The Moral Argument

[Archaeopteryx]

Why do you say they lacked anything? They knew God, they just needed to trust him.

How did they know that it was good to trust him if knowledge of good and evil was withheld from them and forbidden to them?

 

[anonymous person]

How did they know that it was good to trust him if knowledge of good and evil was withheld from them and forbidden to them?

Who said that Adam and Eve knew it was good to trust God?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Who said that Adam and Eve knew it was good to trust God?

No one. That's the point. Do try to keep up.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Now I see what you're doing. You're intentionally confusing the issue of slaves and indentured servants to make it harder to argue. You quoted me and changed my quote to: "Lots of ways to convince slaves to obey against their will" cut and pasted. Now are we talking about indentured servants or slaves? Pick one and stick with it.

It is confusing, I don't blame you. The ancient hebrew language did not have a word to describe indentured servitude. They just used the word slave and all the laws that were used to protect indentured servants also applied to slaves. In war, it was an act of mercy for the Israelites to enslave defeated enemies. The only other option they had was to kill them. Think about it. If you were defeated in battle would you rather be killed or become a slave who was protected by jewish law?

So here is where I am at. If by objective morality you simply mean that which is something everyone ought to do, or that everyone ought not to do, then that exists. If you mean something that everyone agrees on, then no, objective morality does not exist. And yes, when I say "everyone" I mean even God.

Thank you. You finally agree to my point and the point of the "moral argument " that objective morality cannot exist without a god. You don't believe in a god thus you cannot believe objective morality exists. Congratulations.

What a god wants our purpose to be does not mean that he didn't give us free will to choose our own.

I agree. However, creating a purpose for yourself that is contrary to the purpose God gave you is an act of rebellion which is where sin originates. Christians define sin as rebellion against God's will. Of course you do not believe in God so sin cannot exist.

So if you are equating morality with purpose, then we disagree on the definition of morality itself and we'll need to take a few steps back and start with that definition first.

Ok. That is fine. So tell me, how would you define "good" and "bad"?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Irrelevant to the hypothetical. I am just trying to see where this "justice" is in your theology.

Now, you have the serial killer going to Heaven, as long as he is a believer. From what I gather from other Christians, the victim - an unbeliever, in this case - is going to Hell for not believing in the same god, or she is simply not convinced.

Is this still "justice" in your eyes? Or should the victim get to go to Heaven to be with her killer?

James 2:13 "because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment."

Of course the senario that you provided is with the assumption that the God of Abraham exists so I will answer your question with that assumption in hand. Technically, God has one punishment for sin...death. (Romans 3:23) So it would be just that everyone should go to hell. Mercy is one of the foundations of the Christian faith. The fact that even a wicked man who spent his entire life in wickedness can be saved on his deathbed is not unjust, it is merciful. God's mercy is a gift that can be given to all who desire it. Including the wicked man. As far as the victim....well I will let Jesus explain that to you.

“For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire workers for his vineyard. 2 He agreed to pay them a denarius[a] for the day and sent them into his vineyard.

3 “About nine in the morning he went out and saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing. 4 He told them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.’ 5 So they went.

“He went out again about noon and about three in the afternoon and did the same thing. 6 About five in the afternoon he went out and found still others standing around. He asked them, ‘Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?’

7 “‘Because no one has hired us,’ they answered.

“He said to them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard.’

8 “When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.’

9 “The workers who were hired about five in the afternoon came and each received a denarius. 10 So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. 11 When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. 12 ‘These who were hired last worked only one hour,’ they said, ‘and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.’

13 “But he answered one of them, ‘I am not being unfair to you, friend. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius? 14 Take your pay and go. I want to give the one who was hired last the same as I gave you. 15 Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’

16 “So the last will be first, and the first will be last.”

Matthew 20:1-16 NIV

 

[anonymous person]

No one. That's the point. Do try to keep up.

A point which didn't need to be made. Do you have another?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

A point which didn't need to be made. Do you have another?

Not for you.

 

[anonymous person]

Not for you.

For Sapiens then?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

For Sapiens then?

That depends on what Sapiens says in response to my post.

 

[anonymous person]

That depends on what Sapiens says in response to my post.

Ok sounds good. ☺

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Ok sounds good. ☺

Indeed. It sounds delightful.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Indeed. It sounds delightful.

