Subjective Morality page 4

320 posts

Flag Post

FWW
There are morals and there are behavior rules – please distinguish between those.
Murder is forbidden, but self-defense is a must.
BOTH are essentially the same act of killing – but with opposite LEGAL outcomes.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by somebody613:

The CONDITIONS changed, so what once was APPLICABLE historically – now ISN’T.

If they changed, then they are not objective. They are subjective and subject to further change.

Originally posted by FlabbyWoofWoof:
Unless God has subjective morals himself?

Somebody will never admit it, but that is basically what his previous post is saying.


EDIT:

Originally posted by somebody613:

FWW
There are morals and there are behavior rules – please distinguish between those.

There is no distinction. The rules which govern your behavior (morals) are the same thing as the rules of behavor (morals).

Murder is wrong, but self-defense is a must.
BOTH are essentially the same act of killing

False. Self-defense does not have to involve killing. Abortion is moral for some, immoral for others. Murder is moral for some, immoral or others. That the law is agaist it, does not affect the rules of behavior. If a person feels it is moral to kill, their rules of behavior will allow them to kill.

 
Flag Post

Morals are principles of behaviour in accordance with standards of right and wrong.
Actually EDIT: I have no idea what you mean by “Behaviour rules”. That can mean so many things.

Murder is wrong, but self-defense is a must.

Perfect example of subjectivity. Some people would say that even killing someone in self-defence would go against their morals (pacifists).

BOTH are essentially the same act of killing – but with opposite LEGAL outcomes.

They both result in death, sure ok.

But let me ask you, is slavery morally ok? Is it morally ok to free a slave but to keep his wife and children as your property?
Is it morally ok to use a female slave as a sex slave?

 
Flag Post

VT
I said one more thing before:
No one is ENFORCING slavery in the Book.
Only giving guidance as to have to DEAL with it.
Like, MURDER – ideally, people should NEVER kill anyone, even legally.
But it’s not the ACTUAL REAL-LIFE case.
Does it mean that there’s any ENFORCEMENT on illegal murder in ANY law system?
ANY, including secular ones.
Of course, NOT!
They just show how to DEAL with FACTS, not ENFORCE them.
So, why DOUBLE STANDARDS?

FWW
Pacifism is an example of subjective morals.
“Your life comes first” is an example of absolute morals – that can only be defined by the One, Who GAVE you that very life.
(As opposed to “I think I’m more worthy of living” or “I love myself more”.)
YOU didn’t make yourself BORN, so you have no objective say as to your life (and especially of the others).
But your Creator can say anything – and it will be absolute/objective, cause He caused you to live, thus He can also regulate it law-wise.
As of slavery – learn how to read.
(Including: what fits one situation, might not fit another.)

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by FlabbyWoofWoof:


But let me ask you, is slavery morally ok? Is it morally ok to free a slave but to keep his wife and children as your property?
Is it morally ok to use a female slave as a sex slave?

Difficult questions to pose.

But let me ask you, is slavery morally ok?

Depends on the circumstances. Even to my mind, in some cases yes it is morally okay, in others absolutely not. It is very subjective.

Is it morally ok to free a slave but to keep his wife and children as your property?

The general rule we (are supposed to) go by, is a child who was born at the time their mother was enslaved, is a slave themselves. In practice, slavery doesn’t kick in until the age of consent is reached, which gives plenty of wiggle room.

In the same system, a slave cannot own anything, and cannot be tied to anything other than the slave’s owner – so marriage is impossible. The woman who was the slave’s wife, is free to do as she pleases, if she is not owned herself.

Is it morally ok to use a female slave as a sex slave?

Unfortunately, yes it is. It is also morally ok to use a male slave as a sex slave. Where things differ from the teachings, is when underage ‘slaves’ are involved. The morality of that situation is quite clear-cut to most. But you always get a few who disagree.

 
Flag Post

Somebody.

Slavery was condoned by the Bible.

Once again here are the facts.
Leviticus 25:44-46 shows that slavery appears to be condoned.
Deuteronomy 15:12-15; Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 4:1 these neccesarilly dont condone slavery, but neither do they condem slavery.
Exodus 21:2-6 this is a strange one, for it apparently says that a slave male may go free, but his children and wife must stay as property of the slaveowner.
Exodus 21:7-11 and this shows that women slaves are to be given less rights than the males slaves and are allowed to be either married to the owner or the owner can marry the girl slave off to his sons.

