Morality

[The Grand Nudger]

Non natural realism accounts for this not by delusion or even...strictly, falsehood..but by reference to disparate beliefs about empirical data.  

So, for example..the idea that homosex should be illegal is informed by the non natural fact of the moral status of harm...and a specific belief about the empirical effect of homosex as it relates to harm. The same, again, with slavery.

Lets take a broad kernel of objection common to both anti homosex and pro slavery. If we don't do this thing I'm telling us to do, civilization will crumble. We need slaves, we need to outlaw homosex. The harm is contended to be in the terminus of failing to meet a consequential need. If you explain to that person that there is no such need, then you will have changed their mind about an empirical fact...not a moral fact. Their new position on empirical facts may, however, alter their evaluation of an act or situation. They may, for example..view slavery or anti homosex initiatives as among the set of harmful things - particularly if you also detail empirical cases of that.

To non natural realism..moral difference, is more accurately and more commonly...empirical difference. There is little to no moral difference between two people who often seem to be directly at odds. This isn't limited to morality, either..we can make the same observations in the subject of practicality (I use a fire extinguisher example).

[Acrobat]

That depends on what difference you're talking about, some of those differences might be a product of delusions, or falsehoods. Like the Holocaust being built on lies about the Jews.

At the same time, if we were to compile together all the different texts from human civilizations, that outlines moral guidelines and principles, you'd find that there's a great deal of similarity in these outlooks more so than differences.

I'm not interested in the similarities, only the differences.  So, then, are you suggesting that any difference between the morals in the bible regarding slavery, as one example, are due to delusion or falsehoods?  I presume you would say that the bible doesn't contain falsehoods, so the only conclusion that one could draw from that explanation, failing an alternative explanation, is that people are deluded about the morality of slavery, currently, and the view that slavery is wrong is a falsehood.  Is this what you believe, or are there other explanations for differences between past morals, biblical or not, and present ones?  Second, what faculty of human beings allows for the correction of delusional beliefs or falsehoods?

And I'd still like a response to my second concern previously.  If left unanswered, I'll have to conclude that your position on the matter is vapid and unsupported.

No, I'm not a fundie evangelical, and so yes its possible that the bible contains certain things that are false.

With that being said I don't see that OT practice of slavery being on based on false beliefs, but rather a product of the economic necessities of their tribes, unlike American Slavery being built on false beliefs regarding African Americans as not human, etc...

The OT writers didn't frame slavery in moral terms at all, they did't defend slavery or any moral grounds at all. If the survival of their tribes/communities depended on taking slaves from other tribe, that those are the hard practices they adopted.

[The Grand Nudger]

There was no economic necessity.  You're excusing the faith tradition, giving it a mulligan while simultaneously asserting that it was qualitatively not based on the same silly horseshit as american slavery.

American slavers referred directly to it. They also swore it was a necessity. Magic book commands slaves to obey their masters...among other things.

The Biblical texts outline sources and legal status of slaves, economic roles of slavery, types of slavery, and debt slavery, which thoroughly explain the institution of slavery in Israel in antiquity.[1] Each section – Exodus 21, Deuteronomy 15, and Leviticus 25 – provides an outlook into the understanding of recent slave relations and gives guidance to the Israelites on how to further their life in a proper manual.[1] Philo, one of the philosophers of the time, wrote texts on how to properly treat slaves, indicating that slavery was an important part of Jewish life, but also emphasizes the humanitarian perspective offered up by many Ancient Near East scholars.[2] One such way of showing this was through the sharing of products, such as food and cloth, with other, underprivileged members of society.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_slavery

[Brian37]

I'm not interested in the similarities, only the differences.  So, then, are you suggesting that any difference between the morals in the bible regarding slavery, as one example, are due to delusion or falsehoods?  I presume you would say that the bible doesn't contain falsehoods, so the only conclusion that one could draw from that explanation, failing an alternative explanation, is that people are deluded about the morality of slavery, currently, and the view that slavery is wrong is a falsehood.  Is this what you believe, or are there other explanations for differences between past morals, biblical or not, and present ones?  Second, what faculty of human beings allows for the correction of delusional beliefs or falsehoods?

And I'd still like a response to my second concern previously.  If left unanswered, I'll have to conclude that your position on the matter is vapid and unsupported.

