Richard Dawson !
Posted on 11/27/2009 8:47:23 AM PST by topcat54
Chattel slavery, manstealing, is forbidden in the Bible (cf. Exo. 21:16; 1 Tim. 1:10).
You can only steal "property". What Exodus condemns is taking someone's slave.
I suggest you read the passages again.
None of these steppe nomad empires last very long because, as you point out, they become softened by settled life and are absorbed by their conquerors. Eventually they are succeeded by a fresh batch of steppe people who retain the savage, plundering warrior culture (as the Seljuk Turks were by the Mongols). As you say, many of the hordes over the centuries were ethnically mixed (like the Huns), but the Central Asian steppes were the nucleus or fountain of all of them.
You realize that an atheist -- or even a philosophical theist, like myself, who isn't apt to think that God concerns himself with mammalian morality -- would argue this the other way around?
Precisely because this world is all there is (or, in my case, because it is existentially, but not morally, dependent on God) all questions of morality must ultimately appeal to their results and effects in this world. Thus any individual "preference" which produces ill or evil effects, in this world, is objectively criticizable.
By contrast, if you believe that the ultimate warrant for all moral precepts is external to this world -- for instance based on God's Will -- then no such criticism is possible. God's declarations as to what is moral or immoral are authoritative.
For example an atheist can easily find a compelling basis, due to it's direct and inherent effects, for arguing that genocide is always an immoral, and therefore prohibited, act. But if God is the standard for morality, then it's always possible that God might will particular acts of genocide, which may then be obligatory for humans so directed to commit, indeed immoral not to commit.
If fact this isn't even theoretical for Biblical inerrantists. God does, in the Bible, directly and explicitly order humans (e.g. Moses and Joshua) to commit specific acts of genocide (e.g. against certain Canaanite cities).
If I'm an ancient Israelite soldier, and Joshua tells me that I must kill everything living thing -- including women, children and other noncombatants -- in a Canaanite city we've just captured, because he, Joshua, thinks it's the thing to do, I can always argue with that. I might even be able to convince Joshua that he, Joshua, is wrong about this being a correct and permissible course of action. But, OTOH, if Joshua tells me that it must be done because God himself has commanded it, then there is no relevant earthly argument against that.
Once you base a temporal ethic on a transcendent ethic, then any given action might potentially be moral or immoral. But if both your ethics and their warrants are temporally based, then it becomes possible, at least in the more extreme cases, to know that some actions will always be evil and some always good.
Nope everything you argue is merely your personal choice. You throw words around like evil and ill-effects, or immoral,
and all I would say to you, is that that is your opinion. One man’s evil act is another man’s good act. You say genocide is evil. People that believe in population control and that reducing the number of humans is a good thing may not share your personal viewpoint. Neither of you can call the other wrong, it’s just what you believe.
There are people called communists that are atheists who have run countries with the idea that the end justifies the means. They’ve killed millions of people for any number of reasons, for the good of the state. They believe they are doing good and purging the state of dangerous criminals.
See if the material world is all there is, what absolute standard can you appeal to? There isn’t any. Anyone can say to you, “Who are you to decide what’s right and what’s wrong?” What’s right for you may be wrong for me. You’re not God, you can’t tell me what to do! I don’t know how many atheists tell me there are no absolutes, just different gray areas along the same spectrum. In a totally material world you have NO basis or authority to tell anyone else your code of conduct is better than theirs. They will ask “on what basis do you say that?” and you might point out what you believe to be the advantages of your beliefs, but they are perfectly justified is not believing your reasons, and for citing any disadvantages they feel your position has. And you will have no moral superiority over them, you have no higher authority to appeal to than they do.
It all boils down to personal preference. There are plenty of people who wouldn’t mind living the Mad Max way of life, terrorizing the helpless. They have a physical mind that has thought thoughts and ideas and has reasoned that that way of living is the best way for them. they have their own pros and cons of livign that way and have determined that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. You believe that things are best when people all try to work together and get along. THey disagree completely with you. In you material world neither of you is wrong or right. Neither of you can prove the other is wrong. You have no standard of authority higher than your own mind to appeal to the other person with. They will say their thoughts on the matter are as equally valid as yours. They will say they used their mind to come to their own conclusions and it works for them. They don’t care if it doesn’t work for anyone else. Who are you to tell them they’re wrong? Right and wrong, good and evil, good and bad, have no meaning in a material world because all the definitions of these terms just depend on your point of view, not any universal, absolute standard. What is “good” or “bad” or “evil” is purely relative, in a totally material universe.
