Baha'i faith, slavery and progressive revelation...

[Sparko]

False, all my posts were consistent and specific based on the definition of slavery and 'Rules of Law.' You jave failed to be specific where I have not been specific.

But even when they arrested blacks and made them into prison slaves, that was done through the "rule of law" so that contradicts your claim that as long as it was done under the "rule of law" prisoners are not slaves.

You seem to just keep on making more excuses each time I point out the flaw in your previous reasoning. I can't wait for you to do it again

[shunyadragon]

So when one group of Chimps slaughter another group of Chimps they get arrested? Even so they do this by instinct without written laws or rules.

Warfare is common, and yes morals and ethis and laws need not be written.

Do you want to start a thread on this? There are several moldy oldies that covered this topic.

The Ukraine thing has nothing to do with human rights per se, but territory

Per say the invasion of Ukraine was specifically the invasion of an internationally recognized Nation of Ukraine. Russia's wide spread extreme violation of Human Rights including kidnapping thousands of children, preferential targeting civilian targets, slaughter of civilians as found in mass graves.

Of course it does, some countries embrace human rights others don't. That is relativism.

No ir is simply the diversity of morals and ethics between countries, I again reject the philosophies of moral relativism and objectivism as extreme, and without evidence based conclusions,a nd as cited before religious agenda based agendas. Diversity of legal and moral and ethical systems doe not justify relativism.

As previously documented your argument is subjective based on a subjective religious agenda

If remains you have failed to present am academic legal reference that justifies that the 'Rule of Law' is subjective.

[seer]

Warfare is common, and yes morals and ethis and laws need not be written.

Do you want to start a thread on this? There are several moldy oldies that covered this topic.

But Monkeys do not think about or care about laws or morals, they act on instinct.

Per say the invasion of Ukraine was specifically the invasion of an internationally recognized Nation of Ukraine. Russia's wide spread extreme violation of Human Rights including kidnapping thousands of children, preferential targeting civilian targets, slaughter of civilians as found in mass graves.

Yep, that just proves moral relativism...

No ir is simply the diversity of morals and ethics between countries, I again reject the philosophies of moral relativism and objectivism as extreme, and without evidence based conclusions,a nd as cited before religious agenda based agendas. Diversity of legal and moral and ethical systems doe not justify relativism.

If remains you have failed to present am academic legal reference that justifies that the 'Rule of Law' is subjective.

You just proved moral relativism, some countries have human rights other counties reject them. The very definition of relativism.

Moral Relativism:

Moral relativism refers to the differences in morality from culture to culture. A moral relativist’s perspective would state that what is moral in one culture may not be moral in another culture, depending upon the culture

[shunyadragon]

But Monkeys do not think about or care about laws or morals, they act on instinct.

Humans like all primates do indeed act on instincts.

Yep, that just proves moral relativism...

No, neither relativism, subjectivism, nor objectivism explain nor prove anything of substance. They are philosophies based on an agenda, and for the most part circular arguments without evidence. I prefer the Objective verifiable evidence of science.

The differences in legal, moral and ethical systems simply reflects the natural diversity of natural human behavior, and as in all evolution differences and diversity is the natural objective reality.


[quote] You just proved moral relativism, some countries have human rights other counties reject them. The very definition of relativism. [quote]

Diversity in the nature of our human existence does not remotely demonstrate relativism, which is a philosophy that is circular defining itself some people believe or attack without evidence.

[shunyadragon]

Yep, that just proves moral relativism...

Nothing is proven in philosophy unless you accept the premises pf the philosophy and I do not accept the premises of Relativism, Objectivism Moral Realism, Moral Objectivism nor Subjectivism.

I trust the objective verifiable evidence of science as the knowledge evolves over time.

[seer]

Humans like all primates do indeed act on instincts.

So laws and morals (which are abstracts) are not necessary for survival. We would survive fine on instinct (which we probably did for most of human history).

You just proved moral relativism, some countries have human rights other counties reject them. The very definition of relativism.

Diversity in the nature of our human existence does not remotely demonstrate relativism, which is a philosophy some people believe or attack without evidence.

