Open Discussion With Lnc

[Abiyoyo]

Anyway, I've not read anywhere close to the entire thing but I think this is pretty clear on at least one view of where America got the idea for its model of slavery. I think the tie-in to xianity doesn't help any. I think that the fact the whole starts with the Jews is not a good sign. This does not point to indentured servants. Not in Judea. Not in America. It was all slavery.

 

mwc

 

The first reference was for the indentured servants meaning, and placement; the second was an overview of what defined racial slavery. It was eventually stopped; the seeking captives to put into slavery, instead of the down and out. That didn't derive from the Jews. Indentured servitude seemed to be similar though.

[shantonu]

I mean even the worst murderers know in their heart that what they do is wrong.

Do they? Doesn't the sociopath show symptoms of not understanding the concept of right from wrong? They have the concept explained and they can know right/wrong as a fact, but they don't know why it is so. Their problem stems from that they don't see other people as "other humans" but rather just objects.

 

Fine I take it back, 99.99% of contemporary humanity is morally superior to God.

[Ouroboros]

Fine I take it back, 99.99% of contemporary humanity is morally superior to God.

I like your style. If you ever come around this neighborhood I'll buy you a beer.

[Abiyoyo]

If one cannot prove the existence of god, then aren't most of the christians on here wasting their time? It begs the question of what are they doing on here if they can't even prove what they believe in is true? Seriously, why construct one's entire life around something that cannot be proven, living by it and abiding by it and centering your life around it?

 

Can you prove He doesn't exist? If not. I ask you the same question, Why construct a life around something that you are unable to prove non existent? Apples for apples. Right?

[shantonu]

If one cannot prove the existence of god, then aren't most of the christians on here wasting their time? It begs the question of what are they doing on here if they can't even prove what they believe in is true? Seriously, why construct one's entire life around something that cannot be proven, living by it and abiding by it and centering your life around it?

 

Can you prove He doesn't exist? If not. I ask you the same question, Why construct a life around something that you are unable to prove non existent? Apples for apples. Right?

 

Why should I worship God, even if he exists, if he isn't good?

[mwc]

The first reference was for the indentured servants meaning, and placement; the second was an overview of what defined racial slavery. It was eventually stopped; the seeking captives to put into slavery, instead of the down and out. That didn't derive from the Jews. Indentured servitude seemed to be similar though.

Then you have failed to read, or simply you cannot comprehend, what I am putting before you:

 

In the colony of Massachusetts a body of fundamental laws was established in 1641.

One of the articles, based on the Mosaic code

, provides that "

there shall never be any bond slavery

, villeinage, nor captivity among us,

unless it be lawful captives

, taken in just wars, and such strangers as willingly sell themselves or are sold unto us, and these shall have all the liberties and Christian usages which the law of God established in Israel requires. This exempts none from servitude who shall be judged thereto by authority."

 

How is this any different than this?

44 But you may get servants as property from among the nations round about; from them you may take men-servants [ebed] and women-servants [amah]. 45 And in addition, you may get, for money, servants from among the children of other nations [gowy] who are living with you, and from their families which have come to birth in your land; and these will be your property. 46 And they will be your children's heritage after you, to keep as their property; they will be your servants [abad] for ever; but you may not be hard masters to your countrymen, the children of Israel.

 

Ebed, amah are references to slaves since the context obviously shows as much (purchasing, owning as property, willing to children). Indentured servants would never be described as such and are not described as such. Abad is to work, serve, etc. and this says that these people will do it forever. Indentured servants do not become your servant forever and are never described in such a manner. These people are. These people are slaves. Their offspring are slaves. There is no question as to what they are here. None at all especially in contrast with the surrounding verses that do describe what we might consider an indentured servant. Note the last line that gives the reminder to not treat Israelites in the same way as these poor people. You may not be a hard master to Israelites. I wonder why it doesn't say "Don't be a hard master to your bond servant"? Because only Israelites got that little exemption.

 

The last word "gowy" is translated as "nations" or "pagans." Something that Africa sure qualified as in spades. So no wonder the good xians would go there to grab up those folks. So the people would raid one another. Capture the others and sell them to us. That's how it worked and we were free and clear. The bible says so. That's how the Jews are getting slaves right here. What's nice is once they're here and giving birth you can buy up those babies too. Just take a look. This is all the same.

