Philosophy Now Forum

we live in a moral universe, under the control of a just God

I believe the first, but not the second (he did leave each of us with a nifty compass, though...too bad so many ignore it).

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2020 11:49 pm we live in a moral universe, under the control of a just God

I believe the first, but not the second (he did leave each of us with a nifty compass, though...too bad so many ignore it).

Y'know, one of the interesting things about this corona virus scare is this: that people think that the things they don't want to happen to them never will. We've been thinking, in the West, of our progress as inevitable, of our lifestyles as owed to us, of our societies and their infrastructures as unshakeable, and the whole of our expectations for the future as basically secured for us by where we live. But what the virus has showed us is that in an age of globalization, one little mistake in one part of the world is capable of pulling down the whole shaky mass. Nothing's so certain as we thought it was, and none of our governments or institutions is sufficiently powerful to insulate us against everything that can happen.

This bug's not so bad. But there are much worse plagues out there. So far, it's been small stuff...just flus and colds and such. But there is no reason why, with the right disease, a person can't step onto a plane in Shanghai or Addis Ababa, and nine hours later, put foot down in New York, with a little, tiny, tiny passenger in his respiratory tract, one for which we have no answer at all. And everything changes within a few days or weeks.

And that's just the consequences of our uses of our freedom to travel. That's not even impinging on the whole idea of moral consequences, or consequences to come after this life.

So you might say, "I don't see how God can be just, given how things are." But how things are ain't always how things are gonna be.

Wait and see. Just because people don't think He will ever restore the balance of justice doesn't mean He won't. If God is who He says He is, then there is no option: justice will have to be done. I believe what God says about that.

So my encouragement to folks is, "Don't be standing on the tracks when that train comes through the station." Justice is coming. Get right, before it does.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Mar 25, 2020 12:58 am

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2020 11:49 pm we live in a moral universe, under the control of a just God

I believe the first, but not the second (he did leave each of us with a nifty compass, though...too bad so many ignore it).

Y'know, one of the interesting things about this corona virus scare is this: that people think that the things they don't want to happen to them never will. We've been thinking, in the West, of our progress as inevitable, of our lifestyles as owed to us, of our societies and their infrastructures as unshakeable, and the whole of our expectations for the future as basically secured for us by where we live. But what the virus has showed us is that in an age of globalization, one little mistake in one part of the world is capable of pulling down the whole shaky mass. Nothing's so certain as we thought it was, and none of our governments or institutions is sufficiently powerful to insulate us against everything that can happen.

This bug's not so bad. But there are much worse plagues out there. So far, it's been small stuff...just flus and colds and such. But there is no reason why, with the right disease, a person can't step onto a plane in Shanghai or Addis Ababa, and nine hours later, put foot down in New York, with a little, tiny, tiny passenger in his respiratory tract, one for which we have no answer at all. And everything changes within a few days or weeks.

And that's just the consequences of our uses of our freedom to travel. That's not even impinging on the whole idea of moral consequences, or consequences to come after this life.

So you might say, "I don't see how God can be just, given how things are." But how things are ain't always how things are gonna be.

Wait and see. Just because people don't think He will ever restore the balance of justice doesn't mean He won't. If God is who He says He is, then there is no option: justice will have to be done. I believe what God says about that.

So my encouragement to folks is, "Don't be standing on the tracks when that train comes through the station." Justice is coming. Get right, before it does.

The fragility of everything we call civilized is why, over the years, I've made myself as autonomous as possible.

Ain't gonna catch me with my drawers down around my ankles.

As for god: yours has a contract; mine, not so much.

Corona: a mediocre virus. I promise you, a whole whack of folks are gonna end up with egg on their faces over this nonsense.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Mar 25, 2020 2:07 am The fragility of everything we call civilized is why, over the years, I've made myself as autonomous as possible.
Ain't gonna catch me with my drawers down around my ankles.

Good thinking. But all the prep in the world doesn't help floods, hurricanes and tornadoes, and plagues. There are some things one simply can't control.