Do you mind if I took a stab at the topic?

 

[Moral Orel]

It is confusing, I don't blame you. The ancient hebrew language did not have a word to describe indentured servitude.

You asked a question stated in a general form of "slave" and "corporal punishment". Your question didn't ask specifically about the verse in question, so I'm not confused by when the Bible means slave and when it means indentured servant. Also, there were different rules for the two different things, so slaves weren't treated the same way as indentured servants, which is another distinction that should be made between the two.
The thing is, we're arguing about the most moral way to treat people that are in a position that it was immoral to put them in in the first place. You could still pay slaves you purchased, you could still incentivize work for indentured servants, but that would ruin the whole point of having an exploited, and cheap workforce.

In war, it was an act of mercy for the Israelites to enslave defeated enemies. The only other option they had was to kill them. Think about it. If you were defeated in battle would you rather be killed or become a slave who was protected by jewish law?

You have a very warped view of the Old Testament, in my opinion. You accused me earlier or reading Bible verses cherrypicked and placed on "a website" but I'll let you know, I tried to read the Bible, cover to cover. I made it through a good chunk of the OT, but I couldn't make it past some of the worst stuff. As a kid I tried to read the NT from start to finish, but I only made it through a few books cause I was a lazy kid, admittedly. Now I use Biblegateway.com as my source when I want to look up a topic.
So an act of mercy, by the Israelites, who at times had just pretended to offer a peace treaty to a city, and then conquered it... No, they weren't good folk.

Thank you. You finally agree to my point and the point of the "moral argument " that objective morality cannot exist without a god. You don't believe in a god thus you cannot believe objective morality exists. Congratulations.

No, I don't believe in your warped definition of "objective". Again, I ask, is it an objective fact that the Earth is round, or is it a subjective opinion?

I agree. However, creating a purpose for yourself that is contrary to the purpose God gave you is an act of rebellion which is where sin originates. Christians define sin as rebellion against God's will. Of course you do not believe in God so sin cannot exist.

You're right. "Sin" brings with it a lot of "magical" connotations like it being hereditary and affecting the weather... I believe in wrongdoing would be the better word to use.

Ok. That is fine. So tell me, how would you define "good" and "bad"?

As I have stated in numerous posts, it is based on cooperation, which is motivated by fairness, which is balanced by the measure of suffering vs. pleasure. It is a complicated system that has all of these concepts intermingled. We cooperate to achieve a better balance of suffering vs. pleasure, but we have no reason to cooperate if it isn't fair. One person's suffering should balance out with another person's pleasure so that it achieves a larger amount of pleasure over all.

An example. You stated that rape is immoral because that is not the intended purpose of sex. But that already demands a creator and a designer to state that there is a purpose, which makes your definition of morality tainted from the beginning in this argument. Instead, rape is wrong because the balance of the rapist's pleasure that he derives is minuscule to the amount of suffering that his victim endures. And people aren't going to cooperate with each other if some people are allowed to derive a little bit of pleasure at the great, great expense of others.

In contrast, a hypothetical situation. If I were to flick you in the nose, and it caused you no more suffering than a flick in the nose would, but it caused me to be happy and content for a whole year, then it would be immoral of you to not allow me to flick you in the nose.

 

[Davian]

James 2:13 "because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment."

Of course the senario that you provided is with the assumption that the God of Abraham exists so I will answer your question with that assumption in hand. Technically, God has one punishment for sin...death. (Romans 3:23) So it would be just that everyone should go to hell. Mercy is one of the foundations of the Christian faith. The fact that even a wicked man who spent his entire life in wickedness can be saved on his deathbed is not unjust, it is merciful. God's mercy is a gift that can be given to all who desire it. Including the wicked man.

Anything goes, as long as you believe? This is morally bankrupt. No "justice" there.

As far as the victim....well I will let Jesus explain that to you.

“For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire workers for his vineyard. 2 He agreed to pay them a denarius[a] for the day and sent them into his vineyard.

3 “About nine in the morning he went out and saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing. 4 He told them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.’ 5 So they went.

“He went out again about noon and about three in the afternoon and did the same thing. 6 About five in the afternoon he went out and found still others standing around. He asked them, ‘Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?’