 

Read into it some other motivation to ease your mind and think the Jews were some wonderful folks. Feel free. A slave by any other name. These aren't indentured servants. You want them to be but you can't make these verses go away except by ignoring them entirely. Unless you can show otherwise I believe that I have actually shown my case beyond a shadow of a doubt. Slaves existed in Israel. They were bought/owned/sold/willed by Israelites. They were considered property. They were given harsh treatment. Israelites who were slaves were of a higher status and treated kinder (of the level of an indentured servant). You were held accountable for the treatment of another Israelite. This was/is morally no different than any other form of slavery (not indentured service) including American Slavery. The Mosaic Law was the basis for slavery in America.

 

mwc

[shantonu]

The first reference was for the indentured servants meaning, and placement; the second was an overview of what defined racial slavery. It was eventually stopped; the seeking captives to put into slavery, instead of the down and out. That didn't derive from the Jews. Indentured servitude seemed to be similar though.

Then you have failed to read, or simply you cannot comprehend, what I am putting before you:

 

In the colony of Massachusetts a body of fundamental laws was established in 1641.

One of the articles, based on the Mosaic code

, provides that "

there shall never be any bond slavery

, villeinage, nor captivity among us,

unless it be lawful captives

, taken in just wars, and such strangers as willingly sell themselves or are sold unto us, and these shall have all the liberties and Christian usages which the law of God established in Israel requires. This exempts none from servitude who shall be judged thereto by authority."

 

How is this any different than this?

44 But you may get servants as property from among the nations round about; from them you may take men-servants [ebed] and women-servants [amah]. 45 And in addition, you may get, for money, servants from among the children of other nations [gowy] who are living with you, and from their families which have come to birth in your land; and these will be your property. 46 And they will be your children's heritage after you, to keep as their property; they will be your servants [abad] for ever; but you may not be hard masters to your countrymen, the children of Israel.

 

Ebed, amah are references to slaves since the context obviously shows as much (purchasing, owning as property, willing to children). Indentured servants would never be described as such and are not described as such. Abad is to work, serve, etc. and this says that these people will do it forever. Indentured servants do not become your servant forever and are never described in such a manner. These people are. These people are slaves. Their offspring are slaves. There is no question as to what they are here. None at all especially in contrast with the surrounding verses that do describe what we might consider an indentured servant. Note the last line that gives the reminder to not treat Israelites in the same way as these poor people. You may not be a hard master to Israelites. I wonder why it doesn't say "Don't be a hard master to your bond servant"? Because only Israelites got that little exemption.

 

The last word "gowy" is translated as "nations" or "pagans." Something that Africa sure qualified as in spades. So no wonder the good xians would go there to grab up those folks. So the people would raid one another. Capture the others and sell them to us. That's how it worked and we were free and clear. The bible says so. That's how the Jews are getting slaves right here. What's nice is once they're here and giving birth you can buy up those babies too. Just take a look. This is all the same.

 

Read into it some other motivation to ease your mind and think the Jews were some wonderful folks. Feel free. A slave by any other name. These aren't indentured servants. You want them to be but you can't make these verses go away except by ignoring them entirely. Unless you can show otherwise I believe that I have actually shown my case beyond a shadow of a doubt. Slaves existed in Israel. They were bought/owned/sold/willed by Israelites. They were considered property. They were given harsh treatment. Israelites who were slaves were of a higher status and treated kinder (of the level of an indentured servant). You were held accountable for the treatment of another Israelite. This was/is morally no different than any other form of slavery (not indentured service) including American Slavery. The Mosaic Law was the basis for slavery in America.

 

mwc

 

mwc: You are very learned, but what does your nuanced argument matter? Slavery is wrong in all cases, whether the slaves are captives are won justly in war or kidnapped from their beds. Would not a loving and benevolent and all-seeing God just tell us this and spare us 3,000 years of confusion. He seemed perfectly willing to tell us not to steal goats, a principle we might have deduced ourselves. Yet with respect to slavery, women's rights, and war crimes--areas where humankind is most apt to fail--God was curiously silent.

