The Immorality of God - Slavery in the Old Testament

[Catholic_Lady]

I have a simple question for the theists here arguing for "objective morality", is slavery objectively moral or immoral?

Objectively immoral.

[robvalue]

Sure, it's not silly to have an opinion, because morality is an opinion. You can only say something is bad if you define bad to mean what you think is bad, it's circular. It's your opinion, by definition.

If no two people could agree on any goals to morality, we wouldn't see societal norms. But we do agree, on the whole, so the possible anarchy is moot.

You could say slavery is objectively harmful to human wellbeing, but just "objectively immoral" doesn't mean anything until you say what immoral means. If it just means "doing what God says", then in fact it is totally moral.

[Catholic_Lady]

I guess not, but it just seems silly. If morality is just as subjective and unreal as "the best color in the world", for example, then someone having a different favorite color than yourself shouldn't make them a disgusting monster.

No not silly at all, sure I can think someone is a monster for having a different opinion then me, especially when their opinion is to enslave and hurt other people. Of course it varies depending on the issue being discussed, I wouldn't think somebody is a monster if their opinion differed from mine on the taste of broccoli.

I don't see how, if hurting and enslaving other people isn't actually wrong, and merely a personal opinion. 

I don't get mad at people for having a different opinion than myself on things that aren't actually wrong... like having a different favorite color, or liking a different type of climate or whatever. But if someone says rape is good? Yeah, that makes me mad because rape is NOT good. That's fact, not opinion.

[Mr.wizard]

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?

A person can have the free will to believe whatever they want about things like rape, murder, slavery, etc. But it doesn't mean they will not be horribly incorrect if they believe those things are good.

You couldn't believe those things are good if morality is objective, because the right and wrong would be inherent.

[robvalue]

Yeah, "right" and "wrong" don't mean a thing until you define what they mean.

We have to agree, or else we're not discussing anything real. You might as well say blue and yellow actions.

[Mr.wizard]

No not silly at all, sure I can think someone is a monster for having a different opinion then me, especially when their opinion is to enslave and hurt other people. Of course it varies depending on the issue being discussed, I wouldn't think somebody is a monster if their opinion differed from mine on the taste of broccoli.

I don't see how, if hurting and enslaving other people isn't actually wrong, and merely a personal opinion. 

I don't get mad at people for having a different opinion than myself on things that aren't actually wrong... like having a different favorite color, or liking a different type of climate or whatever. But if someone says rape is good? Yeah, that makes me mad because rape is NOT good. That's fact, not opinion.

But hurting people is wrong according to my morality, if you think its ok then that's your business, it doesn't change the fact that I think your a monster for it.

[robvalue]

It's like saying my favourite colour is red, but what if it was blue?

[Catholic_Lady]

A person can have the free will to believe whatever they want about things like rape, murder, slavery, etc. But it doesn't mean they will not be horribly incorrect if they believe those things are good.

You couldn't believe those things are good if morality is objective, because the right and wrong would be inherent.

Sure you could. 

A person can believe the earth is flat all they want. Truth is it isn't, and whoever thinks it is is just wrong.

[robvalue]

Scientific facts are objectively measurable, morality is not. That's the difference.

You can measure effects compared to a specific goal, but until you agree a goal, you have no idea what you're assessing.

[Catholic_Lady]

I don't see how, if hurting and enslaving other people isn't actually wrong, and merely a personal opinion. 

I don't get mad at people for having a different opinion than myself on things that aren't actually wrong... like having a different favorite color, or liking a different type of climate or whatever. But if someone says rape is good? Yeah, that makes me mad because rape is NOT good. That's fact, not opinion.

But hurting people is wrong according to my morality, if you think its ok then that's your business, it doesn't change the fact that I think your a monster for it.

Again, what I don't get is why someone would be so upset about someone else having a different "opinion" than themselves, if it is merely an opinion. And why anyone would call someone else a monster for having a different "opinion" than themselves, if it is merely an opinion. 

That's what doesn't make sense to me. But then again, that's why I'm a theist and you're an atheist. If it made more sense to me to be an atheist, I would be one.