The Philosophy Discussion Forum

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2026 4:32 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2026 4:26 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2026 4:17 pm
All ethics are doomed in the sense that they cannot prove their basic value/moral judgments are objective, be they humanist, theist, other.

Okay, you're a Moral Nihilist, then. You may not know it, but you are, since you don't think there are objective moral values. And one thing for sure, then: there's no such thing as "Humanist ethics," or even "secular ethics." Neither worldview warrants any ethics at all.

Now to your question about Christianity. The question has been asked and answered many times, and long ago; so to save time, let's get a common stock of knowledge on the subject before we begin, just so we don't end up doing work others have already done. This guy has it mostly right, though I'd go farther than he does on a couple of points. But he nicely covers most things we could talk about. If you read it, you'll have answers to practically all the questions you could possibly ask about that.

https://www.str.org/w/is-the-bible-pro-slavery

So, you couldn't make the argument yourself?

I did respond. If you don't even want to read a short article, then I know you don't really want to know.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2026 4:39 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2026 4:32 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2026 4:26 pm
Okay, you're a Moral Nihilist, then. You may not know it, but you are, since you don't think there are objective moral values. And one thing for sure, then: there's no such thing as "Humanist ethics," or even "secular ethics." Neither worldview warrants any ethics at all.

Now to your question about Christianity. The question has been asked and answered many times, and long ago; so to save time, let's get a common stock of knowledge on the subject before we begin, just so we don't end up doing work others have already done. This guy has it mostly right, though I'd go farther than he does on a couple of points. But he nicely covers most things we could talk about. If you read it, you'll have answers to practically all the questions you could possibly ask about that.

https://www.str.org/w/is-the-bible-pro-slavery

So, you couldn't make the argument yourself?

I did. If you don't even want to read a short article, then I know you don't really want to know.

I did read the short article. Please demonstrate why I should consider his opinion about the Bible objective and why I should consider the Bible objective.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2026 4:45 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2026 4:39 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2026 4:32 pm So, you couldn't make the argument yourself?

I did. If you don't even want to read a short article, then I know you don't really want to know.

I did read the short article. Please demonstrate why I should consider his opinion about the Bible objective and why I should consider the Bible objective.

You? I know you don't.

But I do. And I can reason straightforwardly from the Biblical authority to an ethic. You may not agree, and you may not like the ethic, but even you can see that for me, that does actually provide groundwork. My background beliefs do coordinate with the ethic I espouse.

You may say I'm wrong. I don't doubt you will. But you cannot say I'm being irrational. You can see all my reasons, right there, in front of you.

A Hindu can do it too. He can reason from the Gita or the Upanishads that attitude X is required in relation to the lower castes. And he can act accordingly, following that ethic. You and I may not agree with his ethic, but we both would have to admit he's behaving rationally: because if the Gita or the Upanishads were right, then he would also be right. His ethic makes sense in terms of his own worldview. He is a rational man, even if we disagre with him totally.

And we can do the same with others, many others...until we get to secularism.

Secularism's different. Its worldview proclaims that there are no moral authorities, and no ethical code that we have a duty to follow. Everything is subjective; which only means, "whatever you personally wanna do, you do that." In other words, there are no ethics at all.

This makes secularism, and its subsidiaries like Humanism, different from any other creed or belief. It cannot rationalize any ethic. It cannot ever explain why X or Y is right or wrong. It can only issue gratutious demands, and then employ force to compel them; but can never show that these demands are reasonable and proper expectations for secularists or Humanists.

So it's the completely morally Nihilistic worldview, in distinction from so many others. And the problem with irrational worldviews is that they have nothing but the resorting to the use of force to advance their preferences. They have to impose their will, arbitrarily and by cunning or by force, or nothing they want will be implemented. They cannot reason with you about ethics, because they have no reasons.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2026 5:03 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2026 4:45 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2026 4:39 pm
I did. If you don't even want to read a short article, then I know you don't really want to know.

I did read the short article. Please demonstrate why I should consider his opinion about the Bible objective and why I should consider the Bible objective.

You? I know you don't.

But I do. And I can reason straightforwardly from the Biblical authority to an ethic. You may not agree, and you may not like the ethic, but even you can see that for me, that does actually provide groundwork. My background beliefs do coordinate with the ethic I espouse.

You may say I'm wrong. I don't doubt you will. But you cannot say I'm being irrational. You can see all my reasons, right there, in front of you.

A Hindu can do it too. He can reason from the Gita or the Upanishads that attitude X is required in relation to the lower castes. And he can act accordingly, following that ethic. You and I may not agree with his ethic, but we both would have to admit he's behaving rationally: because if the Gita or the Upanishads were right, then he would also be right. His ethic makes sense in terms of his own worldview. He is a rational man, even if we disagre with him totally.

