To what extent can ethics be anchored in reason?

[tabibito]

And further to the point about the lack of basic moral improvement -
https://www.change.org/p/justice-for...ex19%3Acontrol

[The Pixie]

No, I'm not arguing against slavery per se, but the cruelty we saw/see in some forms of slavery. Like in the Antebellum South. That is inconsistent with the teachings of Christ - wouldn't you agree?

I still have no idea how this relates to our discussion. Are you denying that there were Christian slave-owners who justified slavery with scripture?

Appealing to the majority does not make something "intrinsically" bad.I mean slavery was pretty much universal and accepted - does that make it intrinsically good?

So address the bit I said before that.

And isn't your belief that murder is intrinsically bad dogmatic?

This is the bit that I was refering to the majority view. My opinion on murder is "dogmatic" because I have never met anyone who disagrees with it; I have never had a reason to doubt.

No, I do not think all forms of slavery are necessarily bad. Biblically speaking what we saw in the South was. That was grounded in widespread kidnapping - man stealing from the African nations, and man stealing is a sin.

The chattel slavery of the south is pretty similar to the slavery gentiles suffered under the Israelites, judging from the laws (kept for life, can be treated ruthlessly).

Where does the Bible say that?

I will start a new thread on that.

[Roy]

No, I do not think all forms of slavery are necessarily bad. Biblically speaking what we saw in the South was. That was grounded in widespread kidnapping - man stealing from the African nations, and man stealing is a sin.

It wasn't. While some of the slaves taken from Africa were kidnapped, far more were purchased from African tribal leaders who were selling captured enemies or even their own people. The middle passage slave traders were buying slaves (male and female) from the non-Hebrew nations around them, just as authorised by the bible.

[seer]

So address the bit I said before that.

This is the bit that I was refering to the majority view. My opinion on murder is "dogmatic" because I have never met anyone who disagrees with it; I have never had a reason to doubt.

That makes no sense, how many Nazis, Maoists or Stalinists or Hutu or ISIS followers have you known? But I guess it is OK for you to have dogmatic beliefs, but not us....

The chattel slavery of the south is pretty similar to the slavery gentiles suffered under the Israelites, judging from the laws (kept for life, can be treated ruthlessly).

I don't know how ruthlessly the Jews treated their slaves, but as a Christian we should not do the same (Eph 6:9, Col 4:1), along with the general teachings of Christ..

[Tassman]

No, I'm not arguing against slavery per se, but the cruelty we saw/see in some forms of slavery. Like in the Antebellum South. That is inconsistent with the teachings of Christ - wouldn't you agree?

Appealing to the majority does not make something "intrinsically" bad. I mean slavery was pretty much universal and accepted - does that make it intrinsically good? And isn't your belief that murder is intrinsically bad dogmatic?

What makes something "intrinsically" bad is the denial of individual human rights...as per slavery

No, I do not think all forms of slavery are necessarily bad. Biblically speaking what we saw in the South was. That was grounded in widespread kidnapping - man stealing from the African nations, and man stealing is a sin.

ALL forms of slavery are bad. The bible merely reflects the values of the time in this regard...values that are unacceptable today.

Where does the Bible say that?

[The Pixie]

That makes no sense, how many Nazis, Maoists or Stalinists or Hutu or ISIS followers have you known? But I guess it is OK for you to have dogmatic beliefs, but not us....

How many witch burners or crusaders have you met? About the same number I guess.

I said in an earlier post "this is something that humanity across the centuries and across cultures has agreed with (at least with regards to a culture's in-group)"; as far as I know in all the cases you cite that that is still true. The Nazi's had a law against murder, but it only covered persons in the in-group. Same for crusaders and witch burners; I am sure they too considered murder within the in-group to be wrong.

My opinion is that they are right about murder, but wrong about limiting it to a specific group.

I don't know how ruthlessly the Jews treated their slaves, but as a Christian we should not do the same (Eph 6:9, Col 4:1), along with the general teachings of Christ..

You still seem to be arguing against a point I am not making.

I am saying that Christian morality is not consistent. Some Christians held that slavery was moral, other than it is not. ~It necessarily follows that some Christians are wrong.

[rogue06]

How many witch burners or crusaders have you met? About the same number I guess.

I said in an earlier post "this is something that humanity across the centuries and across cultures has agreed with (at least with regards to a culture's in-group)"; as far as I know in all the cases you cite that that is still true. The Nazi's had a law against murder, but it only covered persons in the in-group. Same for crusaders and witch burners; I am sure they too considered murder within the in-group to be wrong.

My opinion is that they are right about murder, but wrong about limiting it to a specific group.

You still seem to be arguing against a point I am not making.

I am saying that Christian morality is not consistent. Some Christians held that slavery was moral, other than it is not. ~It necessarily follows that some Christians are wrong.