Sex with female slaves was condoned. This comes from the Bible which is the word of God.

1) God is morally perfect.

2) Any act that God condones, commands, or causes is morally permissible or mandated (from 1)

3) Any act that God forbids is morally impermissible (from 1)

4) The Bible accurately reveals many acts condoned, commanded, or caused by God

Using the examples out of the bible I have already quoted above it must be concluded that slavery is moral under God.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by FlabbyWoofWoof:
Unless God has subjective morals himself?

Somebody will never admit it, but that is basically what his previous post is saying.



I agree, Somebody has basically stated that something can ‘morally’ permissiable because of the circumstances…but now not morally permissiable because the circumstances have changed…What that means is that Gods morals are not ‘absolute’ but changedable, subjective.
 
Flag Post

FWW
BANG-BANG on your wall, right?
According to you, even Lot’s behavior was OK.
Which it WASN’T.
Never heard of “children, don’t behave like THIS idiot” teaching examples?
Also, USE another example – I went through this one and showed your flaws and ignorance of the subject.
You just ignore my answer…

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by somebody613:


Never heard of “children, don’t behave like THIS idiot” teaching examples?

Yup. Parents imposing their own subjective morality on their children. Relatives do it, teachers do it. Adults in the community do it, and many of these morals are going to clash.

According to you, even Lot’s behavior was OK.
Which it WASN’T.

Why wasn’t it?

 
Flag Post

VT
Why do YOU claim it was?
That’s similar to the Christian idea of “infallible saints” or something.
On the contrary, the JEWISH Torah shows human WEAKNESSES – that no one is a 100% non-sinning saint, even the GREATEST men like the Patriarchs (or Adam to begin with) had sinned, in a way.
The idea is “everyone is but a human – but we must strive be the best humans we CAN be, by emulating those who tried and achieved huge results – even if they failed once or twice during their entire life”.
There was no higher prophet than Moses, and yet he was denied entrance into Israel due to a MINOR mistake (not even an actual sin) – to show that there’s always MORE perfection than the one already achieved.
We NEVER can say “I’m perfect” – cause there’s ALWAYS a next step to it.
THIS is the main lesson of the entire Torah – to IMPROVE and IMPROVE and IMPROVE ourselves, NEVER to be CONTENT.
While you both insist on the opposite – by claiming an absurdity that “if it’s there – it must be a positive example”.
It’s NOT, usually it’s the other way around.
(Not always, but we can deduce it through context AND outcomes. Also, the REAL positive examples are given as clear LAWS, not just circumstanced hints.)
We are shown the MINOR ERRORS of the GREAT PEOPLE, so we should mend ourselves, regardless of OUR errors.
We can always become better than we were yesterday.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by somebody613:

VT
Why do YOU claim it was?

I did not claim it was, I asked why it was not.

On the contrary, the JEWISH Torah shows human WEAKNESSES – that no one is a 100% non-sinning saint, even the GREATEST men like the Patriarchs (or Adam to begin with) had sinned, in a way.

Basic psychology.

The idea is “everyone is but a human

For now.
– but we must strive be the best humans we CAN be, by emulating those who tried and achieved huge results – even if they failed once or twice during their entire life”.

Again, hardly rocket science. Though I would change that to ‘be the best people we can be’.
There was no higher prophet than Moses, and yet he was denied entrance into Israel due to a MINOR mistake (not even an actual sin) – to show that there’s always MORE perfection than the one already achieved.

Perfection is entirely subjective. It is a concept that is unique to every individual.
We NEVER can say “I’m perfect” – cause there’s ALWAYS a next step to it.

The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence, yes.
THIS is the main lesson of the entire Torah – to IMPROVE and IMPROVE and IMPROVE ourselves, NEVER to be CONTENT.

Again, common sense.
While you both insist on the opposite – by claiming an absurdity that “if it’s there – it must be a positive example”.

We are not claiming anything of the sort.
It’s NOT, usually it’s the other way around.
(Not always, but we can deduce it through context AND outcomes. Also, the REAL positive examples are given as clear LAWS, not just circumstanced hints.)

