We care about human wellbeing, that is the point of morality (as I see it anyway). If God also agreed with that, then slavery is not good for wellbeing. If in fact God thinks morality isn't about wellbeing, then it's just his arbitrary whims.

The fact that God set things up so that slavery is even possible in the first place makes him responsible should it happen.

(January 24, 2016 at 10:39 am)Mr.wizard Wrote:

(January 24, 2016 at 10:35 am)robvalue Wrote: Why was god's power limited by the people around him? If he wanted them to behave to a certain standard, surely he had that power. The fact that he didn't means he is happy with what they were doing.

He was quite happy to impose other rules on pain of death, the idea that he didn't like slavery but forgot to make a rule about it is rather a stretch I think. He does the opposite and tells them, and us, how to regulate it.

The fact that you reject what it says just shows you're morally superior to the author (with regard to human wellbeing).

Ya, it seems completely ridiculous that the creator of all things could only "work with what he had".

That's just part of letting people have free will. I'm sure God could have forced people to think and act a certain way, but He chose not to. That's the whole point of free will.

By the way, I'm playing devil's advocate here, since I don't really put much stock in OT stuff.

Whoops, free will! I'm out

(January 24, 2016 at 10:41 am)robvalue Wrote: We care about human wellbeing, that is the point of morality (as I see it anyway). If God also agreed with that, then slavery is not good for wellbeing. If in fact God thinks morality isn't about wellbeing, then it's just his arbitrary whims.

The fact that God set things up so that slavery is even possible in the first place makes him responsible should it happen.

So, are you saying caring about human well being is objectively moral, and not caring is objectively immoral? 

That's moral objectivity.

No, I'm not. I'm saying that I care about human wellbeing, and I'm asking if God does too. If he does, then slavery is bad. If he doesn't, then I don't care about what he thinks "morality" is.

(January 24, 2016 at 10:40 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(January 24, 2016 at 10:34 am)Mr.wizard Wrote: Because I can think slavery is sick without it having to be objective.

So just because YOU think slavery is wrong, doesn't mean it inherently is, according to you. So why would someone else be a monster for disagreeing with you on it?

Yes I think people who think slavery is moral are disgusting monsters, It doesn't have to be right, wrong, or objective.

Yeah, it's an opinion. Morality is an opinion. But one that can be supported by arguments, after agreeing on specific goals. Or one that can be pulled out of one's arse based on no good reasons. Neither are objectively better, because it's a nonsensical concept. Morality is subjective, because otherwise it's fixed, arbitrary and therefor useless.

(January 24, 2016 at 10:42 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(January 24, 2016 at 10:39 am)Mr.wizard Wrote: Ya, it seems completely ridiculous that the creator of all things could only "work with what he had".

That's just part of letting people have free will. I'm sure God could have forced people to think and act a certain way, but He chose not to. That's the whole point of free will.

Well its not free will, because god not only commands slavery but tells them exactly who and how to enslave. Also how can you argue for objective morality and free will? How can the answer to a moral dilemma be predetermined but afford me the free will to form my opinion?

While morality remains subjective, to us humans, we have arrived at the point that to us is morally wrong to own another human as property. Huge step huh? Tell me CL, what says in that obsolete politics book about the wife and kids of the slave that is released? You can't just cherry pick the stuff written in there that confirm your beliefs. Take it as a whole.