Slavery

[Immanuel Can]

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.

I don't disagree. But how do you know it's "wrong"? That's very important, because without that a) we don't really know it's wrong, we just say it or imagine it, without reasons, and b) we can't justify preventing it in the justice system, or even condemning it by anything stronger than saying "I don't like it."

So it comes back to this basic question: if there's no "demonstrating" (your word, of course) that pedos are objectively wrong, how is it we can claim pedos are objectively wrong?

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.

Doesn't that just leave us with this, then: that you and I have a FEELING that pedos are wrong, but there's no way of us knowing whether that's just a quirk of us, or whether we're intuiting something real? And if all we have is a feeling, how do we know it's not like so many feelings we have, that turn out to be totally misleading?

For example, people often speak of "having the feeling someone's watching you," even when nobody is. Or people have a feeling of foreboding when they walk through an empty woods at night, even though nothing is threatening them. Or people imagine somebody is interested in them when that person is not. All such things happen quite regularly: so how do we know this moral "intuition" of ours isn't just like that -- a feeling that has no reality behind it? And on what basis do we crown some of our feelings with the title "objective," when so many are purely subjective and unreal?

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.

I think we can -- at least to the satisfaction of a rational, fair-minded person. I suggest that the whole Creation trumpets it to the fair mind, and even our own constitution indicates the action of God. However, I'm not sure it's possible to prove anything to somebody who is already preset not to accept anything, but why worry about them? They're making themselves hopeless, and it's not your fault or mine if they're obstinate.

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?

I have just responded to him now, for the first time. He hasn't hitherto been in my window of attention. I've had no conversations about slavery with him before, and I don't know what his real take on that is.

If he's pro-slavery, then of course I disagree. But when did I say we have "an obligation to challenge immoral positions"? I don't think that's even possible: if we challenged everybody we disagreed with, then there wouldn't be enough hours in a day, or a lifetime. And, as Kant said, "ought implies can." We can't do it, so we can't be morally obligated to challenge every immoral position. We have to pick and choose our battles.

[Iwannaplato]

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.

Great. Henry is a Deist. Deist believe that God made the world and made it rationally. No need for scripture. God is not around. Deists can determine morality via study of nature + reason.

Demonstrate for Henry that he is confused about God and where you have different morals demonstrate his obligation to follow yours.

Slavery is not immoral. It's just an incredibly dumb idea. No person of mettle woukd submit to such a thing. Joe Mankiller is caught and enslaved...the reasonable expectation is Joe is gonna try to escape...to expect Joe to say 'I'm bad and deserve enslavement' is dumb.

Today, all the Joe and Josephine Mankillers would gleefully stroll out of prison if the doors were opened. Not a one is gonna stay in the hooscow voluntarily.

To expect slaves to submit cuz they deserve it is dumb.

Nope, shoot 'em and be done with them.

Re: slavery Henry says

Slavery is not immoral. It's just an incredibly dumb idea. No person of mettle woukd submit to such a thing. Joe Mankiller is caught and enslaved...the reasonable expectation is Joe is gonna try to escape...to expect Joe to say 'I'm bad and deserve enslavement' is dumb.

Today, all the Joe and Josephine Mankillers would gleefully stroll out of prison if the doors were opened. Not a one is gonna stay in the hooscow voluntarily.

To expect slaves to submit cuz they deserve it is dumb.

Nope, shoot 'em and be done with them.

And how about you demonstrate to Wizard that slavery is wrong and God exists, your God in particular. In other words Demonstrate his obligation to be Christian and follow your version of Christian morals.

But this is exclusive of the matter of 'Legal Slavery' as the premise of this thread. Formal slavery, I no longer believe, is an impediment to a Freer populace. Because there's never going to be large societies of Free Men. Free Men are always a very small minority of civilizations and history.

He has several times in the thread argued that benign slavery is fine, for a number of reasons. Most people can't take responsibility for themselves, for example.

And as far as I can tell Wizard is not a theist. He's secular. He's not a humanist or not a usual kind of humanist in any case. But he's not a theist. So, how did he arrive at his objective morals.

