Slavery

[phyllo]

I love the slight variation here :

If you're a Christian, God exists.

Now, if you're a Humanist, God doesn't exist, you believe.

[MikeNovack]

I love the slight variation here :

If you're a Christian, God exists.

Now, if you're a Humanist, God doesn't exist, you believe.

Not necessarily ..........
It is the belief of many Christians, that a humanist could not be a deist. But what they are doing is ASSUMING that all deists must be believing in a "hands-on" deity like they do.

I find nothing inconsistent with a different notion. That there is a "first cause" deity, creator of the universe, who paint only with a broad brush, and leaves matters like how we humans conduct ourselves to us.

[Iwannaplato]

I love the slight variation here :

If you're a Christian, God exists.

Now, if you're a Humanist, God doesn't exist, you believe.

Not necessarily ..........
It is the belief of many Christians, that a humanist could not be a deist. But what they are doing is ASSUMING that all deists must be believing in a "hands-on" deity like they do.

I find nothing inconsistent with a different notion. That there is a "first cause" deity, creator of the universe, who paint only with a broad brush, and leaves matters like how we humans conduct ourselves to us.

I read Phyllo differently here.

If you're a Christian, God exists.

Whether causation is being implied or a necessary correlation, doesn't really matter, it's a strong assertion. I think he meant something else, but as written it much stronger. Could be a kind of 'Freudian' Slip
'
with the humanist he adds the missing part.

Now, if you're a Humanist, God doesn't exist, you believe.

I think it's unconscious and but not necessarily unintended.

[Immanuel Can]

Explain why we are obligated to be Humanists, or to follow Humanist moral claims.

Now to you....
Explain why we are obligated to be Christians, or to follow Christian moral claims.

If you're a Christian, God exists. God is the necessary authority for ethics, and ethics are that which is harmonious with his revealed will and nature. And the package is internally rational. A rational Christian can find the necessary reasons for Christian ethics. Christian ontology and Christian morality fit each other, logically.

Nothing here that explains why a Christian must accept your moral claim that slavery is wrong.

I was explaining the concept of "grounding," sometimes also called "legitimating" or "being rational." I wasn't making that case.

But the Christian opposition to slavery is fundamentally grounded in the fact that all men are made "in the image of God," as Genesis says, and thus are properly only ever the possession of God Himself. And it was this conviction that informed both William Wilberforce and the American Abolitionist movement that they were duty-bound to fight against slavery...to the death, if necessary.

So, you cannot meet the criterion you expect of Humanists.

I can meet it for a Christian. Humanists cannot even meet it for themselves.

You cannot demonstrate why anyone is obligated to be a Christian, or to follow Christian moral claims.

Oh, that's a different question. Yes, I can. They're obligated because they're the truth. One is always obligated to the truth. And one always answers to the One who said, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life." The Humanist may think he can do as he pleases, or as his Humanism teaches him; but he's wrong. He's still going to answer for what he chooses.

You can't demonstrate this to other theists.

Absolutely, I can. And I have authorization and authority for so doing...even an obligation to do so.

[Iwannaplato]

I was explaining the concept of "grounding," sometimes also called "legitimating" or "being rational." I wasn't making that case.

Yes, you made it clear you can't, and yet it is one of the criteria you use to show that Humanists ethics are doomed

But the Christian opposition to slavery is fundamentally grounded in the fact that all men are made "in the image of God," as Genesis says, and thus are properly only ever the possession of God Himself. And it was this conviction that informed both William Wilberforce and the American Abolitionist movement that they were duty-bound to fight against slavery...to the death, if necessary.

I've pointed out myself in other contexts that Christian abolitionists were key in moving the nation away from slavery. But the problem is that while one can try to argue the Bible is anti-slavery via deduction and focusing on some parts, obviously Christians have held other positions and they have their own arguments and had those arguments for a long time. And their arguments could be solid also. They did not feel obligated to agree with anti-slavery arguments.
You have various opinions about the right attitude towards other races and slavery.

So, you cannot meet the criterion you expect of Humanists.

I can meet it for a Christian. Humanists cannot even meet it for themselves.

Well, you can't even to that but again, you the following with the words Humanist and Humanism in it

You cannot demonstrate why anyone is obligated to be a Christian, or to follow Christian moral claims.