 

Whether God exists or not is a different question from whether such an entity is worthy of praise and worship. Any deity worthy of love and praise would not have left us in the dark for so long on issues like slavery only to piece things together for ourselves from scraps of contradictory rules.

[Ouroboros]

Can you prove He doesn't exist? If not. I ask you the same question, Why construct a life around something that you are unable to prove non existent? Apples for apples. Right?

True. I can't prove God to not exist. And why would I construct a life around something around that concept? Well, I just don't believe in God. Belief is more of a feeling or emotion than a knowledge. So in lack of a God to believe in, I have to create a system that works for me. How that system looks like is very individual and independent. All un-believers got their own version, but there are of course commonalities which are based on some facts about life. We all want to live, if we didn't, we probably would off ourselves, and there wouldn't be a problem to even consider. We also want to live happy lives and fulfill some basic needs, and maybe even some pleasures, and there we might have to compromise at times by exchanging the fulfillment for some needs or desires for fulifllment of other needs or desires. We're flexible.

 

However, LNC has brought on, without really arguing for it, a problem with non-God concepts. I most likely will take some heat for this, but that's good, I like to stir the pot occasionally. And it is not the purpose for the individual but rather the purpose or future goal of humanity as such. The question one could ask is: what good is it that humanity lives, thrives, and survives? A non-believe can't give a reason to why it is good to have humans on this planet. We can only conclude: it is what it is, while the religious could argue that God have a purpose for the humans as a whole. So if you want an argument, I think that's one, but on the other hand, I'm happy just to be human, and be part of the whole, and do what is best primarily for me, and then for my family, next my friends, then lastly society. I'm content with that, and no belief really can fill any hole or lack of happiness in that area. I'm good with not having a purpose for Earth, as long as I can make a purpose for myself.

[mwc]

mwc: You are very learned, but what does your nuanced argument matter? Slavery is wrong in all cases, whether the slaves are captives are won justly in war or kidnapped from their beds. Would not a loving and benevolent and all-seeing God just tell us this and spare us 3,000 years of confusion. He seemed perfectly willing to tell us not to steal goats, a principle we might have deduced ourselves. Yet with respect to slavery, women's rights, and war crimes--areas where humankind is most apt to fail--God was curiously silent.

 

Whether God exists or not is a different question from whether such an entity is worthy of praise and worship. Any deity worthy of love and praise would not have left us in the dark for so long on issues like slavery only to piece things together for ourselves from scraps of contradictory rules.

I don't know if I'm learned or tenacious.

 

There is a difference between indentured service and flat out slavery. There is a difference between basically saying slaves way back when were treated reasonably well, possibly paid like a hired hand, and spinning this into a situation where slavery isn't slavery to morally justify slavery. If slaves of old were treated like royalty (hyperbole) then everyone should be a slave. This means that YHWH was ordering a very moral and just thing. Can't you see? He was quite nice. But this, in reality, isn't the case. Slavery was just as ugly then as it ever was. That is why I kept after this. It should not be allowed to be turned into something it clearly wasn't and never has been.

 

As for what an YHWH should have done? I've been letting you guys fight that out. I've been down this road before. Until a "god" appears I can't speak to what its morals might be.

 

Of course, historically, I cannot say it was right or wrong. It simply was. But that's something different. Clearly from the text the author(s) have made their positions pretty clear. Slavery is fine unless you're an Israelite. Since they're speaking for their god I'm going to say he agreed.

 

mwc

[LNC]

You haven't proven that your version of god and your definitions of "good and evil" are objective. You also haven't proven that "god's nature" can be defined as "good", and that he acts according to his nature.

However, humans have been shown to act according to their nature, both good and bad (evil is a religious term), and that they exist as the basis and origin of morality. Remember, without humans, there is no morality, nor standard to even consider morality.

 

So, I guess you are arguing for subjective morality then? You say that humans act according to their nature and then use the words "good" and "bad" which suggests a standard by which you can measure these actions. How can we measure good and bad if we don't have an external standard to measure the actions of our nature? You haven't proved that without humans there is no morality, just assumed that point. Please explain how we judge actions of the nature.