Sorry, to break up the I hate liberals party, but I think you have an obligation to demonstrate....[you know]

[Immanuel Can]

Demonstrate for Henry that he is confused about God and where you have different morals demonstrate his obligation to follow yours.

When I wish to speak to Henry about anything, I will, of course. That wouldn't be now.

how about you demonstrate to Wizard that slavery is wrong and God exists, your God in particular.

This is interesting. Have you appointed yourself director of conversation? I was unaware the office was open.

Congratulations on your new appointment. But I make my own decisions about whom I address and when and on what, thank you.

[Iwannaplato]

Demonstrate for Henry that he is confused about God and where you have different morals demonstrate his obligation to follow yours.

When I wish to speak to Henry about anything, I will, of course. That wouldn't be now.

how about you demonstrate to Wizard that slavery is wrong and God exists, your God in particular.

This is interesting. Have you appointed yourself director of conversation? I was unaware the office was open.

Congratulations on your new appointment. But I make my own decisions about whom I address and when and on what, thank you.

You told me you had an obligation and would be remiss if you didn't do such things. I noticed a pattern. I don't really care if you have open and honest conversations with either one of them. Just pointing out what is really going on. They both are not liberals. So, their opinions on God and slavery don't really matter to you.

Or perhaps it does, but the behavior doesn't fit. You spend a whole post talking to Wizard about those secular people...but he is one. He's just a conservative version. I know...that's an oxymoron in your world.

Still have not seen you demonstrate an obligation for any of the various groups - theists of other religions, Christians who disagree with your moral positions, humanists, secular people - to become Christian and to follow your sense of Christian morals. You made some claims. You claimed God did and has. But you have not demonstrated anything. And you can't quite seem to respond as if you are demonstrating without focusing on humanists, but as you say that has nothing to do with your ability to demonstrate something.

[Gary Childress]

Demonstrate for Henry that he is confused about God and where you have different morals demonstrate his obligation to follow yours.

When I wish to speak to Henry about anything, I will, of course. That wouldn't be now.

how about you demonstrate to Wizard that slavery is wrong and God exists, your God in particular.

This is interesting. Have you appointed yourself director of conversation? I was unaware the office was open.

Congratulations on your new appointment. But I make my own decisions about whom I address and when and on what, thank you.

You told me you had an obligation and would be remiss if you didn't do such things. I noticed a pattern. I don't really care if you have open and honest conversations with either one of them. Just pointing out what is really going on. They both are not liberals. So, their opinions on God and slavery don't really matter to you.

Or perhaps it does, but the behavior doesn't fit. You spend a whole post talking to Wizard about those secular people...but he is one. He's just a conservative version. I know...that's an oxymoron in your world.

Still have not seen you demonstrate an obligation for any of the various groups - theists of other religions, Christians who disagree with your moral positions, humanists, secular people - to become Christian and to follow your sense of Christian morals. You made some claims. You claimed God did and has. But you have not demonstrated anything. And you can't quite seem to respond as if you are demonstrating without focusing on humanists, but as you say that has nothing to do with your ability to demonstrate something.

We're liberal scum. Much worse than Wizard who advocates for Nazis.

[Immanuel Can]

Demonstrate for Henry that he is confused about God and where you have different morals demonstrate his obligation to follow yours.

When I wish to speak to Henry about anything, I will, of course. That wouldn't be now.

how about you demonstrate to Wizard that slavery is wrong and God exists, your God in particular.

This is interesting. Have you appointed yourself director of conversation? I was unaware the office was open.

Congratulations on your new appointment. But I make my own decisions about whom I address and when and on what, thank you.

You told me you had an obligation and would be remiss if you didn't do such things.

Quote exactly what you said that I said. Let's see if you're right.

[Iwannaplato]

When I wish to speak to Henry about anything, I will, of course. That wouldn't be now.
This is interesting. Have you appointed yourself director of conversation? I was unaware the office was open.

Congratulations on your new appointment. But I make my own decisions about whom I address and when and on what, thank you.

