The Killing Joke

[SexMachine]

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

It is on this very page. A Jew buys an enslaved foreigner and owns not only the enslaved foreigner but also his progeny.

[/quote]

If you quote the specific verse I could answer better.

It is a perfectly legitimate criticism that the Bible does not prohibit the buying of a man enslaved by foreigners and the ownership of that man and his progeny.

The bible doesn’t specifically prohibit a lot of things. It has a theme of treating your fellow man well however, and that’s the spirit in which it was written and intended to be read.

So I do, in fact, have the moral high ground.

We’re talking about buying slaves, not “no means of holding prisoners.”

Buying a slave in those times? Not necessarily immoral no.

And the Southern plantation owner who was nice to his human property? He’s not engaged in something flatly immoral?

If he treats them well then it’s not “flatly” immoral; it’s more of a gray area. It’s only “flatly” immoral if he were to treat them poorly or exploit them cruelly.

Edited to fix quotes

[Varqanir]

[quote]Chushin wrote:

So what was the point of your original question?[/quote]

I was trying to elicit this response:

Man intuitively knows right from wrong. He perceives morality as it were. He senses it.

I thought it would be more difficult than that to get a devout believer to say it, as this is typically spoken by non-believers to explain how in the world a person could possibly be moral without the Word of God.

[Varqanir]

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

So what was the point of your original question?[/quote]

I was trying to elicit this response:

Man intuitively knows right from wrong. He perceives morality as it were. He senses it.

I thought it would be more difficult than that to get a devout believer to say it, as this is typically spoken by non-believers to explain how in the world a person could possibly be moral without the Word of God.[/quote]

Gotcha.

BTW, I’m in Nagoya for training with Sensei the next 3 days.
[/quote]

Please give him and M-Sensei my very highest regards.

[magick]

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
No. Not unless the rest of life is a “black and white” world can you possibly hold one aspect of life, morals, to a different standard. That’s utter bullshit.[/quote]

But the entire point of morality is something is outright right or wrong.

The current moral states that it is outright wrong to own slaves, for example.

You can’t get anymore black or white than with morals and the concept of morality.

That’s why I said that subjective morality is simply opinions in fancier words, and objective morality cannot exist unless some higher power who knows all tells us.

It’s clear our disagreement comes from this. I don’t know why you think holding certain aspects of life as “black or white” means we have to hold a great deal many other things “black or white”. I mean… we pretty much consider it absolutely reprehensible and wrong to kill an infant randomly, right? Can’t get any more black or white than the opinion we hold on that.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Whoa… You never said anything about punishment until now. We were talking about reaction. While punishment is a form of reaction, we both know it isn’t the reaction you were talking about.

Are you officially moving the goal posts now or no?[/quote]

You focused on the wrong part. The punishment is irrelevant; it’s the fact that people can disagree on whether a man who committed capital murder should be sentenced to death or to life imprisonment.

I am saying that, if murder is wrong in terms of objective morality, then there must be a single punishment and it makes no sense for people to disagree over it.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Response yes, the same response in all instances? no. [/quote]

Well, such is the conclusion I get to if I apply my interpretation of objective morality.

If it is objectively immoral to steal, then degrees of severity can’t matter. It is objectively wrong to steal. Stealing objectively offends something that I don’t know; enough to make it completely and absolutely wrong.

That can only mean there are no difference between me stealing someone’s lollipop or life-savings.

Now, if you say it’s objectively wrong to steal X and Y and Z and A and B and C and blah blah blah, then clearly you can allow discernment. In this case stealing Z is different from stealing B, and you can allow different punishments.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
However, you started this as a hypothetical about the response of the victim to the METHOD in which the theft takes place. Stop ignoring that. You can’t. You’re being inconsistent. [/quote]

Huh? No.

My original question to you was-
“Is it moral to murder a man who wanted to steal your hat?”

The point always was about the act. I chose hat because most people consider random hats to be irrelevant items in their life (unless, of course, said hat holds great sentimental value or was signed by some superstar or something). I wanted to gauge your reaction to the act of stealing an inconsequential item and the rather harsh response to it.

So the emphasis should be on “response” more than the “method”.

[magick]

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
To sum, I do not follow your train of thought at all about God “proclaiming” anything about slavery. To me it sounds irrational to say that God should be obligated to “proclaim” slavery “bad” when it was just the form that human social structures took at the time.[/quote]

I never meant to meant that he’s obligated to proclaim anything at all. Rather, I am saying that he either knows it’s right or wrong. Because he’s God. He is omnipotent and omniscient and omnipresent. It is inconceivable that he doesn’t know whether slavery is right or wrong.

Whether he tells us this is completely separate from this.

But the Bible is said to be from God. Words in the OT clearly suggest that slavery is accepted.

How can Christians in good faith say slavery is wrong then?

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
It was a part of the social structure of all civilisations prior to your grand daddy. It’s not “good” or “bad” that human societies are rigidly stratified and hierarchical; it’s merely the way things work. It’s in man’s nature to form such social structures.[/quote]

I agree with you.

