient history, it isn't the most moralistic place. If you look at the post-Christian world, it has many of the signs that Christianity established some long-held morals in this current age. Look at Hospitals for instance, or the constitution of America.

The fact is that morals were passed onto us from our ancient forefathers. Some of us haven't learned very good morals because we come from traditions that worshiped things that went against the morals of God. Some of us do. The rest of us rely on that innate sense.

That's my take.

A few points:

1) What makes you think your god is moral?
2) Your point about the Egyptian exodus is not really valid seeing as the Egyptian exodus never actually happened... The Babylonian one did though.
3) There's nothing in the US constitution which can be tied back to Christianity specifically. In fact numerous parts of the constitution directly oppose Christian scriptures (for example, the first amendment directly opposes the first commandment).

 

[Blessedj01]

A few points:

1) What makes you think your god is moral?

His interactions with humanity and the fact that He would sacrifice His own life to remove the sin from mine. The fact that He has never once gone back on one of His promises. The fact that He is Love and Love casts out all fear and darkness.

2) Your point about the Egyptian exodus is not really valid seeing as the Egyptian exodus never actually happened... The Babylonian one did though.

That would deny both history and the Bible, which is very clear that the Exodus did happen and details all the main players in it. You don't have to agree but I will say that your sources appear to be incorrect.

3) There's nothing in the US constitution which can be tied back to Christianity specifically. In fact numerous parts of the constitution directly oppose Christian scriptures (for example, the first amendment directly opposes the first commandment).

I knew there'd be someone who'd argue against this point, but it was just a basic example. There are plenty of things (in my limited knowledge) which can be tied back to Christianity specifically. No offense, but if you deny the entire Jewish exodus I don't expect you to want to see the Christian influence in the U.S constitution. Typically people who don't want to see things, don't see them.

Lastly, the first amendment does not oppose the first commandment. At least not in my books.

 

[lesliedellow]

The error in your line of thought is that you're assuming all subjective opinions are equal. They aren't, and you don't consider subjective opinions equal in your day to day life either

You are either missing the point, or deliberately evading it. Why wasn't Hitler's subjective opinion just as good as yours? You don't answer the question by making the flat statement that it wasn't.

 

[Blessedj01]

Hitler's actions weren't loving. Look at the fruits.

If anyone is argueing that Hitler was subjectively correct, then subjectively hit yourself on the head with a hammer and tell me if it doesn't hurt. (Don't actually do that...)

...Hitler would have known what he was doing was wrong. If he didn't, then He like the rest of us is answerable to a God that has taught us how to live. If we don't want to listen to that God, then we will have to answer to him.

 

[Dave Ellis]

His interactions with humanity and the fact that He would sacrifice His own life to remove the sin from mine. The fact that He has never once gone back on one of His promises. The fact that He is Love and Love casts out all fear and darkness.

1) Many of his interactions with humanity are not moral at all, so how can you use his interactions as proof of him being a moral being?

2a) But, he didn't sacrifice his own life. A sacrifice would entail him losing something, yet he is apparently still alive and in charge of the universe today.

For example, if I sacrifice $20, that means I lose $20. If I "sacrifice" $20 on Friday and give that same $20 back to myself on Sunday, I haven't sacrificed a thing.

2b) Even if he did sacrifice himself, it's to atone for a rule that he chose to create knowing it would be broken. The only reason the situation arose was because he set up an inherently immoral situation

2c) All that aside, substitutional atonement is not moral in any regard. If I was actually guilty of a crime, the moral thing for me to do is accept my punishment and serve it out as needed. It is not moral for me to pass my crimes off to someone else to be served (scapegoating). In short, if you accept Jesus's sacrifice for you, then you are also not a moral person. You are passing your responsibilities off on someone else.

That's another reason why it's an inherently immoral setup. You are required to commit an immoral act to be saved.

3) God broke the promise he made to Abraham in Genesis 13:14-17

Genesis 13:14-17 - The LORD said to Abram after Lot had parted from him, 'Lift up your eyes from where you are and look north and south, east and west. All the land that you see I will give to you and your offspring forever. I will make your offspring like the dust of the earth, so that if anyone could count the dust, then your offspring could be counted. Go, walk through the length and breadth of the land, for I am giving it to you

Even the bible admits that broken promise, this can be backed up by:

Acts 7:5 - He gave him (Abraham) no inheritance here, not even a foot of ground. But God promised him that he and his descendants after him would possess the land

Hebrews 11:13 - All these people (Abraham and descendants) were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance

And I should note, God's promise to Abraham was not contingent on Abraham following certain rules. The promise was made as a reward for the faith that he had previously shown to God.

Any way you slice it, God lied to Abraham when he broke his promise.

4) God is not love. And yes, I realize there's a bible verse that asserts he is, however actions speak louder than words. The god as described in the bible has nothing to do with a loving nature.

That would deny both history and the Bible, which is very clear that the Exodus did happen and details all the main players in it. You don't have to agree but I will say that your sources appear to be incorrect.