True. I don't have an "absolute" standard. Which is a good thing. Your "absolute standard" is God, in particular God's Will and Commandments. But as we have seen, God can, and has (at least according to authorities such as the Bible), and therefore may in principle once again, command things -- like genocide -- which are manifestly immoral by any objective (as opposed to "absolute") secular moral standard.
"Absolute" standards are bad because they are, precisely in being "absolute," beyond criticism. The purpose of an ethical system is to maximize the realization of human needs and desires such as liberty, safety, security, and the establishment and maintenance of a well ordered society. It is therefore essential that the ethical code is subject to criticism as to how well, or how badly, it furthers these aims. At the same time the standards must not be "absolute," because that would make the ethics uncriticizable; it is equally important that the standards are objective. This is also crucial in rendering ethics criticizable. IOW, we must know, and be able to say, what aims our ethical system has: what goods it means to advance, and evils it means to mitigate.
"God" cannot be an objective standard in the same way that, for instance, liberty, or the demands of a well ordered society, can be, and are, objective standards. We can simply look at a society and determine whether it maximizes or minimizes liberty. Likewise the differences between an ordered and a chaotic social order are obvious. These matters can be readily agreed upon by reasonable persons, excepting only the willfully obtuse.
The specific Will and Commandments of God, however, cannot be (or at least in practice obviously are not) agreed upon with any remotely comparable degree of unanimity. It is always some human authority which informs us of the supposed Will of God. It is vastly preferable that such authorities instead appeal to our human reason and propriety as to why proposed moral precepts should be accepted and practiced, and that these matters then be subject to debate and criticism.
Anyone can say to you, “Who are you to decide what’s right and what’s wrong?” What’s right for you may be wrong for me. You’re not God, you can’t tell me what to do! I don’t know how many atheists tell me there are no absolutes, just different gray areas along the same spectrum. In a totally material world you have NO basis or authority to tell anyone else your code of conduct is better than theirs.
That makes good rhetoric, but the slightest reflection will indicate that -- absent totalitarian rule, where, btw, we again have the "absolute standard" you think essential, but with the will of the ruler substituted for the Will of God -- this is never the way an actual moral order or ethical system operates.
Oh, sure. You can assert your supposed right to do whatever the heck you want. You can even put that into practice. But, in an ordered society, you will seldom actually benefit from doing so, and almost always pay a large penalty instead. In part this is because humans are social animals, and fellow members of your society simply won't let you get away with behaving in that way. But it's really even more fundamental, and more simple, than that.
Consider an elemental case of an moral code: Traffic laws. The purposes of traffic laws are clear, and comprise objective standards. We have traffic laws in order to maximize the efficiency of transport, to minimize accidents, to ensure fair and equitable access to public roads, etc.
Now, consider that there is no "absolute standard" whatever for traffic laws. There's nothing in the Bible, for instance, saying, "whensoever thou approachest a crossroads, there being no signage otherwise directing thee, thou shalt yield unto thy right."
No. Traffic laws evolved over time. They became more extensive and stringent, and more fully and formally codified, as roads improved, as cars became faster, as drivers became more numerous, and so on. Their basis is entirely relative, albeit relative to the objective standards of moving traffic efficiently and safely, but relative rather than absolute.
Therefore, by your account, traffic laws, being absent any "absolute standard," ought to be an obvious case where people say, "you can’t tell me what to do," and instead do just as they please. But people, even atheists, manifestly do NOT behave has you predict. The reason is obvious. To do so would mean risking their lives, their costly property, or incurring large liabilities from damaging the lives and properties of others.
IOW, people obey the traffic laws not in spite of the fact that their warrant is merely practical (i.e. material) but rather because of the fact that adherence is practical.
You might object that drivers often do violate traffic laws, but in fact this only reinforces the point. Yes, drivers often cheat, but they generally only cheat a little bit. When they cheat they do so carefully and cautiously. This indicates that practicality (mere material consideration and benefit) is precisely what is in play.