And, for the record, I don’t see slavery as a morally bad thing. I don’t know if that makes me a horrible person or not in the eyes of others, but it’s the internet. I can say what I really think.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
What are you talking about “neutral cannot exist with God?” [/quote]

How can a Being who knows everything be neutral on anything. He must know the key deciding factor that makes X more preferable/better than Y.

[countingbeans]

I think we’re getting each other confused. Let me try again.

[quote]magick wrote:
The punishment is irrelevant; it’s the fact that people can disagree on whether a man who committed capital murder should be sentenced to death or to life imprisonment.

I am saying that, if murder is wrong in terms of objective morality, then there must be a single punishment and it makes no sense for people to disagree over it.[/quote]

Look at the fact pattern. There was a murder, and the murderer is caught and convicted. People agree his actions were wrong and he should be punished. Okay. We’re all good here.

What I feel like you’re saying is: because we can’t agree on an appropriate punishment, due to some believing an immoral act (eye for an eye if you will) is appropriate, therefore morality is subjective.

Is that about summing it up?

[quote]
Well, such is the conclusion I get to if I apply my interpretation of objective morality.

If it is objectively immoral to steal, then degrees of severity can’t matter. It is objectively wrong to steal. Stealing objectively offends something that I don’t know; enough to make it completely and absolutely wrong.

That can only mean there are no difference between me stealing someone’s lollipop or life-savings.

Now, if you say it’s objectively wrong to steal X and Y and Z and A and B and C and blah blah blah, then clearly you can allow discernment. In this case stealing Z is different from stealing B, and you can allow different punishments.[/quote]

To clear up the confusion: It is immoral to steal. Period. Full stop. Stealing is wrong. One should always seek an alternative way of obtaining what they want or need rather than stealing.

My original question to you was-
“Is it moral to murder a man who wanted to steal your hat?”

The point always was about the act. I chose hat because most people consider random hats to be irrelevant items in their life (unless, of course, said hat holds great sentimental value or was signed by some superstar or something). I wanted to gauge your reaction to the act of stealing an inconsequential item and the rather harsh response to it.

So the emphasis should be on “response” more than the “method”.

Right, which is why it matters if your life is in danger during the theft, as to the morally acceptable response.

Again:

1. If Thief A steals my X while I’m safely 300 miles away and non the wiser until I arrive home. Taking the life of Thief A in response is immoral.

2. If while trying to steal my X Thief A has demonstrated a direct and obvious threat to my life in order to get my X (pulled a knife and approached me in a stabbing motion while standing on a street corner), defending myself with lethal means is moral. I didn’t put myself in the position to have my life threatened, the Thief made me choose between living and dying at his hand. I’m still the victim that has to live with the burden of taking a life I never wanted to take because I was put in a position of “him or me”.

or otherwise stated:

As soon as the thief turns into a possible “theft” of your life, at that moment it is moral to kill the aggressor.

[Varqanir]

[quote]magick wrote:
Is it moral to murder a man who wanted to steal your hat?[/quote]

Yes, it is.

[smh_23]

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

We’re talking about buying slaves, not “no means of holding prisoners.”

Buying a slave in those times? Not necessarily immoral no.[/quote]

Buying and owning a foreigner who was forced into slavery, and subsequently owning his progeny. Owning them, as property, against their will. This is not necessarily immoral on your worldview? OK. I think you’re making those pretzels I was talking about – I think you think the scenario highly immoral, and I think you’re not as committed a moral relativist as you’re presenting yourself to be here. But I can’t prove it, so that will have to be that.

I do have one more question. With regard to this:

[quote]

And the Southern plantation owner who was nice to his human property? He’s not engaged in something flatly immoral?[/quote]

If he treats them well then it’s not “flatly” immoral; it’s more of a gray area. It’s only “flatly” immoral if he were to treat them poorly or exploit them cruelly.

Then you don’t believe that man has a natural right to either liberty or self-sovereignty, correct? You think that’s nonsense, gobbledygook, make-believe?

[dcb]

Sorry for the momentary derailment of this tangent. However, I thought the Mayor of Rotterdam had some good things to say in response to the attack:

“Muslims Who Don’t Like Free Speech Can 'F**k Off” Says Rotterdam Mayor Ahmed Aboutaleb

'Dutch Muslims Who Don't Like Free Speech Can F**k Off' Says Mayor

OK tangent derailment over - back to morality, slavery, etc.

[SexMachine]

[quote]magick wrote:

I never meant to meant that he’s obligated to proclaim anything at all. Rather, I am saying that he either knows it’s right or wrong. Because he’s God. He is omnipotent and omniscient and omnipresent. It is inconceivable that he doesn’t know whether slavery is right or wrong.

[/quote]

But I’m saying slavery is not universally “immoral” - there are bad aspects and not so bad aspects; bad treatment and fair treatment etc. it’s not a cut and dry issue like murder. It’s more complex.

Whether he tells us this is completely separate from this.

But the Bible is said to be from God. Words in the OT clearly suggest that slavery is accepted.

How can Christians in good faith say slavery is wrong then?

Ask them. That’s not what I’m saying.