Laws are not always made in the best interests of the people. Laws formed out of conflicting morality may form even inside the same community.
We are shown the MINOR ERRORS of the GREAT PEOPLE, so we should mend ourselves, regardless of OUR errors.

Where are you pulling this from? The beginner’s guide to common sense?
We can always become better than we were yesterday.


Again, obvious, and absolutely sod all to do with morality.
 
Flag Post
According to you, even Lot’s behavior was OK.

When was it according to me?

Which it WASN’T.
God did not object of anything the Lot did. So Lots actions must of been moral according to Gods Will. God helped, not hindered Lot.

Never heard of “children, don’t behave like THIS idiot” teaching examples?

Sorry, I don’t understand what you are getting at.

I went through this one and showed your flaws and ignorance of the subject.

I don’t think you did, I tihnk you just went on tangents that proved nothing. You are more than welcome to list the flaws in my argument so that I can defend against them, but I have no memory of you doing so.

You just ignore my answer…

which answer? You answer a lot…and sometimes nothing to do with what the question had asked. So sometimes I will ignore what I think is irrelevant. Again, you can point out these ‘ignored’ answers.

I notice that you skirt around most of my arguments, expecially the references to the bible showing slavery being condoned. And how your answer that slavery back then was for different reasons shows that morals are not OBJECTIVE.

 
Flag Post

FWW
Maybe another thread, but I do remember seeing something of that sort.

Oh, but you just did it (again?).
You claim that “everything we read in the Bible, is an example of GOOD actions”.
Totally forgetting that Lot is a “negative” character (he intentionally chose to live in a city of utter sinners), so his actions are in no way a positive example.

Learning from negative examples.
You must be so dense…

Your flaws:
a. Everything in the Bible is an example of “do it”. Nope. Many sins are also written there, so this point is wrong.
b. Every situation is binding. Nope. Only defined laws are. Lot’s actions never were made into laws.
c. Morals don’t reflect the current historical situation. Nope. Slavery was a fact then, but not so today. Thus you can’t apply the same rules.
d. Our personal reactions can shape our view on Biblical morals. Nope. It boils down to accepting or not, absolute morals. If no, it’s subjective morals all over, so not my case. If yes, our subjective morals of any current age have no say on the absolute ones. Yet, everything has a defined applicability, which depends on the actual historical situation.

Slavery wasn’t condoned – and I explained it (well, you ignored it).
And even IF it was (it wasn’t) – what made you suddenly think otherwise, if not for your subjective morals?
(I mean, if you state that absolute morals are one way, the only way to counter it, is to use your own subjective ones. Simple dependence logic. If the sky is objectively blue, the only way for you to see it yellow – is to use lenses. Subjective to the max.)

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by somebody613:


Totally forgetting that Lot is a “negative” character (he intentionally chose to live in a city of utter sinners), so his actions are in no way a positive example.

Why is he a negative example? Just because someone lives in New York, does not mean they are inherently evil.

Your flaws:
a. Everything in the Bible is an example of “do it”. Nope. Many sins are also written there, so this point is wrong.

Which you take as negative, and which you take as positive is a subjective matter.

b. Every situation is binding. Nope. Only defined laws are. Lot’s actions never were made into laws.

Personal morality is binding. That’s why personal moral codes exist.

c. Morals don’t reflect the current historical situation. Nope. Slavery was a fact then, but not so today. Thus you can’t apply the same rules.

Slavery is a fact today. Human trafficing is big business, so the current situation is the same. Objective morality must remain constant.

d. Our personal reactions can shape our view on Biblical morals. Nope. It boils down to accepting or not, absolute morals.

Any actual reasoning to go with that claim?

if no, it’s subjective morals all over, so not my case.

Exactly how it is in the real world.
If yes, our subjective morals of any current age have no say on the absolute ones. Yet, everything has a defined applicability, which depends on the actual historical situation.

Translation: Morals are subjective depending on the individual situation.
(I mean, if you state that absolute morals are one way, the only way to counter it, is to use your own subjective ones. Simple dependence logic. If the sky is objectively blue, the only way for you to see it yellow – is to use lenses. Subjective to the max.)

You are confusing physical traits with mental states again. You do that a lot.

 
Flag Post

Though I MYSELF totally agree with YOU, that science relies on TRUST/BELIEF as much as any religion – and to deny it, is simply stupid.