The only traffic laws drivers are libel to violate egregiously are those they judge to be arbitrary and impractical. IOW, when the only standard is a kind of "absolute standard" (i.e., "do this just because the law says so, and not because it makes any practical sense") those are the times when drivers (including theists) are most apt to say to themselves, "you can’t tell me what to do." Again, this is the opposite of what you predict.
I don't need to read any further to rebut you. First, if you have absolute standard, the you are no better than Phillip Garrido who decided it was okay to kidnap an 11 year old girl and hold her as a sexual slave for 18 years. You just haven't decided to ignore the rules, yet. Second, God is the CREATOR of all. We were created by Him. He cannot murder. And as His creations, He may do as He wills. You cannot apply YOUR laws and morals to Him because you would think that YOU are fit to judge your Creator, and you are not.
Richard Dawson !
Thanks, Blood of Tyrants! I don't know why you consider this a rebuttal. I am in complete agreement with you!
Oh, I see. You didn't read the whole post. Well, to be less long winded, it was entirely my point that one cannot question a moral standard when that standard is considered absolute, and all the more so when it is considered transcendent wrt the creaturely realm, i.e. when that standard is God.
If the material world is all there is, the bottom line is that your personal thoughts on how to live are no better, or no worse, than anyone else’s.
You may say that they are because more people tend to agree with you, that the advantages to living a certain way outweigh the disadvantages, or for whatever reasons you care to offer. That is only rationalization, not proof. They can also sit there and offer their rationalizations for the way they want to live. Whether or not it’s practical or the majority of people prefer one thing over another doesn’t automatically make one way ‘right’ or ‘moral’. If most people wanted to offer a sacrificial virgin to the volcano god, that doesn’t make it right or moral. Simply having a majority of people agreeing with each other doesn’t make things right or wrong, or moral. At best they can make things illegal or legal. But I would hope you know the difference between ‘legal’ and ‘moral’ and that quite often they aren’t the same.
There’s nothing you can offer to convince someone your way is morally better.
So, you are saying that you actually believe there is no purely secular, and yet compelling, argument for any moral obligation or prohibition, even say those involving murder and genocide! That's pretty amazing. Either you are extraordinarily unreflective about morality, or you've been carried away in argument to an untenably extreme position.
BTW, the church does not take this position. Through it's history it has accepted a doctrine of "natural law" (initially adopted from the Greek Stoic philosophers) which elucidates those moral principles which can be known by reason alone. This became the basis for the English Common Law, for natural rights theory, including the "inalienable rights" of Jefferson's Declaration of Independence, and for much of the United States Constitution.
I’m not saying I believe that. I’m saying if you are a person who believes the material world is all there is, your personal beliefs about how to live are no better or worse than anyone else’s. You can’t prove your beliefs are morally superior than anyone else’s if the universe is just matter.
If you try to convince them verbally your way is best and they say, ‘we disagree’, what higher authority do you point to to say, ‘no I am right”? Any type of forced compulsion on your part to make other people live the way you think they should means your ultimate philosophy of life is “Might Makes Right”. And whoever happens to have the most might, is right. That isn’t morality.
No. That is precisely what I reject. Sound moral reasoning must be both relative and objective. That is, your moral precepts must be related to (relative to) some objective standard. See my preceding messages for elaboration.
So, you're saying that you don't believe ethics can have no valid purely secular warrant, but then you immediately repeat that you do believe ethics can have no valid purely secular warrant.
Now I'm confused. Which is it?
genocide -- which are manifestly immoral by any objective (as opposed to "absolute") secular moral standard.
You believe genocide is wrong. I believe it is wrong. There have been numerous incidents in history (Canaan, Carthage, Germany) where large numbers of people disagree with us. They believed the genocide they were engaged in was both right and proper.
You cannot say genocide is objectively immoral. Right and wrong are not objective facts that can be proven or disproven using the scientific method. They exist only in the subjective realm. IOW, a person believes something is right or wrong. If no higher power can be cited as the authority for rightness or wrongness, they by definition it must be left to each individual or imposed by some human authority. What is your basis for believing any individual's or group's belief system should take precedence over that of any other individual or group?
