The Philosophy Discussion Forum

My position hasn't changed though.

I'm asking you the questions, YOU! You're not answering them.

The Master-Slave Dynamic is intrinsic in Nature. Obviously I'm not against it, neither are you or anybody else. We can't be. You "prefer to use different terms", remember? Western Liberals try to hide the fact. Leftist-Liberals are guilty about it. They accuse others of "Racism" because they have guilty feelings of their own suspicions of racial inequality. White Westerners take advantage of racial "Privilege". Leftists try to offload it, but they can't, they remain "Guilty", as-if the Crime still lingers, right now.

If a Slave is freed, then isn't that it? Isn't it finished? Or is the Slavery eternal? To Leftists, it does seem eternal. Slavery is forever. And for Secularists, you "use different terms" to avoid the matter completely? Put it off, for another day, or onto somebody else's shoulders?

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 27, 2026 10:03 am My position hasn't changed though.

I'm asking you the questions, YOU! You're not answering them.

Yes, and I have spend pages answering your questions and will again. But right now my focus is on IC. I will ask him what he thinks you are: a person who can have a moral foundation or not, given that you are an agnostic. Once we have settled that issue it will either be clear that he thinks you do not have a foundation or you do. If he thinks you do, then I will ask him why he hasn't challenged your position on slavery. He can read your various quotes about slavery and see if it fits with his sense of what the Bible prohibits.

The Master-Slave Dynamic is intrinsic in Nature. Obviously I'm not against it, neither are you or anybody else. We can't be. You "prefer to use different terms", remember? Western Liberals try to hide the fact. Leftist-Liberals are guilty about it. They accuse others of "Racism" because they have guilty feelings of their own suspicions of racial inequality. White Westerners take advantage of racial "Privilege". Leftists try to offload it, but they can't, they remain "Guilty", as-if the Crime still lingers, right now.

This is all over the place. I haven't focused on racism. I'm not interested in your psychologizing of people you disagree with. You refer back in the beginning to earlier accusations you've made as if they are established facts. I am learning to try to stay focused on one issue at a time, thanks. If you don't like that then call me names and mind read some more.

If a Slave is freed, then isn't that it? Isn't it finished? Or is the Slavery eternal? To Leftists, it does seem eternal. Slavery is forever. And for Secularists, you "use different terms" to avoid the matter completely?

More mind reading in a thread where, leftist, liberals, humanists secular people have been used by many people with different positions on slavery.

So you want to Appeal to Authority to IC then?

Fine, so be it. I don't see why you can't understand that I, largely, agree with his Christian Morality and assertions though... What's so difficult to understand? I already told you, that pinning definitions of 'God' onto earthly Authorities is a very difficult and arduous task. I bet IC would agree there, too... (?)

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 27, 2026 10:22 am So you want to Appeal to Authority to IC then?

HIs authority over himself and his positions on things, yes.

Fine, so be it. I don't see why you can't understand that I, largely, agree with his Christian Morality and assertions though... What's so difficult to understand? I already told you, that pinning definitions of 'God' onto earthly Authorities is a very difficult and arduous task. I bet IC would agree there, too... (?)

There's no need to pin authority on earthly authorities for this part of the discussion. This is about the morality of Slavery and we can discuss the types of slavery there also.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑
So you want to Appeal to Authority to IC then?

His authority over himself and his positions on things, yes.

Well, IC is the authority on God and objective morality here.

He knows exactly what morality God has handed down to the world.

His views on slavery are literally the will of God.

The Master-Slave Dynamic is intrinsic in Nature. Obviously I'm not against it, neither are you or anybody else.

I think quite a few people are against it.

I think you will find people who would replace it with an Equal-Equal Dynamic.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Mar 26, 2026 10:57 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Mar 26, 2026 10:23 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Mar 26, 2026 10:00 pm No, I didn't say that.

Oh? So you do believe in some objective moral?

Which one?

I've already told you an example.

Yes, you did. Pedos.

And I said I believed you, but you didn't say on what basis you had concluded it. Now I'd like to know: how do you prove that it must be stopped? (i.e. how do you show, logically, that your view is objective?)