No, I'm not a fundie evangelical, and so yes its possible that the bible contains certain things that are false.

With that being said I don't see that OT practice of slavery being on based on false beliefs, but rather a product of the economic necessities of their tribes, unlike American Slavery being built on false beliefs regarding African Americans as not human, etc...

The OT writers didn't frame slavery in moral terms at all, they did't defend slavery or any moral grounds at all. If the survival of their tribes/communities depended on taking slaves from other tribe, that those are the hard practices they adopted.

Quote Acrobat.... "No, I'm not a fundie evangelical, and so yes its possible that the bible contains certain things that are false. 

"Certain things"..... No, try countless things, just about on every page, both morally wrong, and scientifically impossible.

Glad you are not a fundie though.

The garden story is fiction, but just on the moral idea that it is ok to throw innocent people into a bet they had no say in, knowing the outcome being the being who set it up, only to blame two innocent people for what you did, is repulsive to me.

But even scientifically it is absurd. Men popping out of dirt, women popping out of a man's rib, claiming the earth was made in 6 days, treating the sun and moon as separate sources of light. That is just Genesis. 

The bible is not a science textbook, nor is it a good source of modern western ideas of morality. It was written in antiquity, in an age of kings, for the people who lived back then. And back then the obedience to authority, even in polytheism, was to your local ruler.

[Angrboda]

I'm not interested in the similarities, only the differences.  So, then, are you suggesting that any difference between the morals in the bible regarding slavery, as one example, are due to delusion or falsehoods?  I presume you would say that the bible doesn't contain falsehoods, so the only conclusion that one could draw from that explanation, failing an alternative explanation, is that people are deluded about the morality of slavery, currently, and the view that slavery is wrong is a falsehood.  Is this what you believe, or are there other explanations for differences between past morals, biblical or not, and present ones?  Second, what faculty of human beings allows for the correction of delusional beliefs or falsehoods?

And I'd still like a response to my second concern previously.  If left unanswered, I'll have to conclude that your position on the matter is vapid and unsupported.

No, I'm not a fundie evangelical, and so yes its possible that the bible contains certain things that are false.

With that being said I don't see that OT practice of slavery being on based on false beliefs, but rather a product of the economic necessities of their tribes, unlike American Slavery being built on false beliefs regarding African Americans as not human, etc...

The OT writers didn't frame slavery in moral terms at all, they did't defend slavery or any moral grounds at all. If the survival of their tribes/communities depended on taking slaves from other tribe, that those are the hard practices they adopted.

Well, fine, that still leaves two questions. Are there other explanations other than factual error or falsehood that account for differences between past morals and present ones? If you don't like the biblical example, then use Roman moral beliefs about slavery in its stead. Those have certainly changed. I'm not clear on your point about the economic necessities of bible cultures. Are you suggesting they had different moral understandings on account of those factors, or are you suggesting they had the same moral understandings that we do, they just accepted an immoral practice out of need? If the latter, then I have to ask what evidence you have for this. The second question is what faculties allow us to recover or correct beliefs we have that are false or factually in error?

ETA: Three actually, as you haven't answered my concerns about the Gazzaniga quote.

[Acrobat]

There was no economic necessity.  You're excusing the faith tradition, giving it a mulligan while simultaneously asserting that it was qualitatively not based on the same silly horseshit as american slavery.

I’m not excusing anything, OT views prioritized the concerns of their tribe, over anyone else. But I am saying I as a fat privileged American, I’m not inclined to pass moral judgment on certain things done by others who had to make a variety of hard choices, in an environment far crueler and less certain than ours.

If you as some liberal see yourself as more moral than they were, because of all the violent and tragic choices they had to make to survive, by all means go pat yourself on the back.

Secondly I’m not just saying that of ancient Hebrews, but for ancient civilizations all together.

American slavers referred directly to it. They also swore it was a necessity. Magic book commands slaves to obey their masters...among other things.

If that was the case, then why would slave owners give slaves a modified version of the Bible, that got rid references to Exodus, and etc...?

Why be so keen to censor and supervise slave worship, if they weren’t worried that certain aspects of the Bible will undermine their institutions? Paul’s passage about slaves obedience also calls for their masters to love them, and treat them like they would a brother, far from the suggestions of blacks as less than human, or as animals.