We have facts. We have opinions. We have denial of facts. You do the latter, and you keep insisting that it’s a fact. When called out on it, you insist you can have it as your opinion. It is neither. You are lying, and we will never see eye to eye here, but is extremely annoying to see you sneak in baseless lies about science all the time.

My contention isn’t what people WILL do, but what makes those actions right or wrong.

Nothing. Your refusal to accept it doesn’t prove anything. What you may be trying to say is that people will be more willing to follow your specific morals if you teach them that your specific morals are objective, and others are wrong. That may be true, but why should your morals be taught exactly? Why not someone else’s? Remember that the majority of times, people will agree with you. We don’t like murder, we don’t like stealing, stuff like that gets taught any way. But not everything.

 
Flag Post

DR
Bye.
We aren’t getting anywhere, so I apologize for choosing to ignore your same-type attacks from now on.
Unless you say something new, I simply won’t respond.

VT
Sure, choosing criminals for friends is no way to be called a negative choice.

Yup, if you’re ignorant of the vast sea of commentaries that covers it all logically.
That’s where we differ – you can only rely on your own opinion and (lack of) knowledge on the context.

Not my point.
I meant that his actions were never considered to be binding on anyone – by the very book it is written in.
Unlike such explicit laws like “don’t steal”.
(You don’t need a example to learn it from – you are told explicitly.)

OK, let’s say it this way.
Slavery is not a “good” and “common” attitude today.
But it was centuries ago.
so, it had to be dealt with.
Same as murder, theft or marriage – except these examples are still common today, while slavery isn’t anymore, so the rulings are simply inapplicable.
And again – where do you get an opinion that slavery is bad, if not from your own subjective view?
Cause you’re somehow claiming that the objective morals must mean otherwise.
(I totally disagree with that claim, but you ARE contradicting yourself by demanding so. You demand that sky must be blue, and than ask why it’s not green. But your first implication disables the second one.)

So, are you insisting on the famous “only two opinions…” thing? :DDD

Huh?

 
Flag Post

Somebody, what the hell are you on about? Get back to me when you actually read my post, and understand what I’m saying. That load of nonsense you just typed has no relation to any of it.

 
Flag Post

VT
Well, it turned out to be a good example anyways.
An example of how YOU (don’t) understand something without commentaries that explain the context.
Hehehe…

 
Flag Post
Slavery wasn’t condoned – and I explained it (well, you ignored it).

Not condoned? Even after the examples I gave you…not condoned?
Ok, lets do this one more time, and this time I’ll directly quote from the bible passage.

Leviticus 25:44-46 – However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.

That isn’t condoning?

Totally forgetting that Lot is a “negative” character (he intentionally chose to live in a city of utter sinners), so his actions are in no way a positive example.

He was a ‘negative’ character rewarded and helped by God. So? And? Why did this ‘negative’ character get special treatment? Special looking after? Why did this man that would offer his own daughters up for rape be spared and have God guide him to safety? What objective morals was God showing in His helping of Lot? And if Lot is such a negative character, why is he called Righteous by God?

Learning from negative examples.
You must be so dense…

Because you are unable to coherently explain something does not make me dense when I don’t understand what you talking about. It’d be wise to keep your insults to yourself, because you like to cry victim as soon as you think someone is insulting you, and I am more than capable of throwing insults back at you.

 
Flag Post

FWW
No, not condoned – DEALT with.
You are still confusing something PERMITTED (cause it’s a normal routine for EVERYONE at the moment) with something ADVISED (cause it’s better than the routine).
Slavery is an example of the former, NOT the latter.
(It never says “GET a slave”, only “IF you have one”.)
Slavery was a norm back then (for EVERYONE), so it had to be put into a rule system, but it was too much of a jump to just immediately rule it out.
Again – stop confusing GETTING slaves and TREATING slaves.
(And having this point in mind, you do ignore the unusually humane attitude these laws have towards slaves, right?)

REWARDED?
Not quite – it clearly explains that Lot was only saved in Abraham’s virtue, not his own.
But, yes, COMPARED to the Sodomians, Lot was much better (maybe even “righteous”), so he was RELATIVELY judged towards being helped.
But VERY relatively.
If he was judged by his own virtues, he’d fail miserably.
(Commentaries, that’s where ignorance gets dissolved.)

 
Flag Post

Slavery. 1. Was a normal thing in those days by all neighbors – so it had to be dealt with.

