Needing justification for morality

[Dave Ellis]

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.

The thing is however there's no rules against abusing your slave. The master can choose to beat the slave for whatever reason he wants to.

Lots of men beat their wives or children for little to no reason at all even in modern day society. Anger issues, etc could be the cause of that.

Except in the modern day, we have laws against those things. Your god however does not, the abusive master is free to beat his slave as long as the injuries aren't severe enough to be fatal within two days.

If you don't see why there's something wrong with a legal system like that, I don't know what to say to you.

 

[Dave Ellis]

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.

The doctor example isn't meant to show anything about morality, it's there to show that subjective opinions are not equal, which is one of the key principles to your argument.

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

Again, you're missing my point.

The point is that subjective opinions are not equal. Therefore, your argument that the Nazi's take on morality being equal to mine by default is not supported.

My point was that the harm and good caused by actions is not subjective, it's objective. Furthermore, pain and joy is also objective. It's not open to subjective opinion if the Jews suffered in the death camps or not. It's clear that they did.

I used the golden rule as a pretty universal concept in what we define as morality. Even the Nazis would agree that principle is a key part of morality.

However, we can show the Nazis actions violate basic moral principles like the golden rule. Hitler wouldn't have wanted to be pushed into a gas chamber, yet he ordered that for millions of others.

In short to summarize, what actions cause joy or harm is objective, likewise the impact on the beneficiaries or victims of your acts is also objective.

Under any coherent definition of what it is to be moral, you can not take the objective fallout from the crimes committed by Hitler and call it moral. There is no way to do it.

 

[super animator]

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.

I did not say misinterpretation, I said interpretation. It appears that you don't think that such of a thing exist, as implied in the post of yours.
It doesn't surprise me the slightest, if you think that the result of following the "true" way of the bible is to be the most barbaric way as possible.

 

[lesliedellow]

My point was that the harm and good caused by actions is not subjective, it's objective. Furthermore, pain and joy is also objective. It's not open to subjective opinion if the Jews suffered in the death camps or not. It's clear that they did.

So you want to make the absence of suffering your basis for morality. Suppose Hitler had said, "Sorry chum, I don't accept that as a basis for morality. Racial purity is my basis for morality" How would you demonstrate that you were right, and he was wrong?

 

[juvenissun]

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?

Slavery, according to God's rules, is moral.

Murder, according humanism, is moral. You don't like this one? Fine. Try your best shot. I can certainly deal with it.

 

[juvenissun]

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



eudaimonia,

Mark

A wise(?) person like you should not make this low level mistake. Shame on you.

No. The master may not. He MUST have a good reason to do that. This should not happen in normal case. The Bible verses describe an extreme behavior.

 

[juvenissun]

The thing is however there's no rules against abusing your slave. The master can choose to beat the slave for whatever reason he wants to.

Lots of men beat their wives or children for little to no reason at all even in modern day society. Anger issues, etc could be the cause of that.

Except in the modern day, we have laws against those things. Your god however does not, the abusive master is free to beat his slave as long as the injuries aren't severe enough to be fatal within two days.

If you don't see why there's something wrong with a legal system like that, I don't know what to say to you.

That is why human can NOT handle this good system. We banned slavery, not because it is a bad system, but because we are bad person.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Well, you could simply assert he is so. That's what theists do for god after all.

You may have talked with some who make a bare assertion without evidence. If so, then they did a lousy job.


No apologist I know of does this. They give reasons why the premise is more plausibly true than its negation.

I think you're missing the point of the cookie monster comparison. It isn't meant to show cookie monster is a valid explanation.... it's meant to show that cookie monster and god are on equal footing evidence-wise, and it's an equally bad claim either way.

Thus far you have given no reason to believe premise one of the cookie monster argument to be more plausibly true than its negation. Apologists have given reasons to believe premise one of the moral argument for God's existence.

So no, until you can give reasons for your premise, the two arguments are NOT on equal footing evidence wise.

Which is why I asked him to give reasons for premise one.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Slavery, according to God's rules, is moral.

Most humans disagree with your god here. As do I.

Owning other humans as property is not moral no matter how you try and paint it, no matter who decided it was a good system. If this is the work of your God, then I would say that he is wrong. Freedom for all is a much better concept.

But of course, I attribute these flawed concepts not to any God but to fallible human beings that can, do and will continue to come up with bad ideas like slavery.

Murder, according humanism, is moral. You don't like this one? Fine. Try your best shot. I can certainly deal with it.

Please, enlighten me to my approval of murder that I have been unaware of until you just pointed it out.

