[quote]pushharder wrote:
study up.
[/quote]
Hey, man, you try condensing four pivotal tales from the Old Testament into sarcastic off-the-cuff one-liners at two in the morning sometime without leaving out a few details.
You wouldn’t, of course, on general principles, so you can do the Bhagavad Gita instead.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
You wouldn’t, of course, on general principles, so you can do the Bhagavad Gita instead.
[/quote]
“Just in case, tip your cabbie well.”
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[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.
[/quote]
Is it? Exodus 21:2-11 seem to deal with Hebrew servants. Exodus 21:12-36 appear to apply universally. I very well may be wrong, but the first group of verses begins with “If you buy a Hebrew servant,” and the second group of verses appears to deal with “Anyone.”
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[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.
[/quote]
Is it? Exodus 21:2-11 seem to deal with Hebrew servants. Exodus 21:12-36 appear to apply universally. I very well may be wrong, but the first group of verses begins with “If you buy a Hebrew servant,” and the second group of verses appears to deal with “Anyone.” [/quote]
Deuteronomy 24:7 contains an amendment. Or clarification, perhaps.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
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?[/quote]
Maybe. As I said before, if you quote a specific verse from the bible and I’ll look at the specific circumstances and so on and tell you why it is or isn’t immoral. But there are many mysteries that I don’t understand and I don’t profess to know everything.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
study up.
[/quote]
Hey, man, you try condensing four pivotal tales from the Old Testament into sarcastic off-the-cuff one-liners at two in the morning sometime without leaving out a few details.
[/quote]
Extremism in the defense of condensation is a vice.[/quote]
Moderation in defence of evaporation is a virtue.
Sorry for the delay in replying. I was busy last night. Okay…
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
No, none of this is adding up. Because, again, you are twisting yourself to hell.
[/quote]
In what way? Be specific.
Actually, we’re talking about actions and whether the person/entity carrying out those actions is immoral in doing so. Stealing is immoral. I’m sure you agree. But a man who steals to feed his starving family is not necessarily acting immorally. This is not “waffling” or “twisting” and it’s not moral relativism. You are denouncing the actions/commands of God and ignoring circumstances, alternatives, limitations, intent, type and degree - although admittedly you are now getting a bit more specific but you still have not quoted a specific verse so we can move from your hypotheticals and the bible.
[quote]
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.[/quote]
Yes. And so is stealing. See above. Further, as I’ve explained in other threads, there is a difference between a state protecting the rights of its citizens and how nation states deal with other nation states - ie, IR is an inherently lawless, anarchic and chaotic environment; a state of perpetual war or defacto war. Under war conditions the primary duty of the state is to protect its own citizens; practical and material considerations must take precedence over universal human rights.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Sorry for the delay in replying. I was busy last night. Okay…
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
No, none of this is adding up. Because, again, you are twisting yourself to hell.
[/quote]
In what way? Be specific.
Actually, we’re talking about actions and whether the person/entity carrying out those actions is immoral in doing so. Stealing is immoral. I’m sure you agree. But a man who steals to feed his starving family is not necessarily acting immorally. This is not “waffling” or “twisting” and it’s not moral relativism. You are denouncing the actions/commands of God and ignoring circumstances, alternatives, limitations, intent, type and degree - although admittedly you are now getting a bit more specific but you still have not quoted a specific verse so we can move from your hypotheticals and the bible.
[quote]
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.[/quote]
Yes. And so is stealing. See above. Further, as I’ve explained in other threads, there is a difference between a state protecting the rights of its citizens and how nation states deal with other nation states - ie, IR is an inherently lawless, anarchic and chaotic environment; a state of perpetual war or defacto war. Under war conditions the primary duty of the state is to protect its own citizens; practical and material considerations must take precedence over universal human rights.[/quote]
Lev. 25:44 has been invoked half a dozen times over the course of this thread. I also cited peer-reviewed literature vis-a-vis the taking of foreign slaves and the keeping of their progeny. I now add the O.A.B. comment: After a line about how an Israelite could sell himself as a hired servant but could not become a slave proper and in perpetuity, the misfortune of the foreigner is presented in contrast: “It is permissible, however, to make slaves of non-Israelites, since, according to the ancient way of thinking, they are outside the boundaries of the covenant community.”
