Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Sun Aug 26, 2018 6:44 pm**

I've been following the discussion between Veritas Aequitas and Immanuel Can about the persistence of slavery, and the case for and against moral progress in general, with interest. And, of course, we are free to pursue our interests wherever they take us.

But I'd like to point out that my OP was about what could make morality objective.

Veritas Aequitas favours a secular, Kantian theory of moral objectivism, and Immanuel Can favours a theistic theory. But neither has made the case for moral objectivism of either kind, secular or theistic. Perhaps they prefer the less challenging backwater they've been exploring.

Posted: **Sun Aug 26, 2018 7:00 pm**

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Aug 26, 2018 3:58 am you have to break down the effects and results in various nations, different circumstances and contexts.

It's very interesting -- and relevant to the discussion on morality -- to view our conversation so far as a kind of case study.

The question might be, "What does ideology X incline a person to do when he/she is faced with the reality of a great social evil? (Slavery, for example)

Consider this. The Theist is likely to believe in the sinful nature of mankind. For that reason, he can have no difficulty in admitting the existence of this particular evil, or in condemning it. Having (what he, rightly or wrongly perceives to be) an objective basis for condemning it, he can do that without hesitation. And believing that all men are valuable in the eyes of God, he can unreservedly advocate and act against slavery. In fact, if he does not, he is in the wrong, and must rationally know it; for to condemn slavery is what his worldview calls him to do, morally speaking. (This is, in fact, exactly how you can see things played out historically, both in England and in North America, as you will know. Theists were on the forefront of the anti-slavery movement at every level. This was why.)

Now consider the Non-Theist. Being committed to the myth of human moral progress, her inclination has to be to deny the very existence of the evil in question. Then her reaction might be to accept the existence of laws against the evil as if they were an evidence of moral progress -- regardless of the fact that the laws are being disregarded and despite the persistence of the very evil those laws condemn. The one thing she cannot grant is that human beings are not morally improving, but are actually sinful and morally corrupt. To abandon that belief would shatter her worldview.

Suppose, now, that it was revealed to you that after the decision, your fate was to become a chattel slave yourself.

Which would you choose -- the Theist or the Non-Theist -- to decide the morality of the case, and to arbitrate what the world should do about your situation?

Posted: **Sun Aug 26, 2018 10:48 pm**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Aug 26, 2018 7:00 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Aug 26, 2018 3:58 am you have to break down the effects and results in various nations, different circumstances and contexts.
It's very interesting -- and relevant to the discussion on morality -- to view our conversation so far as a kind of case study.

The question might be, "What does ideology X incline a person to do when he/she is faced with the reality of a great social evil? (Slavery, for example)

Consider this. The Theist is likely to believe in the sinful nature of mankind. For that reason, he can have no difficulty in admitting the existence of this particular evil, or in condemning it. Having (what he, rightly or wrongly perceives to be) an objective basis for condemning it, he can do that without hesitation. And believing that all men are valuable in the eyes of God, he can unreservedly advocate and act against slavery. In fact, if he does not, he is in the wrong, and must rationally know it; for to condemn slavery is what his worldview calls him to do, morally speaking. (This is, in fact, exactly how you can see things played out historically, both in England and in North America, as you will know. Theists were on the forefront of the anti-slavery movement at every level. This was why.)

Now consider the Non-Theist. Being committed to the myth of human moral progress, her inclination has to be to deny the very existence of the evil in question. Then her reaction might be to accept the existence of laws against the evil as if they were an evidence of moral progress -- regardless of the fact that the laws are being disregarded and despite the persistence of the very evil those laws condemn. The one thing she cannot grant is that human beings are not morally improving, but are actually sinful and morally corrupt. To abandon that belief would shatter her worldview.

Suppose, now, that it was revealed to you that after the decision, your fate was to become a chattel slave yourself.

Which would you choose -- the Theist or the Non-Theist -- to decide the morality of the case, and to arbitrate what the world should do about your situation?

There are several mistakes here.

1 Slavery is condoned and never condemned in the Abrahamic scriptures. And for centuries those scriptures were used to justify slavery. Some Christians belatedly campaigned for abolition, but by no means all, and there were Christians who opposed it. Your story of a 'world-view' based on an objective moral value is a fantasy.

2 Some non-theists may be committed to the myth of human progress, but there's no necessary connection. That's a ridiculous claim. And the idea that a non-theist is inclined to deny the existence of slavery is, patently, absurd.

3 I'd guess that most homosexuals and witches would prefer a non-(Abrahamic)-theist to decide their fate. Who knows what sort of morally disgusting - but supposedly objective - values the theist may have?

Posted: **Sun Aug 26, 2018 11:01 pm**

We don't even need to debate your view of history. It's not relevant. Here's the only question:

Theism or Non-Theism: which one will you take to resolve the slavery issue?

