Theistic morality

[Purple Rabbit]

I strongly disagree with normative relativism but meta-ethical relativism is not merely a position, but historical fact. Denying meta-ethical relativism is denial of human history. Without it moral progress is impossible because than the morals of ancient Rome are defined the same as the morals of modern Japan, which is absurd.

That's descriptive relativism, I think (which is obviously true). Meta-ethical relativism would often seem to entail normative relativism:

Meta-etical relativism IMO just IS an accurate description of moral history.

Let's not get bogged down in semantics, though. (Bit late now, you might think). Basically, we agree. Morality is not just subjective, nor is it the will of God.

Agreed. And hove a good night's rest.

[The Omnissiunt One]

---

I strongly disagree with normative relativism but meta-ethical relativism is not merely a position, but historical fact. Denying meta-ethical relativism is denial of human history. Without it moral progress is impossible because than the morals of ancient Rome are defined the same as the morals of modern Japan, which is absurd.

That's descriptive relativism, I think (which is obviously true). Meta-ethical relativism would often seem to entail normative relativism:

Meta-etical relativism IMO just IS an accurate description of moral history.

Let's not get bogged down in semantics, though. (Bit late now, you might think). Basically, we agree. Morality is not just subjective, nor is it the will of God.

Agreed. And hove a good night's rest.

---

Thanks, I did. In fact, God visited me in a dream, and told me he didn't exist. Is that sending mixed messages or what?

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Slavery was largely abolished due to abolitionists like Wilberforce in the UK, and the American Civil War saw the end to it in America. Cost effectiveness probably had little to do with it.

Bollocks. At the very least it was cynical pragmatism. Governments today do not make policy based on moral principe. This was even more the case C19th laissez faire Britain. (or rany other country)

With the Industrial revolution, slavery became redundant and grossly inefficient. The British abolished the trade in 1807. The bill was introduced by William Wilberforce, but passed only because it was politically advantageous.


From 1807, in the US, slaves ceased being a cheap form of labour and became an expensive,diminishing asset. Large landowners throughout the southern US had millions tied up in slaves. That meant money was not available for railways and other industrial infrastucture. At the begining of the Civil war, the South had almost no secondary industry,and that led indirectly [at least] to the defeat of the Confederacy.

AS a causal agent, slavey had nothing to with the civil war. Only a small percentage of people ON EITHER SIDE actually owned slaves.The US senate had passed The Confiscation Act in 1861, allowing Confederate slaves to be seized as property of the enemy. Lincoln cynically 'freed' Confederate slaves in January 1863.

Slavery was not abolished in Northern US until 1864. The Civil War ended on April 9 1865.

The thirteenth amendment, abolishing slavery, was passed by the Senate in April 1864, and by the House of Representatives in January 1865, by a vote of 119 to 56.[96

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_US

[The Omnissiunt One]

Bollocks. At the very least it was cynical pragmatism. Governments today do not make policy based on moral principe. This was even more the case C19th laissez faire Britain. (or rany other country)

I don't know enough about the history of abolitionism to argue with you about it, though the Wikipedia article, as far as I can see, doesn't suggest that it was entirely motivated by profit. However, are you seriously saying that no politician believes in his or her party's policies? That the Labour party in Britain doesn't have at least some commitment to socialist principles? Obama too must surely have known that his healthcare reforms would provoke a great deal of controversy and criticism, yet he tried to implement them anyway, which suggests that he had at least some moral conviction that it was right, and wasn't motivated entirely by his reputation. It seems like a pretty bold and unfounded statement to say that there are no morals in politics. No doubt there is a great deal of self-interest, but to say 'Governments today do not make policy based on moral principle' is somewhat simplistic.

[rjh4 is back]

The Bible says slaves should be beaten...

Please provide a citation in the Bible where it says that slaves "should" be beaten.

[Paul the Human]

The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given." (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

[The Omnissiunt One]

The Bible says slaves should be beaten...