Oh, that's a different question. Yes, I can

You just said you can't do it for a humanist. So you can't demonstrate it to anyone. Further as quoted earlier, you said

Now, do you want to tell me why a Humanist should follow Christian ethics? I can't,

They're obligated because they're the truth. One is always obligated to the truth. And one always answers to the One who said, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life."

That's not a demonstration they are obligated. You can't even demonstrate that the Bible is the word of God. You can't demonstrate that your interpretation is correct. It is grounded in your subjective intuition. And you already admitted that you can't do this.
You certainly can't show other theists that they are obligated to see your intuition that your scripture is correct and theirs is false or flawed.
And you cannot demonstrate to other Christians that your interpretations obligate them to make your moral choices and have your moral rules.
If you can, why haven't you done this. You and the others with the right interpretation?
If you can demonstrate the obligation, why not do it?

You can't demonstrate this to other theists.

Absolutely, I can. And I have authorization and authority for so doing...even an obligation to do so.

So, you demonstrated to other theists, non-Christians, that there is an obligation to be Christians and follow Christian morals?
See, the problem is, you are working from intuition and your subjective sense that the Bible is correct and the word of God. That's not a demonstration of obligation, that's you expressing an opinion based on a non-rational premise. Note: I am not even arguing it is wrong. It's just non-rational. And so, you cannot demonstrate the obligation. You can state your felt sense and then hope they resonate. Yes, there can be reasoning, even wonderful reasoning, but those premises are non-rational and they obligate no one.

[Iwannaplato]

Absolutely, I can. And I have authorization and authority for so doing...even an obligation to do so.

But in relation to Slavery, you wouldn't do it until I presented my moral skepticism about such demonstrations (which you assumed, incorrectly, had to be moral nihilism).

Did you follow the obligation to present the case that Henry asked for in his OP?

(and going back into the parenthetical - one can even believe there are objective morals, but think that there is no way to demonstrate an obligation to others to follow them. Many things that are true cannot be demonstrated to be true. A moral nihilist is taking the position there are no objective morals. I don't take that position).

[Immanuel Can]

Absolutely, I can. And I have authorization and authority for so doing...even an obligation to do so.

But in relation to Slavery, you wouldn't do it until I presented my moral skepticism about such demonstrations (which you assumed, incorrectly, had to be moral nihilism).

Logically, they have to be moral Nihilism. Consistency would require you to be a nihilist, and your professed dismissal of all objective morality actually demonstrates that that is what you are. But you don't seem particularly aware of the implications of your own view. And that's not unusual: lots of people try to "jump off a cliff and stop half way down," so to speak, because they don't like how hard the ground looks.

In both your requests and Henry's, I simply stayed on topic and refused to be distracted by et tu quoque fallacies that were thrown at me. For it has never been any reasonable defense for secularism if any number of other views can or can't do the task that secularism itself cannot do. But I was forthcoming when you confessed your view of morality, nihilistic as it actually is, as you will note.

one can even believe there are objective morals, but think that there is no way to demonstrate an obligation to others to follow them.

Sure there is. God exists. This world and everythin in it was created for a purpose, one that God has declared; and to defy that purpose is unethical.

We have that obligation, whether or not we admit it. Reality does not change to suit our willingness to believe.

[phyllo]

For it has never been any reasonable defense for secularism if any number of other views can or can't do the task that secularism itself cannot do.

It is not a reasonable attack on secularism to demand that secularism do the task what no one can do.

[Iwannaplato]

Logically, they have to be moral Nihilism.

Nope, they could be moral skeptics. And you could be an intuitionist realist as far as morals.

Consistency would require you to be a nihilist, and your professed dismissal of all objective morality actually demonstrates that that is what you are.

I didn't dismiss all objective morality.

But you don't seem particularly aware of the implications of your own view. And that's not unusual: lots of people try to "jump off a cliff and stop half way down," so to speak, because they don't like how hard the ground looks.

All ethics are doomed in the sense that they cannot prove their basic value/moral judgments are objective, be they humanist, theist, other.

That's what I said. doomed in that sense. I did not say there aren't objective morals. The issue is proving, demonstrating to others that moral X is objective. You seem to think all truths can be proven.