Pick one, Pete. Then we'll talk.

Posted: **Mon Aug 27, 2018 6:23 am**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Aug 26, 2018 4:42 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Aug 26, 2018 3:58 am You don't seem to be able to differentiate the results between no laws on Chattel Slavery and where there are laws on slavery.
I do. The latter is differentiable from the former in that it contains two sins, not just one: it contains both slavery and hypocrisy. At least the former has only one evil; that, at least we can say.

In addition you have to break down the effects and results in various nations, different circumstances and contexts.
Why? To excuse chattel slavery?

No, perhaps not: but to maintain the illusion that it does not exist, perhaps.

But you have the data: I've sent it to you before. You can wish it away, or you can excuse each individual case, if you wish; but the same would excuse ANY kind of chattel slavery, so it's a strategy I'd be inclined to avoid -- that is, if I had a genuine concern about the plight of slaves.

You are still conflating the issue.

My main point is there is a sign of moral improvement when laws on Chattel Slavery are enacted as compared to when there were no laws on Chattel Slavery.
For example do you see the trading of slave legally anywhere?

The fact that there is a blackmarket for slaves [is of concern] is a different issue which is off topic to the point I raise.

Posted: **Mon Aug 27, 2018 9:35 am**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Aug 26, 2018 11:01 pm We don't even need to debate your view of history. It's not relevant. Here's the only question:

Theism or Non-Theism: which one will you take to resolve the slavery issue?

Pick one, Pete. Then we'll talk.

Because, like you and (perhaps) most people nowadays, I abhor slavery, I want a world without it, however we achieve it, regardless of the motivation of those who work to achieve it. So I think your question is strange and probably deflectionary.

Your argument seems to be that theists are more likely to want to end slavery than non-theists. But the evidence is that, through most of recorded history, followers of at least Abrahamic theistic religions have tolerated and supported slavery as morally justifiable. And this is not what you dismissively call my 'view of history'. It's just an historical fact, which, rather than ignore, you could perhaps address.

What it indicates is that, far from being a foundational and supposedly objective moral value in Abrahamic theism, opposition to slavery has been a very recent moral development. And I assume that, like me, you condemn the 'world view' reflected in the Abrahamic scriptures, including the moral failure of the invented god of classical theism.

I call your question 'deflectionary' because you seem to have abandoned defending moral objectivism as a lost cause, and are now making a fallacious appeal to utility: if theists are more likely to work to end slavery than non-theists, let's go with theism - never mind if theistic claims are false.

And, related to this, I notice you ignored my question about infant genital mutilation: if a god such as the Abrahamic god commanded us to mutilate our babies' genitals, would that mean infant genital mutilation is morally good? I think I know why you don't want to answer that question, of course. But - care to give it a go?

Posted: **Mon Aug 27, 2018 10:09 am**

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Aug 26, 2018 10:48 pmWho knows what sort of morally disgusting - but supposedly objective - values the theist may have?

Well, apart from the genital mutilation that you mention, there's:
1. The idea that we are guilty of the sins of our fathers.
2. That only human sacrifice can absolve us.
3. Anyone who doesn't believe 1 and 2 will be tortured forever and ever. Amen.

Posted: **Mon Aug 27, 2018 11:19 am**

uwot wrote: ↑Mon Aug 27, 2018 10:09 am
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Aug 26, 2018 10:48 pmWho knows what sort of morally disgusting - but supposedly objective - values the theist may have?
Well, apart from the genital mutilation that you mention, there's:
1. The idea that we are guilty of the sins of our fathers.
2. That only human sacrifice can absolve us.
3. Anyone who doesn't believe 1 and 2 will be tortured forever and ever. Amen.

Agreed - and the list goes on. The moral gulf between what many modern Christians (for example) believe and what their forebears believed and did - and what the scriptures actually teach or endorse - including the NT - is staggering. Cherry-picking all the way home.

And the fact that theistic moral values and judgements have changed and are still changing demolishes the claim of religious moral objectivity is unsurprisingly ignored. Cognitive dissonance at its most un-self-aware.

Posted: **Mon Aug 27, 2018 3:56 pm**

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Aug 27, 2018 9:35 am
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Aug 26, 2018 11:01 pm We don't even need to debate your view of history. It's not relevant. Here's the only question:

Theism or Non-Theism: which one will you take to resolve the slavery issue?

Pick one, Pete. Then we'll talk.
I call your question 'deflectionary' because you seem to have abandoned defending moral objectivism as a lost cause, and are now making a fallacious appeal to utility: if theists are more likely to work to end slavery than non-theists, let's go with theism - never mind if theistic claims are false.

