Craven - you speak with great certainty on ethical issues such as slavery - which many find very difficult, what with the fashionablness of moral relativism, and without an appeal to some authority.
I agree with you, and I think there are any number of rational arguments to support that position - but I would be interested to hear yours.
Hmm - wonder if this is too off topic.....?
I'm not sure what you mean by certainty.
To me, morals are a misnomer. To me it's simply about a logical means to an end. People can differ on the end they desire but human nature is such that on some of them (self-preservation, liberty..) most don't.
To me, morals are a misnomer. To me it's simply about a logical means to an end. People can differ on the end they desire but human nature is such that on some of them (self-preservation, liberty..) most don't.
Sorry?
Certainty: I mean with great confidence, as though one is possessed of the truth, indisputably.
Oh - sorry, I get what you mean - no need to respond to my first question.
Can you speak more about liberty? On why you assume this is a majority human aim. What do you mean by it.
dlowan wrote:Oh - and did someone up there say the slavery in Egypt is being doubted?
Could they explain more?
I expect this comment was a reference to the lack of evidence for the enslavement of Hebrews in Egypt.
Since Rauch was kind enough to offer a passage from Paul about slavery, I thought I'd offer a few more:
At 1 Timothy 6:1ff, St. Paul says:
"All under the yoke of slavery must regard their masters as worthy of full respect...Those slaves whose masters are brothers in the faith must not take liberties with them on that account. they must perform their tasks even more faithfully, since those who will profit from their work are believers and beloved brothers."
At Colossians 3:22, St. Paul says:
"To slaves I say, obey your human masters perfectly, not with the purpose of attracting attention and pleasing men, but in all sincerity and our of reverence for the Lord."
At Colossians 4:1, St. Paul says:
"You slave owners, deal justly and fairly with your slaves..."
At Titus 2:9, St. Paul says:
"Slaves are to be submissive to their masters. They should try to please them in every way, not contradicting them nor stealing from them, but expressing a constant fidelity by their conduct, so as to adorn in every way possible the doctrine of God our Savior."
At 1 Corinthians 7:17ff, St. Paul says:
"The general rule is that each one should lead the life the Lord has assigned him, continuing as he was when the Lord called him...Were you a slave when your call came? Give it no thought. Even supposing you could go free, you would be better off making the most of your slavery...."
At Philemon, Paul returns a slave (Onesimus) to his master (Philemon) and tells Philemon that although he ) (Paul) feels he has the right to command Philemon to free Onesimus, he would not do that, but would instead appeal to Philemon to do it on his own.
BOTTOM LINE: Every time Paul had an opportunity to say something definitive about the issue of slavery -- he chose to condone it rather than condemn it.
The notion that Jesus and Paul were worried that they might start a slaver uprising is really fanciful.
The most obvious explanation for why these two men did not condemn slavery is that they did NOT THINK THERE WAS ANYTHING WRONG WITH SLAVERY.
And that is understandable, because the god they both worshipped told them there was nothing wrong with slavery.
Craven de Kere wrote:Laptoploon wrote:As I said before, that which we consider moral today will be held in contempt tomorrow.
Just this weekend on another thread I had said that I'd never seen this fallacy before. What are the odds. It's the opposite of an
appeal to tradition and is fallacious.
Nobody here is asserting that slavery is wrong merely on the basis of its present standing in society.
To suggest that in the future the perception might change is a meaningless fallacy. Simply put, people can be wrong in the future. You've made an
appeal to future tradition that has no validity.
Not at all. You have misunderstood me. My only point is that the belief in moral absolutes is flawed and historical reference is the evidence.
dlowan wrote:Can you speak more about liberty? On why you assume this is a majority human aim. What do you mean by it.
I mean that it is human nature to wish for some freedoms. It might vary from person to person (kinda like Soylent Green) but almost all humans need at least some liberties.
Laptoploon wrote: Not at all. You have misunderstood me. My only point is that the belief in moral absolutes is flawed and historical reference is the evidence.
I didn't misunderstand you, in fact I gave you an award for this underwhelming news flash a long time ago.
Well if it's so damned underwhelming how come so few seem to grasp it, despite it being endlessly pointed out to them?
What constitutes "grasping" it to you?
When I say it's underwhelming I mean that it's stating the obvious.
If it's obvious how is it not grasped? Perhaps I am describing it as "underwhelming" because of the "endless" part and that it's already grasped.
So could you clarify just how you'd like it "grasped"?
And does anyone here not "grasp" that morals are subjective?
Craven de Kere wrote:What constitutes "grasping" it to you?
When I say it's underwhelming I mean that it's stating the obvious.
If it's obvious how is it not grasped? Perhaps I am describing it as "underwhelming" because of the "endless" part and that it's already grasped.
So could you clarify just how you'd like it "grasped"?
And does anyone here not "grasp" that morals are subjective?
Given that you wrote just a few posts ago: "Simply put, people can be wrong in the future" you'll forgive me if I see a certain irony in your later posts.
Laptop - happy to take joint ownership of the "Stating the
Bleedin' Obvious" award
Craven de Kere wrote:What constitutes "grasping" it to you?
When I say it's underwhelming I mean that it's stating the obvious.
If it's obvious how is it not grasped? Perhaps I am describing it as "underwhelming" because of the "endless" part and that it's already grasped.
So could you clarify just how you'd like it "grasped"?
And does anyone here not "grasp" that morals are subjective?
Not only do I grasp it -- I've argued it.
But the fact that morals are subjective, in the context in which Laptop is which it, really doesn't amount to much more than a red herring.
Morals can be subjective -- and all of the questions raised here are still appropriate.
Laptoploon wrote:
Given that you wrote just a few posts ago: "Simply put, people can be wrong in the future" you'll forgive me if I see a certain irony in your later posts.
Forgive? Perhaps. Understand? No.
Do you assert that there is no possibility that people will be wrong in the future? Do you assert that mere sequential adaptation is an argument about validity?
In other words, do you realy stand by the
appeal to future tradition fallacy?
Craven de Kere wrote:Laptoploon wrote:
Given that you wrote just a few posts ago: "Simply put, people can be wrong in the future" you'll forgive me if I see a certain irony in your later posts.
Forgive? Perhaps. Understand? No.
Then I'll draw a line under it. This is about as close to bickering as I want to get. Contine if you wish but I'll move onto pastures new
Quote:Do you assert that there is no possibility that people will be wrong in the future? Do you assert that mere sequential adaptation is an argument about validity?
In other words, do you realy stand by the appeal to future tradition fallacy?
We're not bickering. I simply asked you some questions. But enjoy the pastures.
Laptop
Walking away from discussions where you are not prevailing -- or threatening (promising) to walk away from them...is a very tough habit to break.
You've done this twice in just the last few days.
You might want to get that under control while you still can.
Frank Apisa wrote:Laptop
Walking away from discussions where you are not prevailing -- or threatening (promising) to walk away from them...is a very tough habit to break.
All I'm attempting to do is not being responsible for these things devolving into a row. I take sneering sarcasm as a good indicator that things are going that way. But as it appears not to be the done thing on here to state you have finished with a discussion, in future I will simply stop responding to a thread or a poster. As for "not prevailing" you might want to preface that with IMHO
Quote:You've done this twice in just the last few days.
You might want to get that under control while you still can.
Look, you might enjoy pointless circular arguments, petty insults and meaningless hyperbole but it ain't my thing. Anyhoo, rest assured it won't happen again
BTW, isn't this all a tad off topic?