In both your requests and Henry's, I simply stayed on topic and refused to be distracted by et tu quoque fallacies that were thrown at me. For it has never been any reasonable defense for secularism if any number of other views can or can't do the task that secularism itself cannot do. But I was forthcoming when you confessed your view of morality, nihilistic as it actually is, as you will note.

But my argument is not et tu quoque. You don't even read what you write. I don't think any moral system can prove its morals are objective. Further you repeatedly compared theists with non-theists on the issue. You did that on your own, repeatedly. So, my pointing out that you were incorrect about the difference is not tu quoqe. Not only did you not refuse to be distracted, you brought up the difference between humanists and Christians yourself.
You're conflate a number of positions: Moral nihilism, Moral skepticism and Intuitionist realist as far as morals: that last mine.

one can even believe there are objective morals, but think that there is no way to demonstrate an obligation to others to follow them.

Sure there is. God exists. This world and everythin in it was created for a purpose, one that God has declared; and to defy that purpose is unethical.

That's just some claims. Claims are not a demonstration.

We have that obligation, whether or not we admit it. Reality does not change to suit our willingness to believe.

Ah, so you can't demonstrate it, but it is. That's fine. I understand that your believe what you believe. I just have not seen anything like a demonstration.

And this coming from the guy who thinks that PETA members who think meat is murder are being rational, even though of course most of them are secular.

Did you challenge Wizard in this thread, since he believed slavery to be moral? Could you link me to where you did that? If not, don't you have an obligation?

[Immanuel Can]

Logically, they have to be moral Nihilism.

Nope, they could be moral skeptics.

No, because mere skepticism would imply they don't know, and they should know...if they can think logically about their own beliefs. There's not one single moral precept they can come up with from Humanist presuppostions. Anybody who doesn't know that hasn't tried.

I didn't dismiss all objective morality.

Okay, what morals are objective, in your view?

I don't think any moral system can prove its morals are objective.

If there are such things as objective morals, as you claim, then what is your basis for assuming nobody can prove any?

one can even believe there are objective morals, but think that there is no way to demonstrate an obligation to others to follow them.

Sure there is. God exists. This world and everythin in it was created for a purpose, one that God has declared; and to defy that purpose is unethical.

That's just some claims.

Or it's the truth. If God exists, and if God has spoken, then that's as much demonstration as a rational person is ever going to need. The question, then, is only "Does God exist?" And for that, we have good evidence.

We have that obligation, whether or not we admit it. Reality does not change to suit our willingness to believe.

Ah, so you can't demonstrate it, but it is.

See above. We can.

[Wizard22]

Many people define God in many ways. But I don't recognize those without the Authority to speak of God. Most do not have that Authority. Thus I must rely on my own Reason, primarily, to find an Authority or Representation of God.

and, yes, what did you Reason come up with?

I'm going to make another thread about it, just for you, IWP...

I quoted you three times where you clearly stated that modern lefty values come from Jesus. Unless that sentence was poorly written it meant that Jesus was causal in the positions of the people you consider pernicious. I asked you three times about that. Nothing. You can't even manage to say either, well yes there is a problem with Jesus' ideas there or No, what I meant was.......

Isn't it easy to see though?

Jesus Christ' teachings, philosophy, and entire religion is about UNIVERSAL SALVATION OF THE SOUL FOR EVERYBODY.


EVERYBODY.

That's as far "Left" as Leftism goes, IWP. Take as the ulterior case, Judaism and Jews, which only believe in Salvation for themselves and non others...

[Wizard22]

The historic legacy of Christianity in the formation of the very Western morality that informs their own basic suppositions, suppositions most (I find) have never really investigated, is one interesting topic. But something is not automatically right merely because it is longstanding or impactful. Confucianism has been longstanding and impactful, beyond doubt: but it doesn't make Confucianism the key to morality.

So I've been pointing to the conceptual analysis angle, the moral epistemology. Secularism requires particular foundational, ontological beliefs, such as "all that has come into being has come into being by chance, or by randomness, or by quantum accident," or something similar to those explanations -- something, in any case, devoid of intention, intelligence, purpose, plan or teleological goal. And in such a realm, there is no making sense of morality -- the secular supposition has to be that it comes into play accidentally, weirdly, as a by-product of impersonal, undirected forces. Whether or not anybody has any duty to behave morally, they're utterly unable to explain in secular terms.