And we can do the same with others, many others...until we get to secularism.

Secularism's different. Its worldview proclaims that there are no moral authorities, and no ethical code that we have a duty to follow. Everything is subjective; which only means, "whatever you personally wanna do, you do that." In other words, there are no ethics at all.

This makes secularism, and its subsidiaries like Humanism, different from any other creed or belief. It cannot rationalize any ethic. It cannot ever explain why X or Y is right or wrong. It can only issue gratutious demands, and then employ force to compel them; but can never show that these demands are reasonable and proper expectations for secularists or Humanists.

So it's the completely morally Nihilistic worldview, in distinction from so many others. And the problem with irrational worldviews is that they have nothing but the resorting to the use of force to advance their preferences. They have to impose their will, arbitrarily and by cunning or by force, or nothing they want will be implemented. They cannot reason with you about ethics, because they have no reasons.

Here's what you said early in the thread to Phyllo.

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.

So, far you have not done that.

I did read the short article. Please demonstrate why I should consider his opinion about the Bible objective and why I should consider the Bible objective.

You? I know you don't.

But I do. And I can reason straightforwardly from the Biblical authority to an ethic. You may not agree, and you may not like the ethic, but even you can see that for me, that does actually provide groundwork. My background beliefs do coordinate with the ethic I espouse.

I thought that you could show the legitimacy of an ethic to a reasonable person.

That's what you seem to imply in the humanism thread.

But you can only show it to someone who accepts Biblical authority as the starting point?

phyllo wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2026 6:13 pm

I did read the short article. Please demonstrate why I should consider his opinion about the Bible objective and why I should consider the Bible objective.

You? I know you don't.

But I do. And I can reason straightforwardly from the Biblical authority to an ethic. You may not agree, and you may not like the ethic, but even you can see that for me, that does actually provide groundwork. My background beliefs do coordinate with the ethic I espouse.

I thought that you could show the legitimacy of an ethic to a reasonable person.

That's what you seem to imply in the humanism thread.

But you can only show it to someone who accepts Biblical authority as the starting point?

I think he'd have problems there, given the tacit acceptance of slavery in the Bible. Yes, one can mount an argument, like the one in the link he sent me. But must they believe his interpretation of the Bible. Nope. And many Christians have not.

Basically two problems.

1. Biblical authority is required.

2. Showing that the Bible is saying slavery is wrong.

phyllo wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2026 8:10 pm Basically two problems.

1. Biblical authority is required.

There is no authority for Humanists, so that doesn't help them a bit.

But it's perfectly rational for a person who believes in the Bible to believe in the ethics it asserts. And in this, it's the opposite of Humanism, because no ethic is rationalizable with Humanist beliefs. Even Humanists cannot rationally do Humanist ethics.

2. Showing that the Bible is saying slavery is wrong.

Read the article I gave Iwanna, please.

phyllo wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2026 6:13 pm

I did read the short article. Please demonstrate why I should consider his opinion about the Bible objective and why I should consider the Bible objective.

You? I know you don't.

But I do. And I can reason straightforwardly from the Biblical authority to an ethic. You may not agree, and you may not like the ethic, but even you can see that for me, that does actually provide groundwork. My background beliefs do coordinate with the ethic I espouse.

I thought that you could show the legitimacy of an ethic to a reasonable person.

I have.

But "reasonable" does not mean "agrees with everything somebody else says." Rather, reason is what links one's basic assumptions about reality with one's conclusions about morality. So rationality happens within worldviews.

The quality you're contesting is not rationality, but truthfulness. And we can disagree about what is true: but what we can't disagree about is that secularism is incapable of rationalizing any particular view of slavery.

But you can only show it to someone who accepts Biblical authority as the starting point?

That is correct. There is no cure in logic for somebody who simply starts with false premises. Rationality won't save him from error, if he's already building his reasoning on quicksand. It will simply lead him deeper into delusion.

Everybody who wants to reason correctly must start with the truth, and build on that, not on erroneous assumptions. There's no other way.

2. Showing that the Bible is saying slavery is wrong.

Read the article I gave Iwanna, please.

I read it.

It says slavery is okay at times.

It says that some versions of slavery are okay.

It doesn't explicitly say that slavery is wrong.

But you can only show it to someone who accepts Biblical authority as the starting point?

That is correct. There is no cure in logic for somebody who simply starts with false premises. Rationality won't save him from error, if he's already building his reasoning on quicksand. It will simply lead him deeper into delusion.

Everybody who wants to reason correctly must start with the truth, and build on that, not on erroneous assumptions. There's no other way.

If we move one step back from the point when one person is a theist and another person is a secularist, then we are at the point where these two people are deciding which position is true and which is false.

They are deciding between theism and secularism.

