Slavery

[b&wpac4]

Let's go even further. Let's show the same consideration for modern morals. It isn't judging the morals of previous ages that I take issue with. It is the use of modern as the standard for doing so. To reject past moral beliefs simply because they are different from the present age means to assume that today's moral beliefs are right and good simply because they are modern, an assumption that I believe is unwarranted.

I tend to agree with you here. In 500 years, they'll be looking back at what we're doing and scratching their head, wondering how we could even think we were right.

 

[quatona]

I've seen people say that the Bible says something's wrong, which is true, but I can't recall anyone saying "I believe ___ is wrong because the Bible says it's wrong".

I see it all the time. Else the question what the bible says about it - which makes up a great part of many discussions - wouldn´t be considered ethically relevant, in the first place.

Then we agree.

That´s fine, but there are people who don´t agree - and I understood the OP as being directed to those.

You must be seeing things; there's no strawman there. I just asked a question.

Careful. I didn´t mean to say you made a strawman. I said you accused the OP of making a strawman, and that´s exactly what you did.

 

[a.d.ivNonasNovembres]

I tend to agree with you here. In 500 years, they'll be looking back at what we're doing and scratching their head, wondering how we could even think we were right.

And there is no reason whatsoever to assume they will be either.

 

[b&wpac4]

And there is no reason whatsoever to assume they will be either.

Precedent. What do we think about those who lived 500 years ago? We tend to wonder how they could believe a lot of the things they believed, behave the way they behaved. If you think that the way we live right now is going to stay exactly the same over the next 500 years, then I think you need to study history a lot more.

 

[a.d.ivNonasNovembres]

Precedent. What do we think about those who lived 500 years ago? We tend to wonder how they could believe a lot of the things they believed, behave the way they behaved. If you think that the way we live right now is going to stay exactly the same over the next 500 years, then I think you need to study history a lot more.

There is no reason to believe they will be any more correct in their ethical standards than we or the people from 200 or 3000 years ago.

 

[b&wpac4]

There is no reason to believe they will be any more correct in their ethical standards than we or the people from 200 or 3000 years ago.

Did I claim as such?

 

[lawtonfogle]

Unfortunately, the Bible is much more concerned with what happens in the bedroom between two consenting adults, than it is with unwilling subjects of slavery.

...or with the issue of them not being adults.

 

[lawtonfogle]

I don't have answers to those questions, but mind if I ask what's the underlying idea for the second one? Do you think Christians read the bible to see what's right or wrong? I'm asking seriously, because I see that idea often here, and I'm sometimes unsure whether it's just a little fun insult, or if some people actually think it's true. I could see where that might be a legitimate thing to ask an orthodox Jew, but it seems a strange idea to have about Christians.

About many Christians I know, it is false. But I know a few who do take the Bible and the final (and only, except when they don't like certain issues like slavery) source for morality.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Man stealing (kidnapping free people in order to sell them as slaves) was forbidden under the Law of Moses and in fact punishable by death. Cruel treatment of slaves is condemned. Slavery itself however, is not. It is simply an unfortunate reality of this fallen world, like war, disease and famine.

Except in the cases where God said to go kill the free people and kill all their children except their little girls (aka, virgins), which were then taken as slaves. Probably sex slaves as well, why else would you only take the virgin women (and children) (remember how important virginity was to the Hebrews)?

 

[lawtonfogle]

My question:
What does this say about the age in which we live?

Being a Christian means not being bound by the prevailing wisdom of the world in which you live. Such wisdom continually changes throughout history. If you marry yourself to this age, you'll be a widower in the next.

I see no reason to assume that the age in which we live is more "enlightened" that those that preceded it.

So the prevailing wisdom of slavery = bad is wrong. You do realize not(slavery=bad) = (slavery=good), don't you (or at least not bad)...

 

[lawtonfogle]

Let's go even further. Let's show the same consideration for modern morals. It isn't judging the morals of previous ages that I take issue with. It is the use of modern as the standard for doing so. To reject past moral beliefs simply because they are different from the present age means to assume that today's moral beliefs are right and good simply because they are modern, an assumption that I believe is unwarranted.

It is often an axiom, but if you do not take the axiom that the beliefs you are holding are the best (at least that you know of), then what are you saying? Are you saying that you accept other beliefs which you know of are better? Then how can you call yourself moral to begin with?

Basically, it is not just acceptable, but required, to say that he beliefs you hold are the best out of the possibilities that you know of.

But like everything else, you are right that it comes down to making up axioms, but then so does all life.