I've known several Maoists back in the 70s. Never went anywhere without their little red book and responding to nearly everything but quoting it.

[Tassman]

The Nazi's had a law against murder, but it only covered persons in the in-group. Same for crusaders and witch burners; I am sure they too considered murder within the in-group to be wrong..

Yes, this is tribalism, namely a strong loyalty to one's own tribe, party, or group. But whereby those outside the "tribe" were not accorded the same rights or respect. This is how Moses could justify slave ownership, for example, or the The Midianite virgins were taken by the Israelites as part of the spoils of war.

[Tassman]

I've known several Maoists back in the 70s. Never went anywhere without their little red book and responding to nearly everything but quoting it.

Like Evangelicals with their bibles!

[seer]

How many witch burners or crusaders have you met? About the same number I guess.

How does that address the point? You said:My opinion on murder is "dogmatic" because I have never met anyone who disagrees with it.That is just a silly argument, you know there are people who disagree, whether you have met them or not.

I said in an earlier post "this is something that humanity across the centuries and across cultures has agreed with (at least with regards to a culture's in-group)"; as far as I know in all the cases you cite that that is still true. The Nazi's had a law against murder, but it only covered persons in the in-group. Same for crusaders and witch burners; I am sure they too considered murder within the in-group to be wrong.

OK, so now you have changed it to culture's "in-group."

My opinion is that they are right about murder, but wrong about limiting it to a specific group.

So your dogma is not so dogmatic... And not so universal...

I am saying that Christian morality is not consistent. Some Christians held that slavery was moral, other than it is not. ~It necessarily follows that some Christians are wrong.

And I said that early on, that we may get things wrong or misunderstand, but there there is a right answer, because there are universal moral truths to be had. Unlike with atheism where morality is relative.

[The Pixie]

OK, so now you have changed it to culture's "in-group."

This is what I said in post #87:

It seems to me that depriving the life of another person - against their will - is wrong, and this is something that humanity across the centuries and across cultures has agreed with (at least with regards to a culture's in-group), so I think this is something I can be reasonably sure of. Even then, there are grey areas (abortion, euthanasia, self defence).

So no, I have not changed it, that is what I said at the start.

So your dogma is not so dogmatic... And not so universal...

It is universal in the sense that all cultures have the rule, even if different cultures applied it differently. I think it is reasonable to extend the rule to everyone, rather than just those in the in-group (or to consider all humanity the in-group if you like).

And I said that early on, that we may get things wrong or misunderstand, but there there is a right answer, because there are universal moral truths to be had. Unlike with atheism where morality is relative.

I too think there is a right answer, because I too think there is a universal truth to be had. And I too think we can get it wrong.

[Doug Shaver]

Really? The Maoists or Stalinists can't make up their own moral code?

They could and did. If you say it was a logical code, you need to prove it.

And I can't seem to find the atheist moral code anywhere.

That's because there is none, which any atheist could have told you if you had asked.

[seer]

This is what I said in post #87:

It seems to me that depriving the life of another person - against their will - is wrong, and this is something that humanity across the centuries and across cultures has agreed with (at least with regards to a culture's in-group), so I think this is something I can be reasonably sure of. Even then, there are grey areas (abortion, euthanasia, self defence).

So no, I have not changed it, that is what I said at the start.

OK, my mistake, yet we still have sanctioned or unsanctioned murders within cultures. So prohibitions against murder are not universal.

It is universal in the sense that all cultures have the rule, even if different cultures applied it differently. I think it is reasonable to extend the rule to everyone, rather than just those in the in-group (or to consider all humanity the in-group if you like).

Actually no, universal means universal.

I too think there is a right answer, because I too think there is a universal truth to be had. And I too think we can get it wrong.

Then the question is how/where do these universal moral truths exist? As far as I know moral truths only exist in minds (they are by nature interpersonal) and the only universal mind I know of is God. Take God out of the picture then where does one look for this universal standard?

[seer]

They could and did. If you say it was a logical code, you need to prove it.

I'm not sure what you mean by logical. They murdered millions of dissenters to further political and social cohesion. And it pretty much worked. How is that illogical?

That's because there is none, which any atheist could have told you if you had asked.

But you seemed to hedge, I said:How does the atheist know what is right? Logically he could make anything up and call it right.

You said: If you believe that, then you know little about either atheism or logic.

So I was correct, logically the atheist could make up his own moral code.

[Tassman]

Then the question is how/where do these universal moral truths exist? As far as I know moral truths only exist in minds (they are by nature interpersonal)

and the only universal mind I know of is God.

this; this is merely conjecture, unsupported by any verifiable evidence.

Take God out of the picture then where does one look for this universal standard?

One looks to the society of which we are a part.