So logically, they are on the same rational ground. Neither has made an error and neither is delusional.

Your reasonable arguments for the legitimacy of ethics would begin there. Since the choice of theism/secularism is the place where it all gets buggered up. And if it can be avoided then ethics will be on solid ground.

phyllo wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2026 8:10 pm Basically two problems.

1. Biblical authority is required.

2. Showing that the Bible is saying slavery is wrong.

Yes, there are a couple of issues, and given...

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

Can he demonstrate that we are obligated to believe these two things? Or prove that they are the case?
That the Bible is the authority on moral values.
That the Bible is clearly anti-slavery.

So far we just have appeals to authority without demonstration that this is an authority at all, either the Bible or the article writer.

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

Can he demonstrate that we are obligated to believe these two things? Or prove that they are the case?
That the Bible is the authority on moral values.
That the Bible is clearly anti-slavery.

That was my point in my last post.

Is one obligated to be a humanist or a Christian theist? What's the reasoning?

(I hate that word 'obligated'. )

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2026 5:13 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2026 5:03 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2026 4:45 pm I did read the short article. Please demonstrate why I should consider his opinion about the Bible objective and why I should consider the Bible objective.

You? I know you don't.

But I do. And I can reason straightforwardly from the Biblical authority to an ethic. You may not agree, and you may not like the ethic, but even you can see that for me, that does actually provide groundwork. My background beliefs do coordinate with the ethic I espouse.

You may say I'm wrong. I don't doubt you will. But you cannot say I'm being irrational. You can see all my reasons, right there, in front of you.

A Hindu can do it too. He can reason from the Gita or the Upanishads that attitude X is required in relation to the lower castes. And he can act accordingly, following that ethic. You and I may not agree with his ethic, but we both would have to admit he's behaving rationally: because if the Gita or the Upanishads were right, then he would also be right. His ethic makes sense in terms of his own worldview. He is a rational man, even if we disagre with him totally.

And we can do the same with others, many others...until we get to secularism.

Secularism's different. Its worldview proclaims that there are no moral authorities, and no ethical code that we have a duty to follow. Everything is subjective; which only means, "whatever you personally wanna do, you do that." In other words, there are no ethics at all.

This makes secularism, and its subsidiaries like Humanism, different from any other creed or belief. It cannot rationalize any ethic. It cannot ever explain why X or Y is right or wrong. It can only issue gratutious demands, and then employ force to compel them; but can never show that these demands are reasonable and proper expectations for secularists or Humanists.

So it's the completely morally Nihilistic worldview, in distinction from so many others. And the problem with irrational worldviews is that they have nothing but the resorting to the use of force to advance their preferences. They have to impose their will, arbitrarily and by cunning or by force, or nothing they want will be implemented. They cannot reason with you about ethics, because they have no reasons.

Here's what you said early in the thread to Phyllo.

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.

Now, if you're a Humanist, God doesn't exist, you believe. Human beings came into being by cosmic accident, plus time, plus evolution. The universe does not know or care about you, or about what you do. No authority exists that can tell you what is right or wrong; it's all made up by somebody or some group, and there's no test for its rightness or wrongness. So if anybody insists you behave ethically, they're lying to you, and trying to control you, and pulling the wool over your eyes. You don't have to heed them at all. But watch out for their power, for they may try to force you to do what they know they cannot legitimize. So be sneaky or be in trouble. And that's perfectly rational. That's what Nietzsche also saw.

See the difference, yet?

Now, do you want to tell me why a Humanist should follow Christian ethics? I can't, because he does not believe what he needs to believe in order to have an ethic. He should have one, it's true: but I can't explain to him in terms he'll believe to be true WHY he should. He's going to remain as he is, and not ever have any grounds for whatever ethic he chooses to adopt for himself...unless he has a change of mind. That's going to depend on his choice.

But I can tell him that if he's wrong and I'm right, the choice to be a Humanist is not going to be cost free -- not now, and not later. Right now, he's going to be living out-of-sync with the truth; he won't know what's valuable, what's worthy or what's right. And whether or not he is happy in that state temporarily, if there is, as I believe, a moral accounting at the end of it all, then he's going to answer for the choices he made...and to the God he doesn't believe in.

So there's your answer.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2026 9:37 pm

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.

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

So, you cannot meet the criterion you expect of Humanists. You cannot demonstrate why anyone is obligated to be a Christian, or to follow Christian moral claims. You can't demonstrate this to other theists. You cannot demonstrate it to Humanists or people who are simply not theists. You cannot demonstrate it to other Christians that they are obligated to follow your interpretation of the Bible.

You fail to meet the criteria you expect Humanists to meet.

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

This is a repeated part of your 'demonstrating' humanistic ethics fail. But you admit here you cannot do it for Christianity.