This is a fatal flaw of the secular worldview. For human beings simply find morality too intuitively necessary and compelling to dismiss it as an accidental or evolutionary "quirk" or freak happening. It continues to drive us and shape us. Conscience is forever within us, and among us. But why it is, and why we should continue to care about it, no secularist can explain.

But Theism can. It can explain not only the manifest order and teleology of the world, but also why certain moral ideas are so compelling, so indispensible to us and to our societies. Secularists may not like that explanation, but they have no contrary one to offer at all. So the moral-explanatory ineptitude of secularism, is, to me, one of the most important apologetics arguments. It's something we all intuitively sense is important, but which secularism will never help us justify.

And this argument is a conceptual, philosophical, rational and not merely historical one.

This is why secularism also has no way to argue that slavery is "wrong." Nothing, according to secularism, can ever be objectively "wrong." In fact, the word "wrong" can mean no more than "at this moment, I don't like X," or "at this historical phase, the powers in my social group choose to disapprove X." It can't mean slavery is "wrong." In fact, secularism would have to see it as "right," or rather, as "morally neutral," in all days and societies in which people just happen to approve of slavery.

Well said.

In my time debating them, I've found that they slip up from time-to-time, and do presume some type of 'Creator' being or God-figure, despite their best efforts to pretend Atheism or Agnosticism. They cannot get away from their Theistic compulsion so easily. The masses need a Scapegoat figure, or a "whipping boy" (hence this Slavery thread) to take their frustrations out upon. It's why Postmodern Liberalism runs itself into the ground on the matter of "Secular Morality" and attempts to abolish "Slavery". All must be Liberated--but why, and from what, and from whom?

This is the very force that pushes them toward a meaningless universe, nihilistic, devoid of Creator or Creation: Non-Theism or Anti-Theism. Implied in the very category of Theism is Master and Slave dichotomy. I believe their attempts to get away from that, to Liberate it, is the root of their ideology.

It necessarily leads to Anti-Divinity, against all that is Good, Holy, and Beautiful in life.

[Iwannaplato]

No, because mere skepticism would imply they don't know, and they should know...if they can think logically about their own beliefs. There's not one single moral precept they can come up with from Humanist presuppostions. Anybody who doesn't know that hasn't tried.

I was speaking about me, not humanists, though I think you are wrong about humanists also. I am not a moral nihilist. Moral nihilists claim that there are no objective morals. I do not claim that. In fact I think there are. I don't think however one can demonstrate them.

I didn't dismiss all objective morality.

Okay, what morals are objective, in your view?

Oh, well, pedophilia is wrong, there's one.

If there are such things as objective morals, as you claim, then what is your basis for assuming nobody can prove any?

Because they are necessarily based on a non-rational direct intuition.

one can even believe there are objective morals, but think that there is no way to demonstrate an obligation to others to follow them.

Sure there is. God exists. This world and everythin in it was created for a purpose, one that God has declared; and to defy that purpose is unethical.

That's just some claims.[/quote] Claims. Non-rational assertions. And note: I to not think non-rational is pejorative. Irrational is. Non-rational is neutral.

Or it's the truth. If God exists, and if God has spoken, then that's as much demonstration as a rational person is ever going to need. The question, then, is only "Does God exist?" And for that, we have good evidence.

Again, you can't demonstrate this. Now you are saying that God can. Note the difference.

We have that obligation, whether or not we admit it. Reality does not change to suit our willingness to believe.

Ah, so you can't demonstrate it, but it is.[/quote]

See above. We can.

No, you said God can.

And again, what you did not respond to. Since you said you have an obligation to challenge immoral positions, did you challenge Wizard on his pro-slavery sentiments?

[Iwannaplato]

Many people define God in many ways. But I don't recognize those without the Authority to speak of God. Most do not have that Authority. Thus I must rely on my own Reason, primarily, to find an Authority or Representation of God.

and, yes, what did you Reason come up with?

I'm going to make another thread about it, just for you, IWP...