Yep, you are spouting nonsense...

[shunyadragon]

So laws and morals (which are abstracts) are not necessary for survival. We would survive fine on instinct (which we probably did for most of human history).

No, from the objective evolutionary perspective morals, ethics and laws have an objective basis and objectively necessary for the survival of the human spesies. Again like the difference in the natural diversity of the nature of life differences do not translate to relativism nor subjectivism philosophies not based on evidence.

Yep, you are spouting nonsense...

From your subjective biased religious agenda.

[seer]

No, from the objective evolutionary perspective morals, ethics and laws have an objective basis and objectively necessary for the survival of the human spesies. Again like the difference in the natural diversity of the nature of life differences do not translate to relativism nor subjectivism philosophies not based on evidence.

That makes no sense, homo sapiens have been around for what, 200,000 years, and the vast majority of that time we no evidence of written law codes, or understanding of abstracts like morals or ethics. So no, law and ethics were not necessary for survival, any more that they are necessary for a pride of lions.

[shunyadragon]

That makes no sense, homo sapiens have been around for what, 200,000 years, and the vast majority of that time we no evidence of written law codes, or understanding of abstracts like morals or ethics. So no, law and ethics were not necessary for survival, any more that they are necessary for a pride of lions.

Morals and ethics do not need written codes to uniform based on archaeology and paleontology, and study of chimps today.

Morals and ethics and unwritten 'common law' are documented by archaeology and paleontology. There is direct evidence of the social order and long term care of severely wounded by Neanderthals. Among chips there is direct observed evidence of uniform punishment of violations of troop rules such as theft of food.

[seer]

Morals and ethics do not need written codes to uniform based on archaeology and paleontology, and study of chimps today.

Of course they do, morals and ethics are abstract principles. As far as we know monkeys only act on instinct. Even if we see something that looks like fairness in chimps for instance, we are only reading back in our abstract ideals.

Morals and ethics and unwritten 'common law' are documented by archaeology and paleontology. There is direct evidence of the social order and long term care of severely wounded by Neanderthals. Among chips there is direct observed evidence of uniform punishment of violations of troop rules such as theft of food.

Right, you are reading back into those behaviors our abstract notions of ethics.

[DesertBerean]

I'm kinda late to the party...no time to do more than a quick search....didn't the Law of Moses address the issues of slavery?

[shunyadragon]

Of course they do, morals and ethics are abstract principles. As far as we know monkeys only act on instinct. Even if we see something that looks like fairness in chimps for instance, we are only reading back in our abstract ideals.



Right, you are reading back into those behaviors our abstract notions of ethics.

No, morals and ethics are not abstract principles. They are the result of objective natural evolution for the survival of the species.

The morals and ethics of Chips are not abstract. They objective consistent observable behaviors,

[seer]

No, morals and ethics are not abstract principles. They are the result of objective natural evolution for the survival of the species.

The morals and ethics of Chips are not abstract. They objective consistent observable behaviors,

No, Shuny you are anthropomorphizing animal behavior. And yes laws and ethics are certainly are abstract ideals. They are human ideals, created by humans, just as math or logical principles are abstract.

[shunyadragon]

No, Shuny you are anthropomorphizing animal behavior.

No, they are specific observable consistent moral behavior for the survival of the species. References to follow. There are a number of scientific references that address this issue. We have been down this road before.

And yes laws and ethics are certainly are abstract ideals. They are human ideals, created by humans, just as math or logical principles are abstract.

Not according tp Kramer and you have consistently failed to present a contrary academic reference.

[seer]

No, they are specific observable consistent moral behavior for the survival of the species. References to follow. There are a number of scientific references that address this issue. We have been down this road before.

I'm not arguing that we don't see certain behaviors, I have read Frans de Waal's work on 'fairness' with monkeys for instance. What I'm saying is that you are reading our ideas of fairness back into an instinctive behavior.

Not according tp Kramer and you have consistently failed to present a contrary academic reference.

I have no idea what you are talking about because you have no idea what you are talking about. Our laws are concepts, created by human minds. They don't exist in nature. Laws are not PHYSICAL.