I agree with you.

And, for the record, I don’t see slavery as a morally bad thing. I don’t know if that makes me a horrible person or not in the eyes of others, but it’s the internet. I can say what I really think.

Of course not. As I said, it was just a part of the social structure; some were treated poorly and exploited, others were treated relatively well.

How can a Being who knows everything be neutral on anything.

It’s not that God is neutral. Slavery is neutral. You just agreed as much above.

[SexMachine]

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

We’re talking about buying slaves, not “no means of holding prisoners.”

Buying a slave in those times? Not necessarily immoral no.[/quote]

Buying and owning a foreigner who was forced into slavery, and subsequently owning his progeny. Owning them, as property, against their will. This is not necessarily immoral on your worldview? OK. I think you’re making those pretzels I was talking about – I think you think the scenario highly immoral, and I think you’re not as committed a moral relativist as you’re presenting yourself to be here. But I can’t prove it, so that will have to be that.

I do have one more question. With regard to this:

[quote]

And the Southern plantation owner who was nice to his human property? He’s not engaged in something flatly immoral?[/quote]

If he treats them well then it’s not “flatly” immoral; it’s more of a gray area. It’s only “flatly” immoral if he were to treat them poorly or exploit them cruelly.

Then you don’t believe that man has a natural right to either liberty or self-sovereignty, correct? You think that’s nonsense, gobbledygook, make-believe?[/quote]

No, I believe in a natural right to liberty. But that’s an ideal that can’t always be attained in every situation. Ideally, no man would be “enslaved” however it’s not necessarily immoral to be a slave owner. I place supreme importance of how people treat their fellow man. A slave owner who treats his slaves well and doesn’t abuse them is not necessarily an “immoral” person. That’s all I’m saying.

[SexMachine]

Buying and owning a foreigner who was forced into slavery, and subsequently owning his progeny. Owning them, as property, against their will. This is not necessarily immoral on your worldview?

In the Bronze Age? Maybe this “foreigner” is from a tribe at war with you? No, not necessarily immoral.

[smh_23]

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

Buying and owning a foreigner who was forced into slavery, and subsequently owning his progeny. Owning them, as property, against their will. This is not necessarily immoral on your worldview?

In the Bronze Age? Maybe this “foreigner” is from a tribe at war with you? No, not necessarily immoral.[/quote]

And say his tribe isn’t at war with you.

Say you are just buying a foreigner.

And owning him.

And his progeny.

This is not immoral?

[smh_23]

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

No, I believe in a natural right to liberty. But that’s an ideal that can’t always be attained in every situation. Ideally, no man would be “enslaved” however it’s not necessarily immoral to be a slave owner. I place supreme importance of how people treat their fellow man. A slave owner who treats his slaves well and doesn’t abuse them is not necessarily an “immoral” person. That’s all I’m saying.[/quote]

No, none of this is adding up. Because, again, you are twisting yourself to hell. This is just a collection of waffling and moral relativism. Natural right to liberty is just “an ideal that can’t always be attained in every situation”? I never said it could: neither can “thou shalt not kill,” nor can “thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife” nor can “don’t cheat and don’t look at women with lustful intent.” We aren’t talking about what is or is not practical vis-a-vis some morally relativistic pudding of ethics. We are talking about what is moral, and what is immoral.

With that in mind: The direct violation of another human being’s natural right, over the course of his life, and the violation of his childrens’ natural right over the course of their lives, is not immoral?

Edited.

[NickViar]

“He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death.” (Exodus 21:16)

That seems like a rule prohibiting forced slavery and encouraging the killing of those who practice such.

[smh_23]

[quote]NickViar wrote:
“He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death.” (Exodus 21:16)

That seems like a rule prohibiting forced slavery and encouraging the killing of those who practice such.[/quote]

Circles we are going in circles we are. This was addressed pages ago. Take a look at the hypothetical we are discussing now.

[Varqanir]

[quote]NickViar wrote:
“He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death.” (Exodus 21:16)

That seems like a rule prohibiting forced slavery and encouraging the killing of those who practice such.[/quote]

It is a rule prohibiting forced enslavement of Hebrew men.

No rules against kidnapping men, women, boys and girls from other tribes, or against Hebrew fathers forcing their pre-teen daughters into slavery.

No rule against buying kidnapped men from non-Hebrews.

Why are you arguing this point so vociferously, Nick? Are you uncomfortable at the thought that the God of the Old Testament–who killed off 99.9999999999 percent of all life on earth because a few Neolithic people in Mesopotamia weren’t following his rules;

who confounded the common language of humanity because a group of other Neolithic people in Mesopotamia were building a menacingly tall structure out of baked adobe bricks;

who commanded a hundred-year-old man to slit the throat of his beloved only son, spill his blood on the altar, then skin him, cut him into pieces and burn him until nothing remained but ash*…and then at the last second sent someone to tell him “just testing you, okay, you passed!”;

who killed off not only the firstborn male children, but also the firstborn of all the livestock, of an entire nation, because their king was being stubborn;

–might just be okay with the idea of slavery?

*this is how you do a burnt offering.