[LNC]

I am saying that the Bible was made up by men. "Made up" puts a slant on it that I don't really have. I think the men (and possibly women) that wrote the Bible were doing the best they could under the circumstances. The Bible is a valuable storehouse of ideas about the divine.

 

It also contains some pretty immoral stuff (immoral even by its own standards, which you can use as your "universal" standard of ethics). Thus, the Bible contradicts itself because later people are more morally sophisticated than the original authors.

 

Let me give you an analogy. Imagine that Jefferson wrote the Constittution of the United States. Jefferson did write the Declaration of Independence, which proclaims that "all men are created equal." But the Constitution allows for slavery and obliquely mentions slavery in the 3/5ths Compromise. Moreover, we know that Jefferson held slaves.

 

Is this a contradciction? Jefferson would not have understood this to be contradiction because he did not see slavery as a moral wrong. We modern Americans do recognize this as a contradiction because we, having the benefit of hindsight, realize that slavery was always wrong.

 

Thus, the reason why the stories talk about a God that says "don't murder" at the same time he says "except for these Amalekite children" is that the authors of the those stories would not have seen a contradiction. Just a Jefferson would have seen no contradiction in owning slaves and the expression "all men are created equal."

 

We, however, see this as a complete contradiction. And we are right because, having learned the lessons of history, we see that God would not have ordered the slaying of children and babies.

 

So, what would be your evidence that the Bible was merely made up by men and women? I think that if it was, they certainly would not have included much of what is in there and would have added information that isn't in there (i.e. resolved disputes through the words of Scripture.)

 

Now, you say that it contains immoral stuff, and that is true as it is recorded history (another reason to believe th it is not just made up by people); however, it doesn't condone immoral acts, that is the difference. You also say that people are more "morally sophisticated" than the authors and I would like to hear how you arrive at such a conclusion.

 

The Declaration does say that all men are created equal and basis that in the fact that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights. That was the basis of saying that all men are equal.

 

The fact that Jefferson was a slave holder in the sense that it was occurring in the U.S. and the U.K. shows that these men were not more sophisticated than the writers of the Bible, but less so. No one in the Biblical times would have considered this type of slave holding to be ethical. Yes, they did practice slave holding; however, it was either an indentured servitude (much like what happens when we take out a 30 year mortgage or a 3-5 car note), where he slave works off a debt; or sometimes people were enslaved after losing a war. However, even those slaves had rights, unlike the slavery practiced in early America and the U.K.

 

We can also look at moral laxness in our day that would have brought shame to the people of earlier generations. So, it is not necessarily the case that we are morally superior to earlier generations; in many ways we are worse.

 

Regarding the Amalekites, again, you need to show me on what objective basis you are judging here. You are bringing indictment against God and I am not sure that you have standing to do so. Please let me know.

[LNC]

It is possible to be loyal without rebelling. My point was that sometimes the most loyal thing to do is to rebel, such as when a soldier disobeys an immoral order from a superior. His disobedience his not disloyalty, but rather a display of true loyalty. This is the lesson of My Lai and other such incidents. Certainly the most loyal Germans were not the ones that obeyed Hitler but those (perhaps too few) who resisted.

 

Your example doesn't really fit. To whom is he being loyal when rebelling against these immoral orders? He is being loyal to a higher authority. Now, what if he were to resist that authority because they issued the same order, he would have to appeal to an even higher authority. What if the highest earthly authority issued the command to do something immoral? Well, in the atheist viewpoint, there would be no higher authority to which to appeal. The Christian has a higher authority as Peter stated when he was commanded not to preach in the name of Jesus he answered, "Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge, for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard." (Acts 4:19-20) However, I would call this more of an act of Resistance rather than rebellion. I see rebellion as an unrighteous act of disobedience of just authority. But again, one needs a higher authority than government to which to appeal, and I am afraid that the atheist does not have that authority as there is nothing higher than man.

[LNC]

Why bother. I believe that I have sufficient rational reasons for moral behavior out side of any theistic claim. However, this happens to be your pet argument for god's existence.

 

Therefore, Nothing I could ever say on this subject would live up to your standards, because the only answer to this question you believe is valid is, "God says this is immoral."

