Racism, Perfectly Normal?

[Tassman]

How is it self-evident?

It is instinctive for a social species such as us, to be cooperative and altruistic to enable the cohesion of the group which is necessary for survival.

In what sense is a person born with downs equal to a person of normal intelligence?

Such a person is obviously NOT equal in terms of intellectual capacity – but we have evolved to take care and nurture our own as fellow community members.

[seer]

It is instinctive for a social species such as us, to be cooperative and altruistic to enable the cohesion of the group which is necessary for survival.



Such a person is obviously NOT equal in terms of intellectual capacity – but we have evolved to take care and nurture our own as fellow community members.

Please explain, you said all men were born equal. What makes them equal? And some men are exploit other men for their own survival and power.

[Tassman]

Please explain, you said all men were born equal. What makes them equal?

It’s an evolved instinct. Natural selection has resulted in social animals like us living cooperatively and altruistically as mutually valued equal members of the community. It’s a survival mechanism.

And some men are exploit other men for their own survival and power.

There will always be those who exploit the system for their own gain - in both secular or Christian society.

[seer]

It’s an evolved instinct. Natural selection has resulted in social animals like us living cooperatively and altruistically as mutually valued equal members of the community. It’s a survival mechanism.



There will always be those who exploit the system for their own gain - in both secular or Christian society.

Whom exploits whom for whatever reason is not the point. To exploit our fellow man for our own benefit is also an evolved instinct. That is also a survival mechanism. And nothing you said explains why or how men are equal, try again.

[Machinist]

All the old documents that our forefathers penned, that speak of men being equal....they all point to God, they all reference God as being the source and basis by which all men are equal. What would an Atheist document read like I wonder. In attempts to explain why men have evolved equally, and that they are all equal, how would that phrasing read in the New World Constitution?

Also, just an aside here, but I think this is relevant....but is asking "why or how are men equal?" the right question to ask? Perhaps asking "in what sense are men equal?" would be a better question when debating with someone of a naturalist/atheistic worldview.

[Machinist]

To exploit our fellow man for our own benefit is also an evolved instinct.

I mean, you know....that is a valid observation. It looks like a Big Pink Elephant to me.

[Machinist]

I believe evolution produces Big Pink Elephants.

[Diogenes]

If men are created in the image of God, to violate that image in an unjustifiable way, would be a moral evil.

That would be a value judgement

It would violate a universal and transcendent moral fact.

You've yet to substantiate any moral fact.

[seer]

That would be a value judgement


You've yet to substantiate any moral fact.

If a moral claim is the result of God's immutable moral character, eternal and absolute, why wouldn't that be a moral fact? Could any moral belief in heaven or earth be more certain, more universal? Or are you suggesting that moral facts don't or can't exist?

[Diogenes]

If a moral claim is the result of God's immutable moral character, eternal and absolute, why wouldn't that be a moral fact?

God having a value judgement is still a value judgement, even considering God's character or eternity. Furthermore, the morality in the Bible is complicated. At best, only the Noachian laws would be both universal and absolute. If those include the proscription against emasculation of animals and pairing animals of different species as the Jewish Encyclopedia suggests, certain animal control methods and genetically modified organisms (including mules) then would be suspect. The New Testament includes examples of moral abrogation of the Old Testament (or I suppose you don't eat lobster, etc.).

Could any moral belief in heaven or earth be more certain, more universal?

Moral beliefs, no matter how certain or universal, are still beliefs.

Or are you suggesting that moral facts don't or can't exist?

Seeing as you don't accept moral realism, or at least that's my impression, that would deny moral facts.

I\m sceptical of facts or properties having normative qualities so I'm sceptical to both the possibility and actuality of moral facts [in a strict moral realist sense].

[seer]

God having a value judgement is still a value judgement, even considering God's character or eternity. Furthermore, the morality in the Bible is complicated. At best, only the Noachian laws would be both universal and absolute. If those include the proscription against emasculation of animals and pairing animals of different species as the Jewish Encyclopedia suggests, certain animal control methods and genetically modified organisms (including mules) then would be suspect. The New Testament includes examples of moral abrogation of the Old Testament (or I suppose you don't eat lobster, etc.).

As long as the Noachian laws could subsume the moral teachings of Christ then I wouldn't have much of a problem here.

Moral beliefs, no matter how certain or universal, are still beliefs.

I believe that the sun exists, so I'm not sure of your point.

Seeing as you don't accept moral realism, or at least that's my impression, that would deny moral facts.

I'm skeptical of facts or properties having normative qualities so I'm skeptical to both the possibility and actuality of moral facts [in a strict moral realist sense].

So at bottom, you don't believe that moral facts exist. How about this: God's view of men is absolute. Grounded in His unchangeable moral character and omniscience. Wouldn't that give men a worth that is transcendent and certain? Divorced from varying, and often fickle, opinions of men?

[Diogenes]

I believe that the sun exists, so I'm not sure of your point.

That's not a value judgement nor is it a "moral belief"'.

So at bottom, you don't believe that moral facts exist.

In a strict moral realist sense, correct.

How about this: God's view of men is absolute.

If you mean that God's view of men is the same for all men, I would be sceptical of that in light of explicit predestination to Hell in Romans 9 and the man in John 9 born blind as means to an end.

Grounded in His unchangeable moral character and omniscience.

The worth is grounded in God's mind, no God's nature.

Wouldn't that give men a worth that is transcendent and certain?

Ontological subjectivity isn't changed by transcendence or certainty.

Divorced from varying, and often fickle, opinions of men?

Biology and human ontology are as well.

[Tassman]

Whom exploits whom for whatever reason is not the point. To exploit our fellow man for our own benefit is also an evolved instinct. That is also a survival mechanism.

Exploitation of our fellow man for our own individual benefits is NOT a survival mechanism. Quite the reverse. It is destructive of the cohesive social fabric essential for our survival as a social species. This is why ALL societies have rules and penalties against such behavior.

And nothing you said explains why or how men are equal, try again.

In lieu of “because god said so”, you mean?

We have evolved to survive as cooperative intelligent social creatures and live communally with others as equals. Something which we share with other intelligent tribal animals to a limited extent,

[seer]

That's not a value judgement nor is it a "moral belief"'.

But it is a belief, everything we know are beliefs.

In a strict moral realist sense, correct.

Is there any other sense to you?

If you mean that God's view of men is the same for all men, I would be sceptical of that in light of explicit predestination to Hell in Romans 9 and the man in John 9 born blind as means to an end.

No, that does not follow. First, I would argue against the Calvinist view of Romans nine. Second, a man born blind to display the glory of God in no way undermines the fact that he bears God's image.

The worth is grounded in God's mind, no God's nature.

I don't make that distinction. God's moral law is grounded in His immutable moral nature.

Ontological subjectivity isn't changed by transcendence or certainty

.

Except it is transcendence and certain - absolute.

Biology and human ontology are as well.

What does that have to do with worth?

[seer]

Exploitation of our fellow man for our own individual benefits is NOT a survival mechanism. Quite the reverse. It is destructive of the cohesive social fabric essential for our survival as a social species. This is why ALL societies have rules and penalties against such behavior.

You can have it both ways, in chimpanzee groups the strong dominate and control the weak. In China today the ruling class exploit the underclass. In both cases cohesiveness is maintained.

In lieu of “because god said so”, you mean?

We have evolved to survive as cooperative intelligent social creatures and live communally with others as equals. Something which we share with other intelligent tribal animals to a limited extent,

Really, do the Chinese see the Uighurs as equals?