You told me you had an obligation and would be remiss if you didn't do such things.

Quote exactly what you said that I said. Let's see if you're right.

That's a very odd reaction. If you don't think you have that obligation then me searching for a quote is wasted time. I won't hold you to it if I find it and perhaps I misinterpreted.

If you don't think you have an obligation to demonstrate to people who think slavery is ok that they are mistaken, I will accept you at your word. (it wasn't specific to slavery, but that's the issue I focused on here).

[Immanuel Can]

You told me you had an obligation and would be remiss if you didn't do such things.

Quote exactly what you said that I said. Let's see if you're right.

That's a very odd reaction.

Why? If I promised it, and you say you know I did, should it be hard to find?

[Iwannaplato]

Quote exactly what you said that I said. Let's see if you're right.

That's a very odd reaction.

Why? If I promised it, and you say you know I did, should it be hard to find?

Hard? I don't know, I'd have to read a bunch of posts, might get lucky early. But as I said, which you seem not to have read or understood. There's no point. If you don't think you have an obligation for example to correct people who think slavery is ok, then you don't. Do you think you have that obligation?

[Immanuel Can]

That's a very odd reaction.

Why? If I promised it, and you say you know I did, should it be hard to find?

Hard? I don't know, I'd have to read a bunch of posts, might get lucky early.

Then I think you've been making it up, haven't you? You said you knew I said it, but now can't imagine where....

[Iwannaplato]

Here it is:

me:

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

you:

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.

me:

You can't demonstrate this to other theists.

you:

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

So, I say to you that you cannot demonstrate to why anyone is obligated to be a Christian or to follow Christian moral claims.
When I say you can't you say you can, have authorization and authority for so doing...even and obligation to do so.
So, it is very clear that you have an obligation to demonstrate to other theists they are obligated to be Christian and to follow Christian moral claims.
Does this hold for non-theists as well? Do you only have an obligation to convince other theists to follow Christian morals (so Henry as deist) or does this obligation include non-theists like Wizard?

[Immanuel Can]

Hard? I don't know, I'd have to read a bunch of posts, might get lucky early.

Then I think you've been making it up, haven't you? You said you knew I said it, but now can't imagine where....

You're still being odd.

No. Just pointing out that you're trying to ascribe to me things I haven't said, and to arrogate to yourself the power to dictate to others on the basis of misrepresentations of your own.

It's an interesting strategy, of which those reading may take note.

[Iwannaplato]

Then I think you've been making it up, haven't you? You said you knew I said it, but now can't imagine where....

You're still being odd.

No. Just pointing out that you're trying to ascribe to me things I haven't said, and to arrogate to yourself the power to dictate to others on the basis of misrepresentations of your own.

It's an interesting strategy, of which those reading may take note.

Hey poor reader [edited], I found the quote. I went and found it. It's in that post.

[Iwannaplato]

Here it is:

me:

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

you:

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.

me:

You can't demonstrate this to other theists.

you:

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

So, I say to you that you cannot demonstrate to why anyone is obligated to be a Christian or to follow Christian moral claims.
When I say you can't you say you can, have authorization and authority for so doing...even and obligation to do so.
So, it is very clear that you have an obligation to demonstrate to other theists they are obligated to be Christian and to follow Christian moral claims.
Does this hold for non-theists as well? Do you only have an obligation to convince other theists to follow Christian morals (so Henry as deist) or does this obligation include non-theists like Wizard?

[Immanuel Can]

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, I say to you that you cannot demonstrate to why anyone is obligated to be a Christian or to follow Christian moral claims.

This is again, a different claim than I made. You said, "You can't demonstrate this to other Theists." I said I could do that. I didn't ever say it would be possbile to do the same for people who were cynical or Atheistic. It cannot be done, because they've shut themselves out of the evidence.

Are you a Theist? No, apparently. And since you don't participate in a Theistic worldview but a Humanistic/secular one, there is no moral claim that can be demonstrated to you. You won't have anything to which anybody could refer for grounding. You don't believe in such things.