Well believe it or not, men are flawed, and often wrong (even about God~). The benefit of our current position in history is that we can look back on the societies and peoples who believed this sort of behavior to be appropriate and improve upon them. We have the entirety of recorded history to use as our data points, and that leads to an ever-evolving and improving moral code.

Lemme see if I can sum it up..

1) In any (moral) situation, there is one or more choice(s) that are objectivity better than one or more other choice(s), based on human wellbeing being the principle measuring stick.
2) Through the use of history, empathy, and even plain probability, we attempt to reach one of those "better" decisions. We are fallible, we are human, we might (and will) get it wrong sometimes.
3) The more we learn about humans and human wellbeing, along with effective ways to run society, the more our conclusions from 2) will undergo refinement and challenges, leading to new and better ideas.

Yes, alpha, I'm aware there are moral systems that operate based on other prinicples, because there is no magic objective set-in-stone law based on the whims of a cosmic dictator. We are trying to discover the best ways to run our world, and that will require investigation, discussion, compromise even. What is does not require is an unassailable set of rules from 2000 years ago that are demonstrably harmful in some cases and utterly irrelevant in others, attaching morality to issues that are completely amoral.

Change is inevitable, progress is not, but neither can be found in clinging to the certainty of millenia-old scriptures.

(December 8, 2014 at 12:27 pm)alpha male Wrote:

(November 26, 2014 at 2:58 pm)robvalue Wrote: Geez. Just sickening.

Everyone who supports the bible as a moral code though can't have much of an issue with rape. If you rape an unmarried woman, your "punishment" is to pay the father some coins, then the woman has to marry you. I'm sure there are plenty of other messed up rules about rape in the bible too.

Oh wait, context? Different culture? Jesus came to remove the OT? Don't actually care what the bible says?

Speaking of not actually caring what the Bible says...

Actually, the man is required to pay the bride price. The woman is not required by the law to marry the man. That's up to her father. If the father thinks the man will make a good husband (note that while a few English translations say "rape," they could also be referring to cases of seduction), then the father permits the marriage, and the man is forbidden from divorcing her. If it's actually a case of rape, or the father doesn't like the man for any reason, he can refuse the marriage.

"Women aren't property because they were captured and sexually assaulted! Women are property because their father owns them and dispenses with them as he pleases."

This is why your faith is repugnant. What a shitbag.

If you'd rather split hairs than address the basic injustice, that marks you as a thoughtless person unqualified to make moral pronouncements.

(December 8, 2014 at 3:53 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Well believe it or not, men are flawed, and often wrong (even about God~).

You mean other men are wrong. You of course are right.

Quote:The benefit of our current position in history is that we can look back on the societies and peoples who believed this sort of behavior to be appropriate and improve upon them. We have the entirety of recorded history to use as our data points, and that leads to an ever-evolving and improving moral code.

How do you know that today's women are happier or more fulfilled than those women were? You don't. You assume it.

Quote:Lemme see if I can sum it up..

1) In any (moral) situation, there is one or more choice(s) that are objectivity better than one or more other choice(s), based on human wellbeing being the principle measuring stick.

No, as we've seen, subjective criteria and weighting must be used.

Quote:Yes, alpha, I'm aware there are moral systems that operate based on other prinicples,

But you keep claiming that your system is better without justification.

Quote:We are trying to discover the best ways to run our world, and that will require investigation, discussion, compromise even.

No, you are proclaiming what the best moral system is, and trying to limit the discussion to application of that system.

Quote:To date no one's shown me an alternative.

Really? Your Big Book of Holy Horseshit demands people be killed for working on the sabbath.


I'll take modern American criminal law as an alternative any time.

(December 8, 2014 at 4:14 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: "Women aren't property because they were captured and sexually assaulted! Women are property because their father owns them and dispenses with them as he pleases."

This is why your faith is repugnant. What a shitbag.

If you'd rather split hairs than address the basic injustice, that marks you as a thoughtless person unqualified to make moral pronouncements.

I don't find the concept that parents are likely wiser than their teenage daughters to be repugnant, but you're free to your opinion.

I don't recall ever stating that I was certain of my correctness , nor that the system I'm describing is "objectively" better, because I don't think there is an objective standard to which to compare it. When I used the word 'objective' that was within the system when comparing and weighting the wellbeing of a certain decision. The justification that I use to assert that this system is at least a good starting point is that societies that focus on the wellbeing of its citizens instead of some other principle tend to be more stable and efficient.