I quoted you three times where you clearly stated that modern lefty values come from Jesus. Unless that sentence was poorly written it meant that Jesus was causal in the positions of the people you consider pernicious. I asked you three times about that. Nothing. You can't even manage to say either, well yes there is a problem with Jesus' ideas there or No, what I meant was.......

Isn't it easy to see though?

Jesus Christ' teachings, philosophy, and entire religion is about UNIVERSAL SALVATION OF THE SOUL FOR EVERYBODY.


EVERYBODY.

That's as far "Left" as Leftism goes, IWP. Take as the ulterior case, Judaism and Jews, which only believe in Salvation for themselves and non others...

I know, you said it. But when I pointed it out, you denied. So, I had to quote it. I'll wait for the other thread.

[Immanuel Can]

The historic legacy of Christianity in the formation of the very Western morality that informs their own basic suppositions, suppositions most (I find) have never really investigated, is one interesting topic. But something is not automatically right merely because it is longstanding or impactful. Confucianism has been longstanding and impactful, beyond doubt: but it doesn't make Confucianism the key to morality.

So I've been pointing to the conceptual analysis angle, the moral epistemology. Secularism requires particular foundational, ontological beliefs, such as "all that has come into being has come into being by chance, or by randomness, or by quantum accident," or something similar to those explanations -- something, in any case, devoid of intention, intelligence, purpose, plan or teleological goal. And in such a realm, there is no making sense of morality -- the secular supposition has to be that it comes into play accidentally, weirdly, as a by-product of impersonal, undirected forces. Whether or not anybody has any duty to behave morally, they're utterly unable to explain in secular terms.

This is a fatal flaw of the secular worldview. For human beings simply find morality too intuitively necessary and compelling to dismiss it as an accidental or evolutionary "quirk" or freak happening. It continues to drive us and shape us. Conscience is forever within us, and among us. But why it is, and why we should continue to care about it, no secularist can explain.

But Theism can. It can explain not only the manifest order and teleology of the world, but also why certain moral ideas are so compelling, so indispensible to us and to our societies. Secularists may not like that explanation, but they have no contrary one to offer at all. So the moral-explanatory ineptitude of secularism, is, to me, one of the most important apologetics arguments. It's something we all intuitively sense is important, but which secularism will never help us justify.

And this argument is a conceptual, philosophical, rational and not merely historical one.

This is why secularism also has no way to argue that slavery is "wrong." Nothing, according to secularism, can ever be objectively "wrong." In fact, the word "wrong" can mean no more than "at this moment, I don't like X," or "at this historical phase, the powers in my social group choose to disapprove X." It can't mean slavery is "wrong." In fact, secularism would have to see it as "right," or rather, as "morally neutral," in all days and societies in which people just happen to approve of slavery.

Well said.

In my time debating them, I've found that they slip up from time-to-time, and do presume some type of 'Creator' being or God-figure, despite their best efforts to pretend Atheism or Agnosticism. They cannot get away from their Theistic compulsion so easily.

Well, yes. What they do is to attribute the power and authority of a kind of "god" figure to other things...Nature, History, Society, Evolution, Science, Subjectivity...etc. (I capitalize them here, because they are not what they seem: not, "science" the discipline, but "Science" the imaginary pseudo-god, or not "nature" the ordinary process, but "Nature" the god-by-another-name). This new "god" becomes their buck-stops-here point for everything, and they ask no further questions once they arrive at it. For example, they say secular morality is reasonable because Society says so. But Society is just a bunch of individuals collectivized and deified in their minds, and not some special thing capable of backing morality. Or they say you have to believe them because if you don't you'll be "on the wrong side of History," as if they know there's a specific meaning and preference behind the past, and they alone know what it is. But the purpose of all these deified abstractions is merely to prevent further thought, and eliminate further questioning, such as "what does 'Science' really tell us about the truth of right and wrong?" And the answer, of course, turns out to be "Nothing at all."

The masses need a Scapegoat figure, or a "whipping boy" (hence this Slavery thread) to take their frustrations out upon.

That's actually not how it got started, if you look back. Henry started it, merely as a test-case for how secular morality could be justified. He picked it because it's something all of us recognize as having a moral dimension, and intuitively know is wrong. And he basically put to objectors here the problem of how they know what they feel they know about it.