For me, this answer is actually the opposite of a good moral framework, but you aren't here to learn, just to assert your ideas and preach at us....why should I bother presenting ideas when you will throw them out without even seriously considering them?

 

You may have sufficient grounds for you, but those grounds do not necessarily apply to anyone else. You can say something that would live up to, no my standards, but objective standards, by proving that you have such a basis for morality. I just don't see way to come up with such a basis apart from God, but I am open to hearing alternative ideas if they are out there. Also, you are confusing the conversation. I am not arguing how we know at this point, we first must establish that there is something that we can, in fact, objectively know. Otherwise, it is just an exchange of opinions. BTW, I am very willing to learn, I just haven't seen anyone step up with a valid argument, and there have been few that have even attempted to offer one. Now, you say that I am here to preach and I don't know that I have done much of that; however, I have seen some preaching coming from the other perspective. Second, I will given honest consideration to any idea set forth; however, don't expect me to just accept any idea put forth. This is a discussion site, we are here to exchange ideas, you don't have to accept mine and I don't have to accept yours, but we certainly can have a give and take to get to the truth.

[LNC]

My thoughts exactly. Very well said Agnosticator. LNC, virtually everything you say on here is an opinion and therefore, not objective. So pretty much, you just say "i don't like Parmesan" again and again and again. You need to first prove there is a god and THEN you can begin to go about telling us about his morality and nature. Only then can you go from there in trying to justify his sick and monsterous acts in the OT. As agnosticator said, humans are the only basis for morality and it is from there that we have our right and wrong and good and bad and also God and Satan/god and whomever his evil doer counterpart is. But the bottom line is, as it is for any christain who comes on to these boards, prove your god exists above all the other gods. Otherwise you may as well try and argue why Bullwinkle has 4 points on his rack and not 3 or 5.

 

If you don't agree that objective morality exists, I am fine with that, just come out and say so. I thought you guys assumed that God existed and wanted to prove that he was evil because of the accounts in the Bible. So, now you want me first to prove that he exists before you can call him evil because of the stories in the Bible? Really, what have been talking about is whether objective moral values exist, and whether they can exist if God doesn't. If humans are the only basis for morality, then your argument seems to be that objective moral values don't exist. Is that what you are arguing? I am just trying to be certain of what you are actually saying.

[LNC]

I think it goes deeper than that. Even if LNC were to be able to prove beyond all doubt that the God of the Bible existed, why would we worship such a God? Only because he was more powerful than us. But inequality of power doesn't justify worship. We wouldn't worship aliens just because they may have a more advance technology than we do.

 

I claim to be morally superior to God. In fact, almost everyone in the world is morally superior to God. That's the import of the 1 Samuel 5:3 critique. So why would we worship something simply because it's powerful if it is not also, just, loving, merciful, benevolent and fun to be around?

 

I should not have said that "almost everyone everyone in the world is morally superior to God. I should have said that everyone is morally superior to God. I mean even the worst murderers know in their heart that what they do is wrong. But God apparently thinks that killing the first born of the Egyptians was a deed well deserving of praise.

 

OK, do you make that claim as a subjective observation or objective. If it is subjective, it is basically meaningless. If objective, then you need to show from where you get this objective moral basis on which to judge God and act as his moral superior. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, at least I believe that is what many of you atheists say.

[shantonu]

I think it goes deeper than that. Even if LNC were to be able to prove beyond all doubt that the God of the Bible existed, why would we worship such a God? Only because he was more powerful than us. But inequality of power doesn't justify worship. We wouldn't worship aliens just because they may have a more advance technology than we do.

 

I claim to be morally superior to God. In fact, almost everyone in the world is morally superior to God. That's the import of the 1 Samuel 5:3 critique. So why would we worship something simply because it's powerful if it is not also, just, loving, merciful, benevolent and fun to be around?

 

I should not have said that "almost everyone everyone in the world is morally superior to God. I should have said that everyone is morally superior to God. I mean even the worst murderers know in their heart that what they do is wrong. But God apparently thinks that killing the first born of the Egyptians was a deed well deserving of praise.