Please provide a citation in the Bible where it says that slaves "should" be beaten.

Exodus 21:20-21: 'If a slave owner takes a stick and beats his slave, whether male or female (well, at least there's sexual equality... how enlightened!), and the slave dies on the spot, the slave owner is to be punished (alright so far). But if the slave does not die for a day or two, the master is not to be punished. The loss of his property (note the masculine possessive pronoun) is punishment enough.' So it doesn't say they should be beaten, but its tone isn't exactly condemnatory of slave-beating, let alone slave-owning. This is taken from the Good News Bible, by the way. Other versions are slightly different, but the gist of the passage is the same.

[rjh4 is back]

The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given." (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

Chasm said that the Bible says that slaves should be beaten. Your quote does not appear to provide support for such a proposition.

1) I don't think the context of these verses is to explain how a slaves are to be treated. It seems to me the context goes at least as far back as Luke 12:31.

2) There is nothing there that says or implies that slaves "should" be beaten. It is a leap (an unreasonable one IMO) to go from something that says that a certain lord will beat (punish) a servant for doing or not doing something to take this to mean the general proposition that slaves "should" be beaten (Chasm's proposition).

If you disagree, please explain why.

---

Exodus 21:20-21: 'If a slave owner takes a stick and beats his slave, whether male or female (well, at least there's sexual equality... how enlightened!), and the slave dies on the spot, the slave owner is to be punished (alright so far). But if the slave does not die for a day or two, the master is not to be punished. The loss of his property (note the masculine possessive pronoun) is punishment enough.' So it doesn't say they should be beaten, but its tone isn't exactly condemnatory of slave-beating, let alone slave-owning. This is taken from the Good News Bible, by the way. Other versions are slightly different, but the gist of the passage is the same.

So are you saying then that the Bible doesn't say that slaves "should" be beaten, as Chasm says?

Well the verse is certainly condemnatory of beating a slave to such a degree that he/she dies on the spot...and you seem to agree with this based on your commentary on the verse.

It seems to me the "tone" of the verse is the same tone used for many laws...here is the offence, here is the punishment, here is when the punishment doesn't apply. (Take a look at some statutes online.) I do not see this as approving of or condoning slave beating at all or saying that slaves "should" be beaten. Do you?

[downbeatplumb]

[quote='The Omnissiunt One' pid='80272' dateline='1279121691']
Exodus 21:20-21: 'If a slave owner takes a stick and beats his slave, whether male or female (well, at least there's sexual equality... how enlightened!), and the slave dies on the spot, the slave owner is to be punished (alright so far). But if the slave does not die for a day or two, the master is not to be punished. The loss of his property (note the masculine possessive pronoun) is punishment enough.' So it doesn't say they should be beaten, but its tone isn't exactly condemnatory of slave-beating, let alone slave-owning. This is taken from the Good News Bible, by the way. Other versions are slightly different, but the gist of the passage is the same.

So are you saying then that the Bible doesn't say that slaves "should" be beaten, as Chasm says?

Well the verse is certainly condemnatory of beating a slave to such a degree that he/she dies on the spot...and you seem to agree with this based on your commentary on the verse.

It seems to me the "tone" of the verse is the same tone used for many laws...here is the offence, here is the punishment, here is when the punishment doesn't apply. (Take a look at some statutes online.) I do not see this as approving of or condoning slave beating at all or saying that slaves "should" be beaten. Do you?

It is instructions for the severity of beatings that can be dished out to slaves, this means that a certain level of slave beating is acceptable.
What dont you undertand?

[Paul the Human]

DBP kind of messed the quote up, but his response is correct. The passage I quoted says that a "servant" (by which it means 'slave') will be severely punished. How do you think slaves were "severely punished"? Do you think they got grounded from their video games? Of course not... they were beaten.

"Will be" is not the same as "Should be". You are right about that. It is worse. Not only should slaves be beaten, but you are commanded to beat them... i.e. they will be beaten.