7 “‘Because no one has hired us,’ they answered.

“He said to them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard.’

8 “When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.’

9 “The workers who were hired about five in the afternoon came and each received a denarius. 10 So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. 11 When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. 12 ‘These who were hired last worked only one hour,’ they said, ‘and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.’

13 “But he answered one of them, ‘I am not being unfair to you, friend. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius? 14 Take your pay and go. I want to give the one who was hired last the same as I gave you. 15 Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’

16 “So the last will be first, and the first will be last.”

Matthew 20:1-16 NIV

Too bad, so sad?

Remind me again of the title of this thread.

 

[anonymous person]

You asked a question stated in a general form of "slave" and "corporal punishment". Your question didn't ask specifically about the verse in question, so I'm not confused by when the Bible means slave and when it means indentured servant. Also, there were different rules for the two different things, so slaves weren't treated the same way as indentured servants, which is another distinction that should be made between the two.
The thing is, we're arguing about the most moral way to treat people that are in a position that it was immoral to put them in in the first place. You could still pay slaves you purchased, you could still incentivize work for indentured servants, but that would ruin the whole point of having an exploited, and cheap workforce.


You have a very warped view of the Old Testament, in my opinion. You accused me earlier or reading Bible verses cherrypicked and placed on "a website" but I'll let you know, I tried to read the Bible, cover to cover. I made it through a good chunk of the OT, but I couldn't make it past some of the worst stuff. As a kid I tried to read the NT from start to finish, but I only made it through a few books cause I was a lazy kid, admittedly. Now I use Biblegateway.com as my source when I want to look up a topic.
So an act of mercy, by the Israelites, who at times had just pretended to offer a peace treaty to a city, and then conquered it... No, they weren't good folk.


No, I don't believe in your warped definition of "objective". Again, I ask, is it an objective fact that the Earth is round, or is it a subjective opinion?


You're right. "Sin" brings with it a lot of "magical" connotations like it being hereditary and affecting the weather... I believe in wrongdoing would be the better word to use.


As I have stated in numerous posts, it is based on cooperation, which is motivated by fairness, which is balanced by the measure of suffering vs. pleasure. It is a complicated system that has all of these concepts intermingled. We cooperate to achieve a better balance of suffering vs. pleasure, but we have no reason to cooperate if it isn't fair. One person's suffering should balance out with another person's pleasure so that it achieves a larger amount of pleasure over all.

An example. You stated that rape is immoral because that is not the intended purpose of sex. But that already demands a creator and a designer to state that there is a purpose, which makes your definition of morality tainted from the beginning in this argument. Instead, rape is wrong because the balance of the rapist's pleasure that he derives is minuscule to the amount of suffering that his victim endures. And people aren't going to cooperate with each other if some people are allowed to derive a little bit of pleasure at the great, great expense of others.

In contrast, a hypothetical situation. If I were to flick you in the nose, and it caused you no more suffering than a flick in the nose would, but it caused me to be happy and content for a whole year, then it would be immoral of you to not allow me to flick you in the nose.

We can understand why you think our view of the bible is warped. You've read bits and pieces of it because you either were too lazy to read it all, or you found it not worth reading. This you have admitted.

It is not surprising therefore that you would say something like, "the Israelites conquered cities after pretending to offer them peace treaties because the Israelites were not good folks."

 

[anonymous person]

Anything goes, as long as you believe? This is morally bankrupt. No "justice" there.

Not anything. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit shall not be forgiven.

And you're wrong. Christ paid the debt all men owe on the cross. There, justice was served for your sins and mine. It just wasn't served to us, but to Christ. It is called substitionary atonement.

Mercy and wrath meet at the cross which was made possible by love which graced us with Jesus.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

You asked a question stated in a general form of "slave" and "corporal punishment". Your question didn't ask specifically about the verse in question, so I'm not confused by when the Bible means slave and when it means indentured servant.

I would recommend you reread my posts regarding my comments on "indentured servants". I don't remember actually claiming that the Israelites had a system of indentured servitude that was separate from slavery. If I did, I apologize. I only described the conditions and protections of a "slave" and gave an example on how someone could have become a "slave". Others, including yourself, felt that the description favored "indentured servitude " over slavery.

You could still pay slaves you purchased, you could still incentivize work for indentured servants, but that would ruin the whole point of having an exploited, and cheap workforce.

