Sauron

Correction: society has actively objected to slavery for several hundred years. And the philosophical basis for rejecting slavery is far older than that.

Correction: the bible reflects a deity who ordered and approved of slavery. This was done in a milieu which countenanced slavery.

Moreover, appeals to "understand the social environment" or employ "context of history" fail on this point. The bible didn't flinch from disagreeing with the moral direction or the milieu of the surrounding environment when it felt the need to do so. The bible's *failure* to do so in the case of slavery indicates that the bible truly has no problem with this morally heinous act.

Correction: this proves that the bible cannot be relied upon as a guide for moral behavior, inasmuch as human morality has reached higher than the morality prescribed by the bible.

Actually, what they see are all your little strawmen busy taking their pet red herrings for a walk.

Eldarion Lathria

My ancestors preferred death to slavery. I hope I would have the courage to follow their example.

Eldarion Lathria

RED DAVE

Well, now we know your values. Given a chance, you'll apologize for slavery. Steal five bucks. Go to hell. Enslave your neighbor (or his daughter). You've got a chance at glory.

RED DAVE

Roger Pearse

Are these assertions any different in practical terms, tho, to stating that the highest good is conformity?

The term "social opinion" sounds to me a lot like "people who have control of the media agenda in the period in question". Who are these people? And why should we obey these people?

The consequences tell. If something advances human happiness, it is evolving positively, if something augments unhappiness it is a degeneration.[/QUOTE]

There seems to be a problem with this, tho.

If "advances human happiness" is a societally determined value, then isn't this argument circular? -- relying on the values that are changing to tell whether values are moving up or down?

If it is not a societally determined value, but one obtained from elsewhere and superior to societal values, then surely this destroys your position?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Sauron

Uh, no. Evaluation of the social value of a particular practice is not the same as advocating conformity. Apparently the practice of quietly substituting your strawman position for the actual statement is de rigueur for you.

Ah, yes. The tired old whine about how the media changes society's opinions, as opposed to the media reflecting opinions. Not to mention the fact that as far as slavery was concerned, it wasn't the media advocating for change in this country; it was the liberal church establishment and the emancipation movement.

Here's a hammer; hit yourself on the head some more.

No. Things that advance human happiness may change over time.

Moreover -- and as you well know, but choose to ignore -- the inclusion of slaves as part of society forced the recalculation of the "human happiness" quotient. When society is defined as "slave owners and their families", then slavery augments happiness. But when society is seen more correctly as "all the people in a social group, regardless of income or status", then slavery does not augment social happiness or well-being.

I don't see how. Here was figuer's claim:

Modern Western moral values have been developed, and are still evolving, from centuries of human experience. They are not the product of "the media", they are the product of a humanist-empirical philosophical thought that has as its basis the search for a state of maximum individual happiness within maximum social harmony.

Even if figuer were claiming that there is a non-negotiable moral obligation to refrain from enslaving others, that would not negate his analysis of the evolution of western morals.

His point to you is that the bible does not believe in evolving morality or situational ethics -- yet without that mechanism, the bible is caught red-handed as endorsing slavery.

achristianbeliever

Well first off this brings up the question of who does decide what is moral if morals are merely subjective? If morals are objective then they are above human perception (not necessarily God that's not what I mean).

Second I was merely answering the question from the questioners point of view. I don't consider slavery good or bad and neither does the Bible. I consider slave trading bad and so does 1 Tim 1:9.

The question stated:
By answering it so literally from your perspective would mean that I consider slavery positive but I don't necessarily believe that. Considering it a necessity doesn't mean I consider it good. Again I point to mandatory and permissible. I was actually focused on the part where it says should be allowed today.

But the question by stating it the way you did makes it a trick question. Because it means that if I don't think it should be allowed today that I automatically consider it bad but if I think it should be allowed I consider it good. But I don't accept that. Fine if my wording made it sound like I think the government makes something right or wrong then I apologize because that's not what I meant. Maybe I should have used my own wording rather than the wording of the question if it was going to cause such confusion. But then it brings up the question of subjective vs. objective.

No it doesn't. The question was whether or not I think it should be allowed today and I indicated why I think it shouldn't be. Do I have to quote it for you?

I don't agree with this. I consider slavery neither good or evil. The only question to me is the type of slavery. If you consider it evil you'll have to prove it.

Ok then it should be easy to tell me why it is immoral.

THis is the standard skeptical bigotted attitude. Claiming superiority from other people both morality wise and intelligent wise. This sentence clearly indicates your saying your morality is superior to those "bronze-age" people meaning their morality was inferior. Basic bigotted beliefs. Which means he also thinks places like Sudan is also inferior to him because they still permit slavery.

jemand

Um... you live in a democracy. In part, at least, the laws of your country are determined by the people voting. If your country allowed slavery today would you vote to outlaw it?