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Mar 27, 2026 1:14 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Mar 26, 2026 10:57 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Mar 26, 2026 10:23 pm
Oh? So you do believe in some objective moral?

Which one?

I've already told you an example.

Yes, you did. Pedos.

And I said I believed you, but you didn't say on what basis you had concluded it. Now I'd like to know: how do you prove that it must be stopped? (i.e. how do you show, logically, that your view is objective?)

We can do that sometime, sure. I did mention the best classification for how I come to morals: Intuitionist realist.

But that said, I am still trying to understand who you feel an obligation to demonstrate why they should be Christian and follow Christian morals as you considered them demonstrated, by God, to be. And I am thinking specifically of this in relation to Slavery.

Can agnostics have a foundation for morals? And if they were pro-Slavery do you feel an obligation to demonstrate the above? If yes, why didn't you demonstrate for Wizards his obligation to agree with God's position as deduced from the Bible?

If agnostics cannot have a foundation for morals, then I understand why you did not pursue the discussion with Wizard. Some of his quotes about Slavery

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.

This is the crux of the matter though. "Slavery" isn't really bad until strawmen are used on its worst, most immoral examples. People don't complain when a 'Good' Master takes good care of his slaves, empowers them, rises them up in class, in ways that Neo-Liberalism cannot. People ignore the 'good' examples and focus only on the bad.

The Master-Slave Dynamic is intrinsic in Nature. Obviously I'm not against it

Examine the lifestyle of a Master, and his or her Slave.

What is wrong about it? What is wrong about being Superior, Lording over an Inferior? Do humans have moral quandaries of a human housing and owning a domesticated Canine or Feline? Do you have a problem with being Master over a dog or cat? How about children? Is a parent, not a Master over his or her own children? So what's the difference, of the Master-Slave dynamic, than or compared to, owning a pet or "having" a child? Let's begin with the obvious, there is a difference of status and reputation. A Slave is a Servant. The Servant is supposed to put the Master's desires and needs, before his/her own.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Mar 27, 2026 1:44 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Mar 27, 2026 1:14 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Mar 26, 2026 10:57 pm I've already told you an example.

Yes, you did. Pedos.

And I said I believed you, but you didn't say on what basis you had concluded it. Now I'd like to know: how do you prove that it must be stopped? (i.e. how do you show, logically, that your view is objective?)

We can do that sometime, sure. I did mention the best classification for how I come to morals: Intuitionist realist.

If I understand that term correctly, you're suggesting that pedophilia is objectively wrong, but the only way people can know that is through intuition: is that fair?

But if pedophilia is objectively wrong, and only intuition can reveal that, then how do we knw pedophilia is wrong? Intuition is notoriously unreliable in terms of delivering objective information -- it's often wrong (as when we imagine somebody watching us when nobody is) or even delivers opposite information (as when a pedo is intuitively inclined to believe he's "helping" or "loving" his victim).

So how do you establish that objective judgment?

Can agnostics have a foundation for morals?

Agnostic means "not knowing." If they "don't know," how can they "know" anything based on it?

The question answers itself. I'm amazed you even asked it.

But if pedophilia is objectively wrong, and only intuition can reveal that, then how do we knw pedophilia is wrong? Intuition is notoriously unreliable in terms of delivering objective information -- it's often wrong (as when we imagine somebody watching us when nobody is) or even delivers opposite information (as when a pedo is intuitively inclined to believe he's "helping" or "loving" his victim).

What if the intuition comes from God?

Or if comes from the divine sense of justice and right and wrong embedded in the human soul?

phyllo wrote: ↑Fri Mar 27, 2026 2:10 pm

But if pedophilia is objectively wrong, and only intuition can reveal that, then how do we knw pedophilia is wrong? Intuition is notoriously unreliable in terms of delivering objective information -- it's often wrong (as when we imagine somebody watching us when nobody is) or even delivers opposite information (as when a pedo is intuitively inclined to believe he's "helping" or "loving" his victim).

What if the intuition comes from God?

It it's just intuition, then you're going to need some test to show that, aren't you? It's almost like you're going to need a fixed revelation from God...hmmm....

Or if comes from the divine sense of justice and right and wrong embedded in the human soul?

