Theistic morality

[The Omnissiunt One]

Well, Omni, I do think you have made a pretty good case that for me to be totally consistent in my thinking/application that I should take the position that slavery is ok. Maybe I need to reconsider my position on slavery.

Either that, or admit that the Bible is immoral nonsense, but somehow I doubt that's going to happen.

I don't think you can reasonably say that it's because I haven't explained my position to you.

You explained your reasons, but I didn't think them adequate, as I've explained.

If the robot was programmed to rob banks for the scientist it would be compelled to do so wouldn't it?

Yes, it would. But we have free will (according to religion), unlike a programmed robot. So, in a literal sense, the robot is 'compelled' to obey. I meant 'compelled', as in 'logically and morally compelled'.

I do disagree. I would not say that the U.S. Constitution was bad up until 1865.

What is your standard for determining when an individual "allows" slavery since there are varying degrees of "allowing" something? For example, one who thinks slavery is ok clearly "allows" it, but one who doesn't think it is ok but wouldn't try to make it against the law could also be considered as "allowing" it as could someone who doesn't think it is ok but would never even report illegal slavery if they knew about it. Does an individual have to make some effort at stamping out slavery to fall within your view of "not allowing" slavery? This is not intended as being antagonistic. I am really interested in your answer.

The Bible clearly thinks slavery is okay, because it explicitly says it thinks beating slaves is okay, as I've shown. For the Bible to be taken seriously as a moral guide, it should have explicitly condemned slavery, otherwise it is no moral guide at all.

While I do not hold the same position, I do understand yours.

Good, I'm glad I got my message across to you.

---

The only sensible reason to assess morals in a historic context would be to draw conclusions for the future from not to judge the past.

Yes, that's true.

I subscribe to a form of moral relativism.

If morality is just the view shared by most of society, all moral discussion is meaningless. No-one could ever argue that something was wrong if the rest of society doesn't agree, because that person would be wrong by definition. There could be no moral progress, and, indeed, the idea of moral progress would be redundant, as no one society could claim to be better than any other, as each abides by its own rules.

I disagree. I could condemn actions consistently from a framework of my choice or from a framework that is shared in a broad sense. This is precisely what is the process that led to the Declaration on Human Rights. Your alternative implicitly is a claim on absolute moral truth. Because your frame of reference is necessarily absolute if it is not subjective. So your claim that you can condemn actions consistently and objectively is a totally unsubstantiated claim of the absolute.

But what made the Declaration on Human Rights better than what went before, before it was accepted in society? As I've said, moral relativism is singularly unhelpful when it comes to moral disagreement. Utilitarianism, I believe, provides the best foundation for an objective ethical system.

That's the fallacy known as the argument from authority. Philosophers would be out of work if they thought it was an argument at all.

I'm well aware of the argument from authority. I was just pointing out that you'll have to justify your claim that moral relativism is true, because there is no consensus on it.

First part, OK that's what I call relative moral. Second part, not OK, it is not necessary to a priori accept some morals to define a relative moral framework.

I'm not sure that I've entirely understood you here. What I was saying was, it is necessary to accept that morality is not just subjective or relative to a society to be able to evaluate different ethical systems. Otherwise, they are all equally meaningless.

It definitely is not mere opinion. It has a noticeable effect on the world we live in because it is broadly shared opinion.

So, what would you say to someoone who rejected the values of the Declaration? How would you persuade them that they were good values? Saying, 'It's a broadly shared opinion' would convince no-one. Moral relativism provides no good reason for people to follow society's beliefs.