You needn't worry: that's not what I'm doing. I'm neither abandoning the question nor reverting to arguing historical accounts, nor debating the value of any religious rituals. Nor am I making the utilitarian case, if such should be made at all (which I doubt).

Answer the question I asked, and I'll show you.

Posted: **Mon Aug 27, 2018 4:02 pm**

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Aug 27, 2018 6:23 am You are still conflating the issue.

To "conflate," one has to have two issues.

My main point is there is a sign of moral improvement when laws on Chattel Slavery are enacted as compared to when there were no laws on Chattel Slavery.

That's debatable. Is it better to have a law you're ignoring, or not to have a law at all?

I don't think it makes any difference to the slave, frankly. And it certainly would be hard to argue that a hypocritical position is better than an honest one, which is what your argument implies.

But you haven't answered my question: are you going to select Theism or Non-Theism, if you're going to end up as a slave yourself?

Posted: **Tue Aug 28, 2018 3:18 am**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Aug 27, 2018 4:02 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Aug 27, 2018 6:23 am You are still conflating the issue.
To "conflate," one has to have two issues.

Yes, there are two distinct issues here, i.e.

1. The legal abolition of Chattel Slavery by almost all recognized nations.
2. Illegal modern slavery.

My main point is there is a sign of moral improvement when laws on Chattel Slavery are enacted as compared to when there were no laws on Chattel Slavery.
That's debatable. Is it better to have a law you're ignoring, or not to have a law at all?

It is debatable but that is off topic, i.e. that is not my original point.
You had merely forced your deflection through against my original point which is restricted to the abolition of chattel slavery as a progress in contrast to the days when chattel slavery was made illegal by laws.

I don't think it makes any difference to the slave, frankly. And it certainly would be hard to argue that a hypocritical position is better than an honest one, which is what your argument implies.

So are you suggesting we make all the laws on chattel slavery null and void? In that case all countries will ignore chattel slavery.

But you haven't answered my question: are you going to select Theism or Non-Theism, if you're going to end up as a slave yourself?

I did not notice that.
That is a ridiculous hypothetical question.
If I were to play the game;
given no change in my current mental state except that I was kidnapped and made a 'slave' against my will I will still be a non-theist.

Posted: **Tue Aug 28, 2018 4:08 am**

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Aug 28, 2018 3:18 am
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Aug 27, 2018 4:02 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Aug 27, 2018 6:23 am You are still conflating the issue.
To "conflate," one has to have two issues.
Yes, there are two distinct issues here, i.e.

1. The legal abolition of Chattel Slavery by almost all recognized nations.
2. Illegal modern slavery.

What we know is that #1 has not actually done anything to inhibit or prevent #2. If it had, slavery would be going away, not increasing. Therefore, what is the value of #1?

So are you suggesting we make all the laws on chattel slavery null and void? In that case all countries will ignore chattel slavery.

Those that want it have it anyway. So the laws are a sham.

My argument is that instead of faking laws, and allowing people to say they are obeying them when they are clearly not, we should enforce those laws. Free the slaves. But to do that, and to know we're right in doing that, we need an account of morality that explains why slavery is absolutely wrong, and justifies our stand against it.

If I were to play the game;
given no change in my current mental state except that I was kidnapped and made a 'slave' against my will I will still be a non-theist.

If you think about it, then I doubt you would come to this conclusion. For then you could expect to stay a slave forever. Non-Theism provides no rationale by which slavery can be resisted.

Posted: **Tue Aug 28, 2018 4:16 am**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Aug 28, 2018 4:08 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Aug 28, 2018 3:18 am
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Aug 27, 2018 4:02 pm
To "conflate," one has to have two issues.
Yes, there are two distinct issues here, i.e.

1. The legal abolition of Chattel Slavery by almost all recognized nations.
2. Illegal modern slavery.
What we know is that #1 has not actually done anything to inhibit or prevent #2. If it had, slavery would be going away, not increasing. Therefore, what is the value of #1?

So are you suggesting we make all the laws on chattel slavery null and void? In that case all countries will ignore chattel slavery.
Those that want it have it anyway. So the laws are a sham.

My argument is that instead of faking laws, and allowing people to say they are obeying them when they are clearly not, we should enforce those laws. Free the slaves. But to do that, and to know we're right in doing that, we need an account of morality that explains why slavery is absolutely wrong, and justifies our stand against it.

If I were to play the game;
given no change in my current mental state except that I was kidnapped and made a 'slave' against my will I will still be a non-theist.
If you think about it, then I doubt you would come to this conclusion. For then you could expect to stay a slave forever. Non-Theism provides no rationale by which slavery can be resisted.

What??
I believe the Quran and the Bible do not contain any unequivocal commands to condemn slavery outright.