I completely agree the bible says the Egyptian exodus happened, however history does not. There is no historical evidence that shows there was widespread Semitic slavery in Egypt, nor was there ever an exodus. In fact what the historical evidence does show is that the Book of Exodus was written during the Babylonian Captivity almost a thousand years after Exodus was supposed to have happened.

Even the majority of Jewish and Christian biblical scholars now accept that view. The view of historians is that it was originally written as a tale of their ancestors escaping slavery by those who were currently enslaved.

I knew there'd be someone who'd argue against this point, but it was just a basic example. There are plenty of things (in my limited knowledge) which can be tied back to Christianity specifically.

Can you give an example?

No offense, but if you deny the entire Jewish exodus I don't expect you to want to see the Christian influence in the U.S constitution. Typically people who don't want to see things, don't see them.

The thing you don't seem to be aware of is that I'm not in the minority position in regards to the exodus. There are very few historians or bible scholars who regard it as legitimate history anymore. I'm sure you can find a website or two trying to defend it as literal history, but those views are in the extreme minority now even amongst the Jewish and Christian scholars.

Lastly, the first amendment does not oppose the first commandment. At least not in my books.

How does the commandment that you shall worship that one god, and no other gods not contradict the idea that you're free to worship any god you want, or no god at all?

I can't think of a clearer contradiction.

 

[Dave Ellis]

You are either missing the point, or deliberately evading it. Why wasn't Hitler's subjective opinion just as good as yours? You don't answer the question by making the flat statement that it wasn't.

Did you even read my response? I addressed that numerous times over. It's the part you cut out right after the quote that you cited....

 

[juvenissun]

(Exodus 21:20-21 ESV) When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.

Thanks. I overlooked these two verses.

But you mis-interpreted the message. These two verses suggest the master CAN punish his slave. But you made it to: A master "wants to" abuse his slave. To punish without a good reason is to abuse. These two verses may apply exactly the same to parents-child relationship.

If I did not do anything wrong, why would you want to beat me? Just because you pay a price for me? If I made a serious mistake, so you beat me. What can I say beyond accept the punishment? If you hurt me in the punishment, then you SHOULD try to heal me after the punishment. If your effort of healing is not effective and I died of the injury, then according to God, it is OK.

This rule warns slaves: Do not make mistake. Do what a slave should do. It also warns the master: Do not over-do the punishment if the slave made mistakes.

I don't see anything wrong in this issue.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

We know about morality because we were made in the image of God, so it's on our hearts already.

...

Lastly, we didn't just learn our morals in a vacuum. You probably don't know this, but after 400 years of slavery under the egyptians the Jews didn't really have great morals. They had to be told not to do things like have sex with family members, or kill each other simply because they were bigger or stronger than each other. Slavery did that to some of them, because they had lived in a culture so long that they had abandoned it's morals.
...

If you think God is moral, then you think genocide and rape are moral. Do you?

Also, there is actually no evidence that Jews were ever enslaved.

 

[lesliedellow]

Did you even read my response? I addressed that numerous times over. It's the part you cut out right after the quote that you cited....

No you didn't answer it. A doctor's opinion about appropriate medication is better than mine because of his years of medical training. There is no similar consideration to be taken into account when it comes to morality.

If Hitler had possessed a PhD in philosophy, would that have made his ideas about morality any less questionable - in fact downright evil?

 

[ThinkForYourself]

His interactions with humanity and the fact that He would sacrifice His own life to remove the sin from mine.
...

How did God sacrifice his own life? According to you and the bible, he is still alive, well, and ruling in heaven.

All he was take a weekend off. How in the world is that sacrificing anything?

 

[ThinkForYourself]

Thanks. I overlooked these two verses.

But you mis-interpreted the message. These two verses suggest the master CAN punish his slave. But you made it to: A master "wants to" abuse his slave. To punish without a good reason is to abuse. These two verses may apply exactly the same to parents-child relationship.

If I did not do anything wrong, why would you want to beat me? Just because you pay a price for me? If I made a serious mistake, so you beat me. What can I say beyond accept the punishment? If you hurt me in the punishment, then you SHOULD try to heal me after the punishment. If your effort of healing is not effective and I died of the injury, then according to God, it is OK.

This rule warns slaves: Do not make mistake. Do what a slave should do. It also warns the master: Do not over-do the punishment if the slave made mistakes.

I don't see anything wrong in this issue.

So, you justify slavery, and even murdering that slave so long as he doesn't die immediately, and you are trying to tell me that your morality is better than mine?

Do you seriously believe that slavery and murder are moral? Does that make any sense?

 

[Eudaimonist]

If you hurt me in the punishment, then you SHOULD try to heal me after the punishment. If your effort of healing is not effective and I died of the injury, then according to God, it is OK.

So a master may beat a slave as long as the slave doesn't die immediately. That is so beautiful.

eudaimonia,

Mark