So apparently majority opinion is good enough for God.

2. The “Jewish slave” is more of a forcibly-paid worker, who was “hired” for a FEW years, while his “master” simply paid the guy’s debt. The only way a Jew was to become a slave, was through stealing and not being able to repay.
NOBODY was sold the way YOU think of “slave markets”.

What about non-jews, or do they not count as people? They were enslaved en masse when not outright exterminated.

3. There were many loopholes that demanded the release of even “normal” slaves.
Even as minor as hitting one’s tooth out.

Oh good loopholes, well it seems totally justified now. You know how absurd that is yes?

4. Even the “normal” slave was to be treated HUMANELY, not like slaves were treated by OTHERS.
CONCLUSION:

Once again Uncle Tom I don’t find that a particularly compelling line of argument there. “OTHERS” is a rather wide brush for the entire rest of the world. From Rome to Egypt most evidence suggests slaves were rarely treated too badly, and it was largely a system for payments of debts or obligations to a society; just like you said, only still potentially condemnable as it still hangs upon human choice as opposed to the perfect will of God.

Please, use a less-historically-bound example of morals, would you?

Why? The OT is well, historical. Can God’s laws not stand the test of time? That seems like a pretty serious problem.

As for your slavery fussing. How about the /morally insane/ notion of breeding slaves and using them to blackmail servitude?

If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out by himself. And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever. Ex.21:2-6

Exodus(21) specifies that you can’t directly beat your slaves to death, but if they die a few days later that is fine. And of course Leviticus says of heathen children born on Israeli land that they shall serve forever, and ever, as slaves for generations. The bloody thing is monstrous you ridiculous apologists.

The CONDITIONS changed, so what once was APPLICABLE historically – now ISN’T.

How have the conditions changed? Slavery still exists, Israel is a nation, should they go slaving up those heathen children on their land? God hasn’t come down to say otherwise recently.

Lot’s attitude: he had incestuous thoughts himself, so he was PUNISHED by making them REAL.

He wanted to do something then he got to do it? Doesn’t sound like a punishment. Although if we want to get real technical, Lot slept with and impregnated his daughter /before/ God told everyone that wasn’t allowed. Now as for whether Lot was righteous or not gets dicey… righteous enough to be chosen by God personally to leave Sodom… and my understanding of the text suggest it was the daughter who raped him while he was drunk. Which has technical issues perhaps.

No one is ENFORCING slavery in the Book.

God tells the Isreali’s to keep foreign slaves forever, as inheritable property across generations. That is enforcing slavery.

 
Flag Post

Ungeziefer has pretty much summed up my retort…but there is one thing you said that I want to hear from you.


You said slavey was
No, not condoned – DEALT with.

Not condoned? Dealt with?

Are you telling me that Almighty God, from whom we all supposedly derive our moral base from, was not able to tell His people that slavery was immoral? But instead merely said slavery should be accepted and dealt with in a ‘humanely’ manner? Is that what you are really saying?

I’m still waiting to see if you think slavery is immoral, if owning another person as property is immoral. You have not said what you think…only that in time of the bible things were different than today. So slavery is immoral now or not?

 
Flag Post

Is there any way to ban a troll like somebody613?

 
Flag Post

I don’t believe somebody613 is a troll. Just a very deeply deeply deeply strong believer in his faith.

 
Flag Post

Ung
I’m NOT interested in discussing ONE facet that you find “weird” or “distasteful”.
What about all the rest?
You know, MURDER, THEFT, ADULTERY, HONORING PARENTS, BEING LAWFUL, etc etc etc?
Somehow, you tend to ignore a multitude of WORKING examples – and go for ONE questionable (and simply OBSOLETE).
This is worse than just double standards, this is simply stupid…

Until you show me a QUOTE that explicitly ENFORCES slavery – the slavery topic is closed (I won’t respond).

As of Lot.
Well, embarrassment is punishment too.
And he is permanently remembered as the old guy who slept with his daughters – pretty embarrassing, hehehe.
Also, stop switching key points.
This was used here as an “example” of “Biblical morals”, so its lawfulness is off-topic.
And MORALLY, this was wrong.

Where does it say: “Go GET more slaves”?
Find me such a quote, would you?
(I’m closing my input on the slavery topic.)