How is that different than the argument that what is permissible evolves, because morality evolves, and things that once might have been justified are not justified anymore? It sounds like you are arguing against yourself.

Not really. If morals are objective, than it means they are not arbitrary, and it means we don't need to invoke a God's rules to determine what to do. If they are not at least to some extent objective (in that they are accesible by different people, rather than based on only personal feelings), than they are not arbitrary and one doesn't need to invoke an ancient list of rules. Just because something is objective doesn't mean it is unaccesible to people.

And then we come to this:
Wow. Did you answer my question anywhere in there? It appears to be one gigantic weasle out of a difficult situation. And it wasn't effective.

Just to clarify:

If you think slavery should be allowed today it doesn't necesarily mean you think it is "bad," but rather you consider it "worse to the alternative in which slavery is allowed."

If you think slavery shouldn't be allowed today it doesn't necesarily mean you think it is "good," but rather you consider it "better than the alternative in which slavery is not allowed."

So my question is, which is it?

Ok... so you think slavery shouldn't be allowed? Alright. What societal changes have occured that make you think this way? When, exactly, was the last time you think slavery was a "good" in the sense that it was "necessary?"

So Sudan is an example of a place where slavery is permitted because it is necesary? Where we shouldn't try to intervene, because there's nothing wrong with what they're doing there? Do you honestly see NOTHING WRONG with the moral systems that are on display in Sudan? NOTHING WRONG at all? I'm shocked! Please, please, clarify what you meant here.

Secondly, you have no problem pointing all the flaws in atheist morality. There is a big problem with equivocating between stating certain kinds of PEOPLE are inferior, and stating that certain kinds of IDEAS are inferior. If you really believe it is wrong to engage in the later, than why are you trying to convince us of your position? There's an implicit assumption there that you think your own belief system is superior in some way. Whether it is or isn't is immaterial, but discussion the merits of belief is certainly NOT racist OR bigoted.

Sven

[snip most]
How about simply saying what you meant? What exactly do you think is the role of the government in determining what is moral?

Sauron

Incorrect. The question was how do you rationalize a bible that doesn't see slavery as a moral failure? You failed to answer that question, which was what forced Sven to rephrase his original question in another way ("allowed today").

So your response is still a handwave, because you dodged the original question.

Your new response is also incorrect:
This question makes the mistake of equating mandatory with permissible.

None of the arguments here rely on that fallacy. They rely upon the fact that a morally reprehensible act - slavery - somehow managed to escape condemnation in the bible. What everyone is waiting on now, is for you to present a coherent argument as to how slavery could be morally permissible, while other acts - rape, murder, theft, etc. - are allegedly never permissible.

Quote as much as you like - but unless you answer the original question directly, repeating a handwave isn't going to rescue your argument

Remind me never to ask you for an opinion about morality. You apparently have no moral compass.

Huh? If you think there is more than one kind of slavery, then by all means demonstrate that.

No, you'll have to prove that there is more than one type of slavery.

Except that:

1. you need to demonstrate that there is more than one kind of slavery, since youir entire handwave defense relies upon that claim; and then

2. you were the first to claim that slavery wasn't a universally immoral act - he who claims first, has first burden of proof.

In point of fact, it's an accurate summation of the reality of the bible.

We already know that it contains numerous historical, scientific and archaeological errors, so divine inspiration is already out the window. It also contains several morally reprehsensible acts, which makes it unfit as a guide to human behavior.

The bible is not alone in that regard; there are many ancient texts that are interesting from a historical point of view, but useless as a guide to behavior.

Except that you've just told us that slavery isn't immoral. I think pretty much any skeptic on this board is morally enlightened enough to rise above *that* standard of morality.

You're not listening. I'm not talking about my own morals (although I could be). I'm talking about modern human morals; i.e., from the Enlightenment forward.

No, basic reality.

1. I (and other skeptics here) subscribe to a morality that says slavery is wrong.
2. You do not.
3. Ergo, my (our) system of morals is better than yours.

Yes. Any system of morals that permits slavery is inferior. I have no problem putting Sudan into that bucket. I'm shocked that you find that to be a problem.

Apparently you feel some kind of kinship with the slave traders in Sudan. A man is known by the company he keeps.

andrewcriddle

Probably if taken literally and wholeheartedly

The idea that one should as a general rule choose to die rather than submit to oppression is more part of Stoic moral values than Biblical ones.

Andrew Criddle