 

OK, do you make that claim as a subjective observation or objective. If it is subjective, it is basically meaningless. If objective, then you need to show from where you get this objective moral basis on which to judge God and act as his moral superior. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, at least I believe that is what many of you atheists say.

 

I get the objective basis from God's own words. It's an objective claim based upon the fact that I can abide by the 6th Commandment, but God doesn't seem to able to do the same. Is the 6th Commandment just for us humans so that God can murder if he wants to? If so, then the Commandement itself is not good but is to be obeyed merely because God says to obey it. If the Commandment itself is good, then God should keep it too. But, according to the Biblical text, God murdered (or had murdered) lots of little Egyptian, Amalekite, and Caananite children. There is my extraordinary proof. Q.E.D.

[Ouroboros]

LNC, even though I don't agree with Adams's new modified DCT, because I can't see why "God's love" or some arbitrary definition of the word "good" applied to a fictitious God makes anything more absolute, I will agree that my definition of morality is subjective and not absolute. So lets take this discussion a different way now, and let me hear you side instead. What is your morality based on? What is your absolute ground on which you have founded goodness?

[shantonu]

LNC, even though I don't agree with Adams's new modified DCT, because I can't see why "God's love" or some arbitrary definition of the word "good" applied to a fictitious God makes anything more absolute, I will agree that my definition of morality is subjective and not absolute. So lets take this discussion a different way now, and let me hear you side instead. What is your morality based on? What is your absolute ground on which you have founded goodness?

 

There are two senses of the word "objective" afoot here and that is leading to confusion.

 

The first sense of "objective" is the weak sense of being external to the subject. So the Hindu laws of non-harm and the Sixth Commandment are both objective in this sense because they are both external to the particular actor. Thus, the person commiting a certain act--say a murder--can be seen to have acted in contradiction to some objective standard.

 

The second sense of "objective" is the strong sense of being absolutely true, real, and unbounded in both time and space. So if God exists (perhaps) then his justice might be said to be "objective" in this second sense.

 

However, if LNC (or indeed any of us) has the second sense in mind, that is out of bounds. LNC cannot possibly mean that the Christian God's moral and ethical rules are objective in this second sense. He can say that he believes them to be objective in that sense, but his personal beliefs carry no weight. He certainly can never prove that God's moral and ethical rules are strong-sense subjective because to do so would be to prove the existence and exclusive reality of the Christian God, which seems too heavy a burden. LNC can assert, sort of by fiat, that the Bible says that God's ethics are strong-sense objective, but this carries no more weight than the bald assertion because we are not bound to take the Bible seriously as an authority.

 

So we can only be talking about weak-sense objectivity. However, on weak-sense objectivity, God is demonstrably immoral by his own terms, as the conflict between the 6th Commandment and the mass-killings makes clear.

[Ouroboros]

So we can only be talking about weak-sense objectivity. However, on weak-sense objectivity, God is demonstrably immoral by his own terms, as the conflict between the 6th Commandment and the mass-killings makes clear.

I totally agree, and I have seen this too but didn't make any effort to bring it up. Just too many things to talk about. But you're absolutely right. Since "absolute morality" obviously does not apply to animals, they do not see the absolute morality to apply to all living beings, but only moral agents. Secondly, in my opinion, it's a bit difficult to apply morality to God regardless, just because morality supposes a counterpart in action. I don't think a person who jump into spaceship, fly to a desolate planet, and lives the rest of his life alone, really can be judged moral or immoral. All these terms require someone else in the mix to interact with. Morality is basically the rules for interactions between one person and the next, and God would need another God to even have a reason to be moral. But then on the other hand, we have a certain level of concern (as humans) how we treat animals. Morality for humans do stretch into the area of how we treat lower, non-moral-agent, beings. So God would in that sense have a certain responsibility to act right towards us, just like we should act in a limited way right towards animals.

 

I think the best way (at least for me) to approach this now is to see: is the modified divine command theory (mDCT) practical? Is it useful? Doesn't bring anything new to the table to judge morality or goodness in certain acts? Or is it just a superfluous description of a very abstract construct with no real pragmatic value? And I think the best way is to start discussing real-life situations where it is usually hard to judge what is right and what is not, and base it on mDCT.