If you paid a slave/indentured servant they would no longer be such. They would simply become a servant. It still blows my mind that you think paying indentured servants is a good idea. If I owed you money that I could not pay, you honestly would pay me to work just so I would turn around and pay it back to you?

So an act of mercy, by the Israelites, who at times had just pretended to offer a peace treaty to a city, and then conquered it... No, they weren't good folk.

If I remember correctly, the Israelites were punished by God for it. So objectively what they did was wrong.

No, I don't believe in your warped definition of "objective". Again, I ask, is it an objective fact that the Earth is round, or is it a subjective opinion?

It would only be a subjective opinion if the earth did not exist or was without shape. We are not talking about if facts can be objective or subjective. If something is a fact, it is objective. We are talking about if something is right/wrong or good/bad on what we know to be objectively true. If I said the earth is flat and in fact the earth is round....I would be objectively wrong. If it is a fact that God does not exist, we now have to rely on your definition of good (which by the way is a subjective opinion that says "good" is determined by popular opinion for the greater good). But if it is a fact that God is real, now it is possible to have a objective knowledge of what is good/bad and right/wrong.

As I have stated in numerous posts, it is based on cooperation, which is motivated by fairness, which is balanced by the measure of suffering vs. pleasure. It is a complicated system that has all of these concepts intermingled. We cooperate to achieve a better balance of suffering vs. pleasure, but we have no reason to cooperate if it isn't fair. One person's suffering should balance out with another person's pleasure so that it achieves a larger amount of pleasure over all.

As I stated before. Your definition is nothing more than popular opinion for the greater good. Going back to your flat earth analogy. You would have to say that if everyone believed the earth was flat and for some reason it benifit the greater good, it would be bad or wrong to say it was round.

 

[Moral Orel]

It is not surprising therefore that you would say something like, "the Israelites conquered cities after pretending to offer them peace treaties because the Israelites were not good folks."

If I remember correctly, the Israelites were punished by God for it. So objectively what they did was wrong.

This, unless you invoke the sovereignty of God and therefore He can do what He pleases with his clay pots, is objectively wrong:

Deuteronomy 20:10-17

10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestockand everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.

16 However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you.

Jason, you're saying that they were punished for doing "as the Lord your God has commanded you"? Like I said, I haven't read it all, so can you point me to that spot in the Bible?

 

[Moral Orel]

It would only be a subjective opinion if the earth did not exist or was without shape. We are not talking about if facts can be objective or subjective. If something is a fact, it is objective.

We are talking about facts, that is the whole point of the word "objective". I am saying that owning another human being is wrong and that it is a fact. If you are saying that it is okay for a human to own another human, then I am saying you are wrong. It is not an opinion. You can have an opinion, such as a preference, such as "I think vanilla is best" and I can disagree by having the opinion, "I think chocolate is best". Those are opinions. To believe that owning another human being can be neutral or better, on a scale of good and just and right that can be accomplished, that is wrong in the same way that saying the Earth is flat is wrong. It can be achieved through reason, and logic, and statistics, and even scientific data that we have collected through research in psychology and neuroscience.

As I stated before. Your definition is nothing more than popular opinion for the greater good.

Now my definition may be considered "opinion" in that the greater good is the most moral thing, but my definition is not an opinion on how to reach the greater good. It isn't specific enough to be challenged in any other way than to say the greater good should not be achieved.

I think you've missed the whole point of this argument, actually. You're supposed to prove your premises... both of them. You aren't supposed to prove the whole thing wrong by proving premise 2 is wrong. But if you want to concede that this argument is a failure, then that's up to you.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

This, unless you invoke the sovereignty of God and therefore He can do what He pleases with his clay pots, is objectively wrong:

Deuteronomy 20:10-17

10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestockand everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.

16 However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you. 19
Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the Lord your God.

Jason, you're saying that they were punished for doing "as the Lord your God has commanded you"? Like I said, I haven't read it all, so can you point me to that spot in the Bible?

I took the liberty of highlighting the key points that you missed and added the verse that you left out. This is not the verse I thought you were referring to. It was later that the Israelites made a treaty with a neighboring people and violated God's commandment. Eventually, what God said in verse 19 came true and the Israelites were punished as a result.