Secularism or Humanism do not believe in any "divine." And they don't think there's any way that something is "embedded in the human soul" that we have any moral obligation to pay attention to. For just like intuition, there are unreliable things embedded in the human soul, things that good people try NOT to follow...such a envy, lust, greed, violence...etc.

phyllo wrote: ↑Fri Mar 27, 2026 2:10 pm

But if pedophilia is objectively wrong, and only intuition can reveal that, then how do we knw pedophilia is wrong? Intuition is notoriously unreliable in terms of delivering objective information -- it's often wrong (as when we imagine somebody watching us when nobody is) or even delivers opposite information (as when a pedo is intuitively inclined to believe he's "helping" or "loving" his victim).

What if the intuition comes from God?

Or if comes from the divine sense of justice and right and wrong embedded in the human soul?

Bingo! Though 'comes from' implies a separation. I suppose a Christian might say something like that having "Jesus in their hearts" or the indwelling of the Holy Spirit helps them discern right from wrong. Because remember we have these big stone tablet immoralities like pedophilia or slavery - though neither of these made it onto the stone tablets - but we have to navigate all sorts of complicated situations. Furthermore, you can have people who follow the rules well, and yet when they walk into the room a deadness or horrible feeling is exuded from them. I also don't want to say that only the divine (some completely external divine) shows me. The divine in me recognizes what I hate.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Mar 27, 2026 1:57 pm If I understand that term correctly, you're suggesting that pedophilia is objectively wrong, but the only way people can know that is through intuition: is that fair?

see my response to Phyllo above. I'll add. Everyone is an intuitionist as far as I can tell. It just seems hard for most to admit it.

Can agnostics have a foundation for morals?

Agnostic means "not knowing." If they "don't know," how can they "know" anything based on it?

The question answers itself. I'm amazed you even asked it.

Well, I asked it to be sure. Since I am about to base a syllogism on it and it is only fair to be sure before I do that.

Agnostics have no way to know what is right or wrong (or as you have put it elsewhere, they have no foundation for morals).
Wizard is an agnostic.
Therefore he cannot know right from wrong.

Deists have no foundation for morality.
Henry is a Deist.
Therefore Henry has no foundation for morality.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Mar 27, 2026 2:31 pm

Oh, and I should have added. Now it makes sense why you never confronted him about his belief in Slavery. Given that he is an agnostic, there would be no point in your belief system.

Me, I think people with any belief system can sometimes be influenced. And I certainly tried to dissuade him of believing Slavery was ok, even for the slave-owner.

But now I understand why you did not, given your sense that they cannot change.

Now, Wizard did say: I am agnostic, for the most part. Perhaps he will say there's a little bit of a theist in him. Perhaps if he pushes that enough, you'll see enough hope to confront him. But I don't think agnostic, for the most part is a meaningful phrase.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Mar 27, 2026 2:32 pm I suppose a Christian might say something like that having "Jesus in their hearts" or the indwelling of the Holy Spirit helps them discern right from wrong.

Actually, you suppose incorrectly. We wouldn't say that.

What we would say is that God has given all men a conscience, but that it's corrupted by sin, and so is unreliable at times...but generally still functional.

The problem comes when one rejects God. What one loses, then, is not the conscience itself, but any way of judging the pronouncements of the conscience as accurate or false. With no possibility of revelation, or of divine authority, one can say that one's conscience is indicating this or that, but one has no criteria for saying why, or whether what one is feeling is right.

Because remember we have these big stone tablet immoralities like pedophilia or slavery

Secularism does not allow there to be any "stone-tablet immoralities." Nothing is ever "written in stone," morally speaking, for them. Remember? They think it's "subjective."

Furthermore, you can have people who follow the rules well, and yet when they walk into the room a deadness or horrible feeling is exuded from them.

That's interesting. Can you explain what you mean?

The divine in me recognizes what I hate.

But according to secularism, there's nothing "divine" in you at all. So you might ask yourself, how do you know you're "hating" the right things? For it must be apparent to us all that we can hate the wrong things, too.

But I'm not seeing any answer here as to how you know pedophilia is wrong. All you've said is, "Well, I happen to be one of the people that feels it." Well, pedos "feel" the other way. Which one is right, and how do you know?