Now, even if Exod. 21:16 is taken to proscribe kidnapping generally (rather than only the kidnapping of fellow Hebrews, as in Deut. 24:7), it prohibits only kidnapping by the covenanted, and, more importantly, it tells us that the kidnapping – which is not the capture in war – and forcible enslavement of people was something that happened in the area and time of its composition. This being relevant because nowhere is the purchase of a foreign slave qualified or restricted so as to consider his or her origin or the manner in which he or she became enslaved.
The result of which is that my hypothetical stands. Speaking of which, you ask me what I mean when I say that you’re twisting yourself up. I mean this: You have answers – simple answers – but you spent the last couple of days trying not to offer them. It was settled days ago that there are kinds of “slavery” that could be considered gray: And yet you are still drawing up irrelevant analogies to a starving man’s theft of bread. Irrelevant because the analogy has jack and shit to do with the question at hand, which is whether or not the kind of Biblical slavery that violates what you believe to be the natural rights of man is moral or immoral.
Now, finally, you seem to have answered:
[quote]
[quote]
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?[/quote]
Yes.[/quote]
About which I will say Q.E.D., and then I will leave the thing alone. I suspect you’re going to ask me what my point is: You know just what it is. I’ve offered it again and again, and I don’t feel inclined to repeat the repeated.
Edited.
From here you can say either that I have misinterpreted the passages, which is not true, or that god knows my scenario is immoral but “didn’t have to list everything immoral.” The answer to which has already been provided multiple times. See the material about Bob and rape, and about god being either incompetent or immoral.
Edited.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Premises and Conclusions, smh.[/quote]
Yes indeed.
Edited to fix bold for clarity
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Lev. 25:44 has been invoked half a dozen times over the course of this thread. I also cited peer-reviewed literature vis-a-vis the taking of foreign slaves and the keeping of their progeny. I now add the O.A.B. comment: After a line about how an Israelite could sell himself as a hired servant but could not become a slave proper and in perpetuity, the misfortune of the foreigner is presented in contrast: “It is permissible, however, to make slaves of non-Israelites, since, according to the ancient way of thinking, they are outside the boundaries of the covenant community.”
[/quote]
That is my point about the difference between extending rights to your own people and foreigners keeping in mind that the Israelites, indeed any Bronze Age tribe, were at war with all their neighbours. The “slaves” they’re talking about are “prisoners of war” by virtue of the fact that they are foreigners - ie, not of the covenant.
You’re missing the key point. They were “captured in war” - maybe not off the battlefield, but the fact they were “foreigners” means they were the enemy and an actual existential threat. If you’ve studied contemporary sources then you’d know that the Israelites lived on the very edge of existence. Surrounded by hostile empires and peoples; the Hittites, the Egyptians, the Mitanni, the Babylonians, the Canaanites, the Assyrians, the Persians/Medes, the Seleucids, the Romans etc. They were in a state of perpetual war with everyone and they could be(and almost were) completely wiped out and/or taken away as slaves themselves by any of these people(foreigners) at any time. This lesson would’ve been ingrained on them through their founding mythology(Egyptian captivity and Exodus) and throughout the subsequent millennia. These are the circumstances under which we speak of buying a “foreigner” as a slave. And so yes, under such circumstances it’s not necessarily immoral to buy a foreign slave if you treat them well.
And I’ve answered it above.
I was being forced to answer hypotheticals that bore no relation to anything that I was talking about. But I’ve answered your questions and I’ve gone into detail to explain my thinking on the subject.
Actually, it is a good analogy that demolishes your claims of “moral relativism”. It highlights the importance of circumstances and alternatives and so on. Those are the things that need to be taken into account when you’re denouncing slavery and trying to paint the bible as immoral on those grounds.
[quote]
…which is whether or not the kind of Biblical slavery that violates what you believe to be the natural rights of man is moral or immoral.
Now, finally, you seem to have answered…
About which I will say Q.E.D., and then I will leave the thing alone. I suspect you’re going to ask me what my point is: You know just what it is. I’ve offered it again and again, and I don’t feel inclined to repeat the repeated.
Edited.[/quote]
Your point? Any points you thought you had are now moot. You have failed to show that the bible is “immoral” - that was certainly one of your points and on the issue of slavery I showed it to be a baseless moralising.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
And were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome."[/quote]
The very science that certain Christians seem to rail against on a daily basis. 