As for god: yours has a contract; mine, not so much.

I know.

I guess will see which is the real character of God. But I accept what many of the skeptics and Atheists say about the idea of God...namely, that a truly good God could not allow evil to rage...forever. At some point, the price must be paid; by One, or by another, but it must be paid.

Corona: a mediocre virus. I promise you, a whole whack of folks are gonna end up with egg on their faces over this nonsense.

Probably true. But it's what they call in naval terms, "A shot over the bows," the warning shot you give to the enemy before you blow the snot out of his ship. This time, the virus is little more than a nasty flu. But there are much worse things out there, and we have seen a tiny taste, now, of what a serious virus could do to everything we take for granted.

In the days of the Black Plague, about 40% of the population died in Europe; and yet, that's not the worst potential plague we have today, plagues for which we have no adequate measures, no protections and no cures. Yet, we continue to globalize, to ship things and people around the world at faster and faster rates, to lengthen our delivery lines, send our essential production overseas, depend on far places like China for our medicines and basic supplies, and even to campaign for wide open borders and the complete dissolution of national protections.

In short, if a plague is ever coming, we're sucking around for it.

So the potential is really there. Which is why we need to learn a lot, and fast, from this smaller incident.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2020 1:56 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2020 5:17 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Mar 23, 2020 1:38 pm
They don't work. You've been repeatedly shown that, you just don't believe it.


There would be no value in you doing so. You would need some new, much better argument than that.

You have not provided any effective counter argument to my claims at all.

Then you haven't been reading. Never mind...I'll do it again, below.

What you have in mind is...

It doesn't actually matter whatever I have in mind. What matters for the ought-is question is whether secularism can do any better than anything else.

And it cannot. It cannot even logically sponsor any merely arbitrary morality, let alone an objective or, as you say, "ideal" one. Secularism is utterly amoral in its consequences.

I have presented the secular Framework and System of Morality and Ethics and demonstrated how it is used as a controlled system to generate improvement towards the ideal.
Can you show how this will fail?

As I had stated the secular Framework and System of Morality and Ethics is already in action and in practice albeit crudely and not formalized.
The example I gave is the UN's Slavery Convention.

The 1926 Slavery Convention or the Convention to Suppress the Slave Trade and Slavery was an international treaty created under the auspices of the League of Nations and first signed on 25 September 1926. ... The objective of the Convention was to confirm and advance the suppression of slavery and the slave trade.

Meanwhile the theistic morality model is leveraged on the cannot be changed-till-eternity doctrines from the Holy Texts of the Abrahamic religions which seemingly condone slavery.

The theistic morality model of Islam commands believers to kill non-believers upon the slightest threats against Islam.

Given the constraints of the present circumstances - i.e. humans are being more animal than being more human, I admit the theistic morality model may be more optimal. But the theistic model is stuck with no room for improvements.

On the other hand, the secular Framework and System of Morality and Ethics which is already practiced crudely and inefficient presently is improving with time and has the potential to drive human behavior towards the highest good in the future.

As I had stated the efficiency of the secular Framework and System of Morality and Ethics will be improved via education and developing the moral competence within the brain of the average individual[s] on a progressive trend.

Show me why the secular Framework and System of Morality and Ethics driven by objective absolute moral oughts as guide will not work?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2020 1:56 pm

I don't have to accept Darwin's theory of evolution lock-stock-and-barrel.

Your alternative it to reject Evolutionism entirely. Darwin quite explicitly depended his whole system on survival-of-the-fittest being true. He had no other mechanism of evolution at all, in fact.

No, it isn't. Rather, it's a substantive difference. Standards are abstractions. Abstractions do not have causal powers.

You've made what's called a "category error," by placing "standards" in the category we would call, "causally-powerful entities." They're not one of those.

Strawman again.

I can see you don't know what a "straw man fallacy is." Not surprising, since you evidently found ad hominems too difficult to understand as well. I wonder what other fallacies you'll continually make without knowing...it will be interesting to see.