 

[a.d.ivNonasNovembres]

Did I claim as such?

I wasn't arguing with you, just adding to what you said.

 

[lawtonfogle]

I tend to agree with you here. In 500 years, they'll be looking back at what we're doing and scratching their head, wondering how we could even think we were right.

But is it not possible to state that what you believe is the best possible out of what you know? If you can't state this, then why not pick another?

 

[b&wpac4]

But is it not possible to state that what you believe is the best possible out of what you know? If you can't state this, then why not pick another?

Why not? I'm sure most people act out of what they believe is right, even if later their actions are questioned.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Precedent. What do we think about those who lived 500 years ago? We tend to wonder how they could believe a lot of the things they believed, behave the way they behaved. If you think that the way we live right now is going to stay exactly the same over the next 500 years, then I think you need to study history a lot more.

Past experiences do not prove future, or even change the probability of it. Aka, your use of precedence here is illogical, though it is one of those illogical things we work off of so much. If I flip a coin 500 times, and they are all heads, assuming this is an evenly balanced coin, there is still just a 50/50 chance of heads or tails. Now, statistics says once we get beyond 2 standard deviations from norm (which 500 heads in a row clearly is), then there is most likely another cause, aka a weighted coin. But even so, if the coin is not weighted, and your flipping truly random, there is still just a 50/50, precedence or not.

 

[b&wpac4]

Past experiences do not prove future, or even change the probability of it. Aka, your use of precedence here is illogical, though it is one of those illogical things we work off of so much. If I flip a coin 500 times, and they are all heads, assuming this is an evenly balanced coin, there is still just a 50/50 chance of heads or tails. Now, statistics says once we get beyond 2 standard deviations from norm (which 500 heads in a row clearly is), then there is most likely another cause, aka a weighted coin. But even so, if the coin is not weighted, and your flipping truly random, there is still just a 50/50, precedence or not.

No, sorry. It seems that at ever age we look back, as a collective, and laugh at the odd behaviors our ancestors engaged in. Perhaps at some point that will end, but I'm sure they will look back at the 1960s discrimination, at the gay right's fight going on now, and laugh at us and call us barbaric.

 

[a.d.ivNonasNovembres]

No, sorry. It seems that at ever age we look back, as a collective, and laugh at the odd behaviors our ancestors engaged in. Perhaps at some point that will end, but I'm sure they will look back at the 1960s discrimination, at the gay right's fight going on now, and laugh at us and call us barbaric.

Technically this is actually quite a recent phenomenon. Prior to the Early Modern Period people tended to see the past as a sort of golden age and the present as degenerate, this is also why most attempts to improve things were termed in language of restoration in those days rather than in progressive language.
The whole progressivism thing is quite new.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Why not? I'm sure most people act out of what they believe is right, even if later their actions are questioned.

I see four options here.

You believe what you hold to be right is the best possible solution.
You believe what you hold to be right is one of the best possible solutions (all other 'best' solutions being equal).
You believe what you hold to be right is not one of the best possible solutions.
You are completely unsure.

In the first two cases, you can operate to judge other moralities. In the third, your ethos is lacking as you know there is a better solution but you do not hold it. As to the fourth, there are two sub parts. In one where all choices are equally good and bad, you are completely unknown, and often you must either create a new axiom for your morality or be illogical (using pathos most likely). This is actually being the second without yet making a choice. In the other sub division, you believe some to be equally good and bad, and others to be worse. This is really being the second without yet making a choice.

In the end, I see no way yet to derive any ethical standards from pure logic. There is always some reliance on pathos. It just seems to be one of the flaws of the universe, though maybe one day we will finally be able to do such.

 

[sekhemsahu]

I hope these links will help add to the discussion:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl.htm

http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl1.htm

http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl2.htm

http://www.inu.net/skeptic/slavery.htmlhttp://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl2.htm

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/slavery.html

 

[lawtonfogle]

No, sorry. It seems that at ever age we look back, as a collective, and laugh at the odd behaviors our ancestors engaged in. Perhaps at some point that will end, but I'm sure they will look back at the 1960s discrimination, at the gay right's fight going on now, and laugh at us and call us barbaric.

Well, I can look upon it now and call it barbaric just as in the 1960s. No future needed. But the point stands that just because it has always worked out to be X, while you can easily get an accepted theory that it will always work out to be X accepted by scientist (sociologist in this case I would guess), it does not constitute a proof beyond doubt (or a proof at all, since there is no proof except those beyond doubt).