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
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]
No.
What I’m saying is this-
“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.”
Such is the circumstance.
Now, there are two ways to approach this. Either you approach it in the sense of objective morality [suppose we applied this SPECIFIC objective moral- “It is objectively immoral to murder an individual”], or you approach it in the sense of subjective morality (aka opinion), and have a number of commonly accepted reasons why it’s wrong to murder someone and appropriate responses to each reasons/etc.
If we approached it in the sense of the objective morality, and we applied the exact objective moral I wrote above, then there can be only a single possible response. Because the only relevant issue here is that the objective moral was violated. Nothing else matters.
If we approached it in the sense of subjective morality (aka opinion), then the commonly accepted reasons for why murder is wrong, whether said reasons apply in this case, and a helluva lot more things must be considered.
All of this is underlined by my belief that objective morality must be absolute. And if something is absolute, then nothing matters besides whether the absolute is upheld or broken.
To bring it back to the original topic of me responding to you writing- "I’d have to say the first step in determining if something is moral or not is answering the question: Is there a victim? "
The reason I bring this whole crap about objective morality vs subjective morality (opinion) is because objective morality cannot really care about whether a victim exists or not. It is concerned with the fact that the objective moral was broken. The higher power who established it could very well just say “murder is objectively wrong because it angers me to see people murder each other”. It doesn’t particularly matter, so long as it has been established that the higher power holds the authority to declare objective morals.
“Is there a victim?” is, as far as I can tell, solidly within the realm of subjective morality (opinion). From what I felt with your previous post, you attempted to use this to establish morality more in the sense of objective morality, because that is what people typically mean when they say “morals”. I could be wrong.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
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.[/quote]
How do you reconcile this with this earlier statement from you?
" So morality is not only universal and objective it is also universally perceived and understood. I don’t buy into that different cultures have different moral systems and mindsets line. When the Aztecs were torturing people to death in their temples I believe they knew what they were doing was immoral and evil. In fact, they were revelling in the evil and immorality."
I have a hard time understanding why you’re bringing up historical precedence and such as like you in your latest posts with smh_23 when you wrote the above.
Are you saying that objective morality only exists for certain things?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
It’s not that God is neutral. Slavery is neutral. You just agreed as much above.
[/quote]
Yes, but because I don’t believe in the concept of objective morality. As far as I’m concerned, EVERYTHING is neutral. Everything depends on the circumstance. I won’t ever say “murder is bad” and then attempt to make a bunch of “EXCEPT IN THESE CASES”. I honestly find that a form of doublespeak.
And I believe that if you believe in objective morality, then everything must either be good or bad. I cannot possibly imagine how there can be a neutral.
[quote]magick wrote:
How do you reconcile this with this earlier statement from you?
" So morality is not only universal and objective it is also universally perceived and understood. I don’t buy into that different cultures have different moral systems and mindsets line. When the Aztecs were torturing people to death in their temples I believe they knew what they were doing was immoral and evil. In fact, they were revelling in the evil and immorality."
[/quote]
It doesn’t need to be reconciled. The two are not in opposition. Slavery is a gray area; there are good aspects, bad aspects, good treatment, bad treatment etc. As you say, most things are like that. But that is not incompatible with a single, universal objective morality. If conditions were the same today as they were in the Bronze Age then slavery would not necessarily be immoral today, because morality is unchanging.
No I’m not saying that at all. I’m having a hard time trying to understand where you’re coming from. I don’t think you understand what objective, universal morality entails. It simply means there is only one moral standard. What was neutral then will always be neutral. The good aspects will always be good and the bad aspects will always be bad.
That doesn’t make any sense. Almost everything is neutral to the extent that everything has good aspects and bad aspects. That is not incompatible with objective morality. Objective morality doesn’t impose an “all good” or “all bad” view of everything. I’ve never even heard of anyone ever saying anything like that. Can you point to anyone who describes objective morality in such terms? ie, that it imposes an “all good” or “all bad” judgement of everything? That doesn’t make sense and I’ve never heard anyone describe objective morality in such a way.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[…]
[/quote]
Thanks for the detailed response. I will get to it, but it may not be until later or tomorrow.