 

For anyone who wonder what mDCT is, it's an attempt to circumvent the Euthyphro's dilemma, and part of that attempt is to separate "moral" from "good" and even go further to say that God's love is the foundation for what God's good acts, and from God's love and God's goodness arise morality. So morality is then not absolute in itself, but a bi-product of God being good. While God's goodness is innate in God's nature and not created. This is a clever way to clean up the problem, but the issue I have is how to define "goodness" and "love". What does it really mean that God is good? And why is God good? What proves God to be good? How can we know God must be good, and not something else? Perhaps it is just based on a personal belief rather than reason at that point? And if it's just based on belief in God, then would it be an objective view on morality anymore, or does it become a subjective view? I think that's the next set of questions LNC needs to answer.

[shantonu]

For anyone who wonder what mDCT is, it's an attempt to circumvent the Euthyphro's dilemma, and part of that attempt is to separate "moral" from "good" and even go further to say that God's love is the foundation for what God's good acts, and from God's love and God's goodness arise morality. So morality is then not absolute in itself, but a bi-product of God being good. While God's goodness is innate in God's nature and not created. This is a clever way to clean up the problem, but the issue I have is how to define "goodness" and "love". What does it really mean that God is good? And why is God good? What proves God to be good? How can we know God must be good, and not something else? Perhaps it is just based on a personal belief rather than reason at that point? And if it's just based on belief in God, then would it be an objective view on morality anymore, or does it become a subjective view? I think that's the next set of questions LNC needs to answer.

 

This is all a bit too complicated for me. I'm pretty sure that the basis of morality seems to reside in the intersection of five or so related concepts that serve as guides. So most moral actions can be derived from some combination of the following:

 

1. Always treat human beings as ends in themselves not means to an end. Don't think of human beings as objects.

2. Always act as if people you respect were watching you act. Do your best not to make too many exceptions. Live in accordance with your best principles.

3. Don't harm sentient beings unecessarily.

4. Do as much postitive good as you can. Give of yourself and be charitable without expectation of any recompense.

5. Check your actions and inactions against how much joy and misery your actions create in the real world. If your actions or inactions are creating joy, that's a good indicator that they are good. If not, not.

6. In a world of victims and executioners, don't be on the side of the executioners.

 

These "rules" are not new nor are they foolproof. The first two come from Kant, the third from the Hindu doctrine of non-harm, the fourth from Jesus, the fifth from John Stuart Mill, the sixth from Albert Camus.

 

All of these rules work together to form a moral whole. We learned these rules from great teachers like Jesus and the Buddha and also from the bitter experience of slavery and the Holocaust. These are things worked out through human experience over time. Some of them come from reason, others from the fiat of particular authorities (like Jesus), but mostly through experience and trial and error. These rules seem to be stable. While they don't capture every moral action, and some moral actions might be moral even if they violate one or more of these principles, I can't imagine a world where a majority of these rules were violated and we still called the action "moral."

 

When we compare the actions of Joshua's army to these rules, I can't see how the wholesale slaughter of women, children, and non-combatants could ever be considered moral given that such action violates every ethical principle we know of.

 

Since God is reported to have ordered these killings, I can't see how we attribute the label "good" to such a being. The only plausible argument is the one you raise and critique--that God is outside the realm of good or evil. Perhaps that's so, but it's a bizzare and self-defeating result because then there would be no reason to worship such a being other than fear. And you and I have outgrown such fears.

[Ouroboros]

Shantonu, I totally agree. We're on the same wavelength. And it's a good compilation you made there.

 

Morality as we see it has definitely grown out of trial-and-error. It's not like humans ran around and killed each other relentlessly and indiscriminately for thousands of years until Plato or Jesus came along. The tribal code of conduct existed before written language existed, and before that the primitive moral conduct some species of apes display today. Dogs also show a very simple form of conduct and even fairness (as it was presented in some recent scientific article, if I remember it correctly). Primitive code of conduct must exist, it is necessary, for most species to survive. A pack of wolfs don't go around and kill each other for food. Yes, sometimes they can kill their newborns, and sometimes they can go a bit on the wild side, but they prioritize other animals as their source of food. This shows that there is a basic programming in every animal to spare the peer and see your comrade as more valued than other species (or individuals from other packs). Now the Theists can claim "God put that code there," but then if moral is based on what God put there, wouldn't it then follow that animals are moral agents too? Or is the primitive code of conduct not moral? Does this mean that our restraint from killing each other is not a moral code, but just a planted code of conduct?