As for "You're just assuming women are happier now than in Biblical times"...well, I'll leave it up to anyone reading to decide which one of us is making the assumptions here. Unlike in the Biblical framework, the women (and men) who take part in the system I'm describing have their own voice, they can voice their ideas and make changes and propose challenges, which leads to a more egalitarian situation, rather than constraining them with arbitrarily-given "roles" in their lives.

I don't recall making any proclamation that this system is "the best" in any sort of real objective sense, just that the data throughout history are on the side of a human wellbeing-focused system being the most able to cultivate a stable and healthy society (of the moral systems we've encountered, at least. There could be a better one created in the future). I've even said flat out that I could be wrong on any number of issues, but the way to correct those errors isn't to simply decree that they're wrong, it's investigation and discussion and participation from everyone in society.

(December 8, 2014 at 4:20 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Really? Your Big Book of Holy Horseshit demands people be killed for working on the sabbath.


I'll take modern American criminal law as an alternative any time.

Sweet, I know I'm doing good when Minnie needs to jump in with a red herring.

Or do you just not understand the argument?

(December 8, 2014 at 4:22 pm)alpha male Wrote: I don't find the concept that parents are likely wiser than their teenage daughters to be repugnant, but you're free to your opinion.

Moving the goal posts here, since neither the bible nor you have talked about teenage daughters so far.

But anyway, even the father of a teenage daughter marrying her off to her rapist seems more repugnant to me than what Parker said. And as far as wisdom is concerned, it's somewhere between Taliban and Isis.

(December 8, 2014 at 4:22 pm)alpha male Wrote: I don't find the concept that parents are likely wiser than their teenage daughters to be repugnant, but you're free to your opinion.

Let me know when you advocate for their teenaged boys to be palmed off as trophies of war ... until then, this is Rhetoric 101, and a shoddy example, at that.

Is there not one Christian on this site who can think his way out of a wet paper bag? You guys represent your faith in the worst possible way, consistently.

It's almost enough to start thinking that it's not the representatives personally, but the faith itself that is corrupt, thoughtless, dishonest, racist, sexist, and vapid.

(December 8, 2014 at 4:24 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: I don't recall ever stating that I was certain of my correctness , nor that the system I'm describing is "objectively" better,

You're straddling the fence. You pay lip service to the subjective nature of morality, then assert that the well-being of society is what "we" should be striving for. You can't have your cake and eat it too, but you're certainly trying to do that.

Quote:because I don't think there is an objective standard to which to compare it.

OK, then we agree that your system isn't better (or worse) than any other. We're getting somewhere.

Quote:When I used the word 'objective' that was within the system when comparing and weighting the wellbeing of a certain decision. The justification that I use to assert that this system is at least a good starting point is that societies that focus on the wellbeing of its citizens instead of some other principle tend to be more stable and efficient.

So what? As you admit that there is no objective standard by which to judge moral systems, stability and efficiency are not justifications.

Quote:As for "You're just assuming women are happier now than in Biblical times"...well, I'll leave it up to anyone reading to decide which one of us is making the assumptions here. Unlike in the Biblical framework, the women (and men) who take part in the system I'm describing have their own voice, they can voice their ideas and make changes and propose challenges, which leads to a more egalitarian situation, rather than constraining them with arbitrarily-given "roles" in their lives.

Yet when I noted that I may have been better off with more parental restriction, you didn't argue that I was wrong. You consider individual autonomy to be morally good, but other people feel differently. In broad terms, eastern cultures see acceptance of such roles as a good, while the west is more about the individual.

Quote:I don't recall making any proclamation that this system is "the best" in any sort of real objective sense, just that the data throughout history are on the side of a human wellbeing-focused system being the most able to cultivate a stable and healthy society. I've even said flat out that I could be wrong on any number of issues, but the way to correct those errors isn't to simply decree that they're wrong, it's investigation and discussion and participation from everyone in society.

Damn, come on man, how can you say that you don't think there is an objective standard to which to compare, then continue to talk about correcting errors? You can't grade the test if there's no objective standard to grade it with. For awhile I thought you were talking oout of both sides of your mouth merely to try to win an argument, but now I think that you really can't wrap your head around this concept.