Nobody wants slavery here, I think. Nor should they, I would say.

It's why Postmodern Liberalism runs itself into the ground on the matter of "Secular Morality" and attempts to abolish "Slavery". All must be Liberated--but why, and from what, and from whom?

That's a major blind-spot of Western thought today. Liberationist language is never able to tell us what we are being liberated to do or to become. At least, not in any plausible way.

If you go deep into the theory behind it all, you find they claim they're going to liberate us to become human, i.e. no longer "alienated from out humanity," which they believe is the original-sin-like situation of all humans when they are born. (And this gets really weird, but stay with me.) Only when people become "Socialist man," which means when they capitulate to the program designed for them by the Socialists, will they count as properly "humanized." Only then will they be "fully human."

So they're liberating people from everything that does not fit the Socialist agenda, and everything in the status quo, whatever it is, so long as the new identity they adopt as a result is that of a perpetually-disgruntled, resentful, envious and idealistic revolutionary -- someone who perpetually feels aggrieved for no particular reason and can be mobilized at will to attack the existing order the "systemic injustice" they claim it always has.

This is the very force that pushes them toward a meaningless universe, nihilistic, devoid of Creator or Creation: Non-Theism or Anti-Theism. Implied in the very category of Theism is Master and Slave dichotomy.

Actually, in Christian thought the relation that is eternal is not master-slave, which is, after all a human invention and oppressive. The relation is that of God and His people. It's a relationship of harmony and friendship, not subjugation. And while God never for a second fails to be superior to those He loves, He does truly love them, and they love Him because of His love for them and His goodness to them, and they co-work the future together. And there is a promise of mutual enjoyment, as well: to know God is joy, and to be known by God is security and life. So it's a relationship not of oppression, but of friendship, in the Biblical telling of it.

I believe their attempts to get away from that, to Liberate it, is the root of their ideology. It necessarily leads to Anti-Divinity, against all that is Good, Holy, and Beautiful in life.

Yes, that's what unfocused liberationism causes: one becomes focused on hating everything, not being grateful for anything. One is forever seeking to be "turned free" of the present state of affairs, always to an undefined "freedom" that is really meaningless because it aims at no particular reality. When one is finally "free" in that sense, one will have no companions, no goals, no achievements, no future and no hope...because all those things constrain (i.e. make unliberated) to some degree the person who has them. As Sartre said, "Hell is other people," meaning that anytime another person even exists, they constrain our freedom to some degree. Can you imagine a philosophy that aims at getting other people out of your reality? That's pretty awful, really. And if you listen to their most advanced theorists, they all say that the struggle to wreck things, to reject things, to debunk things, and even to criticize oneself must be unending, relentless and merciless. There's no end to the process of criticizing and destroying, and no good goal at the end of the process. It's got to be just perpetual, they're told.

What they're being lured with turns out to be a blank and undefiniable "freedom" that is actually quite terrifying for its blankness, it's lack of values, achievement or purpose and its lack of relationship to anybody. It's what theologians have called "anomie" -- the condition of having no conditions, no boundaries, no goals, no laws, no purpose. It's actually a highly undesirable outcome, if the people who aim at liberation every thought about it. Who wants to be "free," if "freedom" means "lost in a kind of empty vacuum, devoid of all compass points and any companionship"? It's really the freedom of the dead.

But liberationists are notoriously awful -- or even incapable -- at telling us what state of bliss they're promising us, what positive thing they want us to arrive at. Their big theorists even say that cannot be specified in advance: that the great god History must do the work accidentally, spontaneously, to no plan, while we simply continue to criticize and destroy. They're great at hating, at envying, at "deconstructing" and "liberating" things, but have no idea how to build, design, create, establish, invent, delimit, define, and so on. They're just destructive, not creative. But people fall for it because it's easy -- hatred and self-righteous rage are easy -- being a good person, being creative or inventive, improving things, serving good, these things are hard. And liberationists always opt for the easy work, not for the hard work; because whenever they try they only produce disaster, disorder, confusion, fragmentation, misery and death. "Destruction is in their way, and the path of peace have they not known," says the Word; and it's so true of them.