[centauri]

Now, you say that it contains immoral stuff, and that is true as it is recorded history (another reason to believe th it is not just made up by people); however, it doesn't condone immoral acts, that is the difference.

 

Do you regard abortion as a moral or immoral act if a wife is impregnated by someone other than her husband?

Do you regard it moral or immoral to kill someone if they work on the wrong day of the week?

Do you regard it moral or immoral to eat pork?

Do you regard it moral or immoral to place a lower monetary value on the lives of children, women, and the aged?

Do you regard it moral or immoral to make slaves out of war captives (of all ages) and subject them to forced labor?

Do you regard it moral or immoral to kill people if they fail to hold the "proper" beliefs?

[Ouroboros]

I'm starting to suspect LNC never read the Bible...

 

Leviticus 20:9 ESV

 

For anyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother; his blood is upon him.

I think that is an outrageous law in the Bible. It is an immoral law. And I'm glad that society grew away from literal obedience to the Old Testament and God's absolute commands.

[shantonu]

Shantonu, I totally agree. We're on the same wavelength. And it's a good compilation you made there.

 

Morality as we see it has definitely grown out of trial-and-error. It's not like humans ran around and killed each other relentlessly and indiscriminately for thousands of years until Plato or Jesus came along. The tribal code of conduct existed before written language existed, and before that the primitive moral conduct some species of apes display today. Dogs also show a very simple form of conduct and even fairness (as it was presented in some recent scientific article, if I remember it correctly). Primitive code of conduct must exist, it is necessary, for most species to survive. A pack of wolfs don't go around and kill each other for food. Yes, sometimes they can kill their newborns, and sometimes they can go a bit on the wild side, but they prioritize other animals as their source of food. This shows that there is a basic programming in every animal to spare the peer and see your comrade as more valued than other species (or individuals from other packs). Now the Theists can claim "God put that code there," but then if moral is based on what God put there, wouldn't it then follow that animals are moral agents too? Or is the primitive code of conduct not moral? Does this mean that our restraint from killing each other is not a moral code, but just a planted code of conduct?

 

It does seem that apes have a primitive moral code and studies show that chimps will punish other chimps that don't share food sources. This may be the basis of our moral instinct. We would have needed such a moral instinct to survive as communal animals.

 

There is also the primitive "tribal" morality, where rules are enforced within the in-group, but there are no rules with regard to the out-group. This sort of morality is often referred to as the gangster morality because of its similarity to Sicilian organized crime syndicates which complex codes for dealing with in-group members but with respect to out-group members anything goes.

 

However, the actual moral codes of sophisticated religions and philosophies go far beyond these basics. To some extent, that's what we see in the Bible. You start out with simple tribal rules for dealing with in-groups and outgroups but then, around the time of Isaiah, morality sheds the initial tribalism and becomes more universal. This reaches its high point with Jesus, though even Jesus isn't all the way there because he seems to consider it legitimate that Samaritans are to be treated differently that Judeans. Jesus is not at the level of Kant, but Jesus is light years away from the primitive, tribal morality of YHWH.

[Ouroboros]

Again, I agree with you Shantonu, and the extension of morality on top of the primitive (animal) form is, in my opinion, related to the extension of language and ideas. And those additional, or superimposed codes, are much more subjective than the primitive ones. To "not-kill-a-peer" is a necessary for survival, or primal code, while "thou shalt not swear in front of children," is a cultural and more subjective form. That's why it's very hard to say that subjective morality is absolute or relative, because it is both. And looking at Christians interpretations of the laws in their book, one can see how arbitrary they interpret it. One code in their book is an absolute, while the next is not, and they use excuses like "that was written to xyz and not me," while the fully accept the next verse written to "abc." They pick the code they like, and reject the ones they dislike. So their interpretation and cherry-picking is more a signature of who they are as a person, rather than an absolute guideline.