Please, tell me all about humanism. This ought to be good.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

That is why human can NOT handle this good system. We banned slavery, not because it is a bad system, but because we are bad person.

I'm a good person.

If it is a good moral system, you should have no problem agreeing to be my slave.

I think I already made this offer, and so far you haven't accepted. Why not?

 

[poolerboy0077]

So you want to make the absence of suffering your basis for morality. Suppose Hitler had said, "Sorry chum, I don't accept that as a basis for morality. Racial purity is my basis for morality" How would you demonstrate that you were right, and he was wrong?

Why do you present a difference of opinion as though it's a formidable challenge to objective ethics? If a person were to say, "Sorry chum, I don't accept your definition of physics. To me it's not about our understanding of matter and energy in the universe; it's about me trying to map my interpretation of Genesis onto the natural world." Does that now make physics relative? Does any mere assertion of disagreement make reality relative and subjective?

 

[juvenissun]

Most humans disagree with your god here. As do I.

Owning other humans as property is not moral no matter how you try and paint it, no matter who decided it was a good system. If this is the work of your God, then I would say that he is wrong. Freedom for all is a much better concept.

But of course, I attribute these flawed concepts not to any God but to fallible human beings that can, do and will continue to come up with bad ideas like slavery.


Please, enlighten me to my approval of murder that I have been unaware of until you just pointed it out.

Please, tell me all about humanism. This ought to be good.

Why is murder wrong, according to humanism? I guess you must know humanism better than I do. So, why is it wrong? If I murdered, I certainly can perfectly justify my action. The reason could be, as simple as, I don't like that person.

 

[juvenissun]

I'm a good person.

If it is a good moral system, you should have no problem agreeing to be my slave.

I think I already made this offer, and so far you haven't accepted. Why not?

If you said you are a godly person, I might consider it if I were desperate.
"Good" is not good enough. Good according to what? What is the standard of your moral?

 

[juvenissun]

So you want to make the absence of suffering your basis for morality. Suppose Hitler had said, "Sorry chum, I don't accept that as a basis for morality. Racial purity is my basis for morality" How would you demonstrate that you were right, and he was wrong?

Without going to God, you can't.
Hitler was wrong because he is defeated. Otherwise, he would be right.

 

[quatona]

Why is murder wrong, according to humanism? I guess you must know humanism better than I do. So, why is it wrong? If I murdered, I certainly can perfectly justify my action. The reason could be, as simple as, I don't like that person.

Just to avoid double standards:
Since answering the "why" question, in your ideology, needs nothing more than an appeal to your authority of choice ("because the bible says so"), the same should be granted to any other ideology ("because the humanist manifest says so").
However, if you are asking for actual reasons, your own approach is the first one to fail.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Why is murder wrong, according to humanism? I guess you must know humanism better than I do. So, why is it wrong? If I murdered, I certainly can perfectly justify my action. The reason could be, as simple as, I don't like that person.

Well the humanist POV posits that human life is intrinsically valuable and should be preserved. That's why it's called human-ism. Also the concepts of personal freedom and liberty are at play when we talk about murder. Murder is the unlawful taking of a life and it is presumed that the person who was murdered did not want to die and so, you don't have the right to take that person's life.

So you see, it's actually very simple to explain how a humanist would oppose murder. Not that there aren't any who can justify killing another person. Just that it doesn't logically follow that a humanist would use specifically humanist philosophy to justify killing.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Well the humanist POV posits that human life is intrinsically valuable and should be preserved. That's why it's called human-ism. Also the concepts of personal freedom and liberty are at play when we talk about murder. Murder is the unlawful taking of a life and it is presumed that the person who was murdered did not want to die and so, you don't have the right to take that person's life.

So you see, it's actually very simple to explain how a humanist would oppose murder. Not that there aren't any who can justify killing another person. Just that it doesn't logically follow that a humanist would use specifically humanist philosophy to justify killing.

What makes human life intrinsically valuable, from the humanist POV, that is...

 

[bhsmte]

What makes human life intrinsically valuable, from the humanist POV, that is...

The desire to live a good life, take care of your family, be respected and accomplish things that are important to you.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

The desire to live a good life, take care of your family, be respected and accomplish things that are important to you.

Those are things you like to do.

I asked why human life was intrinsically valuable, not how do you like to pass the time away.

 

[bhsmte]

Those are things you like to do.

I asked why human life was intrinsically valuable, not how do you like to pass the time away.

What makes something valuable is based on how available something is. I take this as my only life, so it is valuable and I want to make the most of it.