Posted: **Tue Aug 28, 2018 4:36 am**

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Aug 28, 2018 4:16 am
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Aug 28, 2018 4:08 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Aug 28, 2018 3:18 am
Yes, there are two distinct issues here, i.e.

1. The legal abolition of Chattel Slavery by almost all recognized nations.
2. Illegal modern slavery.
What we know is that #1 has not actually done anything to inhibit or prevent #2. If it had, slavery would be going away, not increasing. Therefore, what is the value of #1?

If I were to play the game;
given no change in my current mental state except that I was kidnapped and made a 'slave' against my will I will still be a non-theist.
If you think about it, then I doubt you would come to this conclusion. For then you could expect to stay a slave forever. Non-Theism provides no rationale by which slavery can be resisted.
What??
I believe the Quran and the Bible do not contain any unequivocal commands to condemn slavery outright.

So are you suggesting we make all the laws on chattel slavery null and void? In that case all countries will ignore chattel slavery.

Those that want it have it anyway. So the laws are a sham.

My argument is that instead of faking laws, and allowing people to say they are obeying them when they are clearly not, we should enforce those laws. Free the slaves. But to do that, and to know we're right in doing that, we need an account of morality that explains why slavery is absolutely wrong, and justifies our stand against it.[/quote]It is the laws that provide the grounding for improvement and that humanity can now shift attention to the more finer shades of the modern form of slavery.

At present governments are doing the necessary enforcement albeit not that aggressive enough.
Human Rights and other NGOs are consistently highlighting the problem of modern slavery. There are global companies who switch their sources of supplies when they were made aware their supplies were produced by factories that have child 'slave' labor.

Note this exhortation by the UN;

https://www.globalslaveryindex.org/
The fight to end modern slavery continues.
We can, and must, do more.
Too often, the onus of eliminating modern slavery is placed only on the countries where the crime is perpetrated. They certainly have a responsibility, but they are not alone in this regard.
An atrocity as large and pervasive as modern slavery requires a united, global response.

Note my main point is to highlight the evolution progress of the internal moral drive within the brain/mind of the average person.
This progress is correlated with the trend of the abolition of chattel slavery since the 1800s and to add, the abolition of serfdom since 600 BCE.

Note this'
Timeline of abolition of slavery and serfdom
from 600 BCE to the present 2018.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_ ... nd_serfdom

Posted: **Tue Aug 28, 2018 1:18 pm**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Aug 27, 2018 3:56 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Aug 27, 2018 9:35 am
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Aug 26, 2018 11:01 pm We don't even need to debate your view of history. It's not relevant. Here's the only question:

Theism or Non-Theism: which one will you take to resolve the slavery issue?

Pick one, Pete. Then we'll talk.
I call your question 'deflectionary' because you seem to have abandoned defending moral objectivism as a lost cause, and are now making a fallacious appeal to utility: if theists are more likely to work to end slavery than non-theists, let's go with theism - never mind if theistic claims are false.
You needn't worry: that's not what I'm doing. I'm neither abandoning the question nor reverting to arguing historical accounts, nor debating the value of any religious rituals. Nor am I making the utilitarian case, if such should be made at all (which I doubt).

Answer the question I asked, and I'll show you.

I have both answered your question and challenged your reason for asking it. But perhaps I can say more.

1 Neither theism (a belief) nor non-theism - atheism - (the rejection of that belief) can actually do anything, such as 'resolve the slavery issue'. So your question is incoherent.

2 You've explained why you think a theist is more likely to want to end slavery than a non-theist, and your explanation is risible.

3 You say: 'Non-Theism provides no rationale by which slavery can be resisted.' And this is simply false. You've failed to show why moral judgement depends on belief in a god, and I've shown repeatedly that this is false - and self-defeating.

4 You've failed to answer my question - would a god's commanding us to genitally mutilate our babies [oppress women and homosexuals/murder witches/own people as property/insert the Biblical moral atrocity of your choice] make any of those morally good? - because you know damn well the answer is a resounding NO - and that demolishes both the argument for moral objectivism, and the claim that the Abrahamic god was good.

Once again, I'm losing interest in your contribution here, because you dodge and weave to avoid addressing the really tough challenges to your (I assume) Christian theism. And I find that intellectually and morally dishonest.

Philosophy Now Forum

What could make morality objective?

Re: What could make morality objective?

Re: What could make morality objective?

Re: What could make morality objective?

Re: What could make morality objective?

Re: What could make morality objective?

Re: What could make morality objective?

Re: What could make morality objective?

Re: What could make morality objective?

Re: What could make morality objective?

Re: What could make morality objective?

Re: What could make morality objective?

Re: What could make morality objective?

Re: What could make morality objective?

Re: What could make morality objective?

Re: What could make morality objective?