In fact evangelizing slaves to Christianity was prohibited initially, primarily because they weren’t seen as human at all. In Europe it was illegal to own Christian slaves, so missionaries were often met with violence by slave owners.

Slave owners may have tried to use the Bible as means of justifying their institution, but it was also its very undermining. Christianity in its conception is the religion of the oppressed, a religion of subversion of values, from that of masters to that of slaves.

[Simon Moon]

I'm not interested in the similarities, only the differences.  So, then, are you suggesting that any difference between the morals in the bible regarding slavery, as one example, are due to delusion or falsehoods?  I presume you would say that the bible doesn't contain falsehoods, so the only conclusion that one could draw from that explanation, failing an alternative explanation, is that people are deluded about the morality of slavery, currently, and the view that slavery is wrong is a falsehood.  Is this what you believe, or are there other explanations for differences between past morals, biblical or not, and present ones?  Second, what faculty of human beings allows for the correction of delusional beliefs or falsehoods?

And I'd still like a response to my second concern previously.  If left unanswered, I'll have to conclude that your position on the matter is vapid and unsupported.

No, I'm not a fundie evangelical, and so yes its possible that the bible contains certain things that are false.

It is absolutely certain that the Bible contains many things that are provably false.

With that being said I don't see that OT practice of slavery being on based on false beliefs, but rather a product of the economic necessities of their tribes, unlike American Slavery being built on false beliefs regarding African Americans as not human, etc...

The OT writers didn't frame slavery in moral terms at all, they did't defend slavery or any moral grounds at all. If the survival of their tribes/communities depended on taking slaves from other tribe, that those are the hard practices they adopted.

Sure, it is probable that slavery helped the survival of various tribes.

The point is, that the slavery in the Bible is reported as being condoned by Yahweh, and he gives rules for slavery, including differences between enslaving Hebrews and heathen.

In other words, the very fact that the Bible condones slavery, makes it an immoral text. And any god that caused it to be written, would (if he actually existed) also be immoral.

Not to mention, where is the Bible 2.0 correcting this immoral practice condoned in the Bible? It certainly isn't the New Testament, where Jesus tells his followers, "slaves obey your masters, even the cruel ones".

[Acrobat]

Well, fine, that still leaves two questions.  Are there other explanations other than factual error or falsehood that account for differences between past morals and present ones?  If you don't like the biblical example, then use Roman moral beliefs about slavery in its stead.  Those have certainly changed.  I'm not clear on your point about the economic necessities of bible cultures.  Are you suggesting they had different moral understandings on account of those factors, or are you suggesting they had the same moral understandings that we do, they just accepted an immoral practice out of need?  If the latter, then I have to ask what evidence you have for this.  The second question is what faculties allow us to recover or correct beliefs we have that are false or factually in error?

Yes, there are other explanations, as i indicated previously. The answer to some moral questions are hard, and complicated, and not easy to ascertain and answer to, particularly when they involve a variety of moral concerns, that might be served by one response, but not the other.

Morality like truth, can be difficult to ascertain in certain situations, and reasonable people may decide on different outcomes, particularly when those concerns are political in nature. Same can be said about truth. Just because we all hold that objective truth exists, this doesn't mean we know everything.

ETA: Three actually, as you haven't answered my concerns about the Gazzaniga quote.

have to get back to you on that.
[/quote]

[Brian37]

There was no economic necessity.  You're excusing the faith tradition, giving it a mulligan while simultaneously asserting that it was qualitatively not based on the same silly horseshit as american slavery.

I’m not excusing anything, OT views prioritized the concerns of their tribe, over anyone else. But I am saying I as a fat privileged American, I’m not inclined to pass moral judgment on certain things done by others who had to make a variety of hard choices, in an environment far crueler and less certain than ours.

If you as some liberal  see yourself as more moral than they were, because of all the violent and tragic choices they had to make to survive, by all means go pat yourself on the back.

Secondly I’m not just saying that of ancient Hebrews, but for ancient civilizations all together.

American slavers referred directly to it.  They also swore it was a necessity.  Magic book commands slaves to obey their masters...among other things.

If that was the case, then why would slave owners give slaves a modified version of the Bible, that got rid references to Exodus, and etc...?

Why be so keen to censor and supervise slave worship, if they weren’t worried that certain aspects of the Bible will undermine their institutions? Paul’s passage about slaves obedience also calls for their masters to love them, and treat them like they would a brother, far from the suggestions of blacks as less than human, or as animals.