There is not and cannot be any objective reason to assign such authority to a human agency.
The purpose of an ethical system is to maximize the realization of human needs and desires such as liberty, safety, security, and the establishment and maintenance of a well ordered society.
You just fell off the rails again. This is not a fact - objective; it is your opinion - subjective.
Let us assume I believe the "purpose of an ethical system" is to ensure the soonest possible extinction of the human race in order to protect the environment. I rank the diversity of the ecosystem above the continuation of any given species. On what "objective" basis can you claim my ethical system should not take precedence over yours?
There have in fact been numerous ethical systems in the past, many still existing, that do not agree with your definition of the purpose of such a system. The Hindu system, in which oppression of the lower castes is right and proper, as they are being punished for sins in past lives, is only one example.
I'm not going to pursue further examples in this post of your delusion that your personal opinions are objective laws of nature. They aren't. Your opinion, as such, is objectively of no greater validity than any other human's.
The Mongols at the time of their great expansion had a shamanistic religion. Although religion wasn’t terribly important in their lives.
All the Mongol empires were eventually absorbed culturally and religiously by those they conqured. The core Mongol area became Tibetan Buddhist in the 18th century.
You misunderstand. I'm not claiming that my (or any) set of moral precepts are "objective". I'm claiming that the criteria upon which a valid moral system is based must be objective. A moral theory must be subject to objective facts in much the way a scientific theory is subject to objective facts.
You cannot say genocide is objectively immoral. Right and wrong are not objective facts that can be proven or disproven using the scientific method.
And yet it is an objective fact that, even in the most bitter and totalistic warfare, there will always be noncombatants who are innocents wrt to the conflict. (For instance babies and small children at a bare minimum.) It is a simple matter to marshal compelling arguments that the killing of innocents is wrong and impermissible, and to dismiss denials of this as perverse, obtuse or otherwise invalid.
Therefore I can confidently say that genocide is always wrong. I can confidently say that those who have committed genocide and justified the act are wrong. I can confidently say that God was wrong to order the Israelites to commit acts of genocide against the Canaanites. (Or, rather, if we accept that God is always just, that Moses and Joshua must have been misreporting God's commandments to do so.)
There have in fact been numerous ethical systems in the past, many still existing, that do not agree with your definition of the purpose of such a system. The Hindu system, in which oppression of the lower castes is right and proper, as they are being punished for sins in past lives, is only one example.
Exactly so. But this is in fact an example of what YOU are presumably defending, or at least what I have been denying: basing a temporal ethic (in this case the treatment of castes) on an absolute and transcendental standard (in this case the doctrine of karma). The law of karma, just like the Will of God, exists beyond the sensible human world, and therefore is not objectively determinable, and therefore any ethic based on it is not criticizable on an objective basis.
If no higher power can be cited as the authority for rightness or wrongness, they by definition it must be left to each individual or imposed by some human authority. What is your basis for believing any individual's or group's belief system should take precedence over that of any other individual or group?
The usual, of course. The way it always works and always has. My basis is argument, negotiation, tolerance predicated on reciprocal tolerance, resistance to the unjust, aid and support to the just, etc, etc. If these means are insufficient, and the issue is of great enough importance, then I and other like minded individuals may have to take up arms and fight for the issue.
The main point, however, is that the basis for ethical systems, laws, "social contracts," human rights, and the like, must be arguable, criticizable and reformable. Once you assert an "absolute" criteria you place these things beyond criticism and reform.
There is not and cannot be any objective reason to assign such authority to a human agency.
But you have the same problem. You say God is the absolute standard for morality. Yet God's commandments are invariably transmitted and reported by "human agency," and recorded by authorities such as holy books. (Although I suppose it would be possible in principle for God to audibly speak simultaneously to every living human, there's no record of it every happening, and no apparent expectation on the part of believers that this is how God should or likely will communicate.)
Therefore you have the exact same problem I have regarding subjectivity, but with the additional problem I do not have, in that you have placed your moral standard beyond the creaturely world, and therefore in principle beyond criticism and reform. (Of course religions do frequently reform, sometimes radically, their supposedly absolute doctrines. But they pretend they don't, which introduces other problems. Suffice to say it is preferable that criticism be open and acknowledged.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.