In fact evangelizing slaves to Christianity was prohibited initially, primarily because they weren’t seen as human at all. In Europe it was illegal to own Christian slaves, so missionaries were often met with violence by slave owners.  

Slave owners may have tried to use the Bible as means of justifying their institution, but it was also its very undermining. Christianity in its conception is the religion of the oppressed, a religion of subversion of values, from that of masters to that of slaves.

UGGGGGG.......

Um no, the Jesus story is simply another underdog motif that existed in mythology. Socrates also pissed off authorities and wise men to the point of being convicted and sentenced to death.

Slavery existed long before blacks were victims in America. Even the ancient Greeks and Romans and Egyptians and Chinese captured rivals and enslaved the captured.

But for you to say that white slave owners in America "attempted but failed" is bullshit. No, they did not fail unfortunately. For several centuries in prior to the Revolutionary War, and up until the Civil War they were quite successful in using the bible to condone slavery. Slavery in the Americas was unfortunately quite successful for a long time. 

The bible DOES NOT condone slavery. It contains LAWS on how to treat slaves. It was only ditched eventually  because others rejected the old interpretations that slavery ended, but the words are STILL THERE.

But, even if I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and agreed that the bible condoned slavery, why use humans to write such an ambiguous book to make it subject to misinterpretation? How is it an allegedly all powerful God who could blink the entire universe into existence whom it's claimants say it loves them, would allow such horrors to happen?

[The Grand Nudger]

There was no economic necessity.  You're excusing the faith tradition, giving it a mulligan while simultaneously asserting that it was qualitatively not based on the same silly horseshit as american slavery.

I’m not excusing anything, OT views prioritized the concerns of their tribe, over anyone else. But I am saying I as a fat privileged American, I’m not inclined to pass moral judgment on certain things done by others who had to make a variety of hard choices, in an environment far crueler and less certain than ours.

Apathy and convenience masquerading as thoughtful restraint, lol.  

If you as some liberal  see yourself as more moral than they were, because of all the violent and tragic choices they had to make to survive, by all means go pat yourself on the back.

It was only a matter of time till this started swirling around the l-word, eh?  Again, I've just expressed to you that there was no necessity.  If you care to object, you can explain how slavery was specifically required.  Until then, I'm going to call this for what it was, a lazy attempt to excuse magic book...which continues below.

Secondly I’m not just saying that of ancient Hebrews, but for ancient civilizations all together.

That's nice, dear.

If that was the case, then why would slave owners give slaves a modified version of the Bible, that got rid references to Exodus, and etc...?

For the same reason that christians were treated to similar modifications of the same.  

Why be so keen to censor and supervise slave worship, if they weren’t worried that certain aspects of the Bible will undermine their institutions? Paul’s passage about slaves obedience also calls for their masters to love them, and treat them like they would a brother, far from the suggestions of blacks as less than human, or as animals.

I'm nice to my pet cat, too.

In fact evangelizing slaves to Christianity was prohibited initially, primarily because they weren’t seen as human at all. In Europe it was illegal to own Christian slaves, so missionaries were often met with violence by slave owners.  

Slave owners who were..themselves, god botherers.

Slave owners may have tried to use the Bible as means of justifying their institution, but it was also its very undermining. Christianity in its conception is the religion of the oppressed, a religion of subversion of values, from that of masters to that of slaves.

You prefer your mythology to fact,  it seems.

-For Brian. "Jesus" by the time he was made "christ" in canonization of "john" is no underdog. He's the triumphant and divine lord of all creation conquering his rivals and political enemies..even death itself. Christianity had left it's low born hellenic moorings and become part of the apparatus of both the state, and a psuedo state within that state. The underdog motif is either not a part of this mytheme....or it's place is in the early formation before the standardization of dogma in the proto-christian period. Before this, there was no one we would recognize as christian today.....and many groups unrecognizable as such still belonged (and their adherants were still alive...lol) to the loose collection of competing folkloric traditions in what would later turn out to be the christian umbrella.

Christ as underdog is modern marketing, born in part.. by all of the counterfactual information we've discovered in magic book and the need to (continually) rehabilitate both jesus and christ to our modern sensibilities and valuations.