But you've not realized that it's utterly irrelevant what a person would "want," in that case. We could equally argue, that since no person wants to age, to lose hair, or die at all, no person should age, lose hair, or die -- and that's obviously silly. Whether or not death is going to come is unrelated to "wanting" it to happen.

Strawman again.

Same mistake.

Try a new name next time...accuse me of being ad hoc ergo propter hoc, or of the pity fallacy next time, just to spice things up. It will be no more justified, but a little more interesting.

I have already argued,

• 1. no human would want to be killed except the mental case.
  2. This proposition can be tested first personally, common sense and questioning all humans which is not done yet but can be justified with philosophical reasoning, i.e. psychiatry confirmation, suicide is a mental problem.
  3. Applying the Golden Rule,
  4. No human ought to kill another human - the secular absolute moral ought

Yeah, it's still an incredibly bad argument, since you can't justify any of its premises at all. I don't think you have any experience with logic...if you had, you would know what you've presented isn't logical, isn't defensible and isn't a syllogism.

Take Philosophy 101 somewhere. In your first lesson, you'll learn why the above is wrong.

You have not disputed why my proposal above will not work.

Yeah, I have. But it seems it's more than anyone can do, to make you able to understand the problem. You just recycle it, which shows you have completely failed to grasp the critique. If you had any grasp of it, you'd at least try to patch up the faults, rather than simply repeating them as if that should impress us.

The above is all noise without substance.

show which premise is false?

"False" is the wrong word. For example, the Golden Rule is not "false." In fact, can be insisted upon, if you had a Theistic supposition. IF there is a God, and IF He issues such a command, then such a command is certainly morally binding. But you have argued God is an illusion, so you can't rationally go that route yourself. You would need to show a secular reason why we are duty-bound to follow the GR.

But you cannot. You cannot, in fact, even see how to try to do that.

So you can't insist on the Golden Rule; you can't show it's right.

In short, the right word is not "false" but "rationally indefensible" is the right condemnation for your argument. On secular assumptions, no premise and no conclusion in it is warranted by secularism.

Now, I understand that you so far have shown you're utterly unable to comprehend that. If you thought more carefully, I think maybe you would. Either way, whether you do or not, it remains true: nothing there can be rationally insisted upon from the premise, "Secularism is true, therefore...etc."

I have stated many times,

The idea of 'duty bound' is not applicable within the secular Framework and System of Morality and Ethics [FSME].
You keep ignoring and avoiding this critical point.
What is critical within the FSME is voluntary self-development by the individual[s] to improve his inherent moral potential in his brain/mind.

The secular objective absolute moral ought and golden rule are verified from empirical evidence and philosophical reasoning to be used as a GUIDE only not as something 'duty bound' or to be enforced upon any individual.

I had also argued, DNA wise all humans are "programmed" [as evident] with an inherent moral faculty. As evident there is a natural tendency for humans to incline toward being moral. The clue is the discovery of Mirror Neurons.
Do you know how Mirror Neurons work and its relation to the Goldern Rule??
You are ignorant of this? I bet you are.

As I had stated you are always a few steps behind and is triggered by blind arrogance and theistic desperation to critique my thesis without proper justifications.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2020 11:58 am

Age wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2020 1:48 am You have failed to understand this part explanation. And, as I have already previously explained the reason human beings do not understand me is not because of them but because I am still in a process of learning how to communicate better with human beings.

If you really want to communicate with humans, you'll have to learn how they communicate. They don't, for instance, begin by telling them they don't know how to use their own language.

Have I ever even alluded to this, let alone telling anyone such a thing as this?

It was you who was telling me that I do not know how to use one of the countless many languages that 'you', human beings use, correct?

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2020 11:58 am Almost everything human beings do they document in writing and its one way they communicate information from one individual to others.

I know lots of human beings who do not and have never documented in writing what they do and communicate information to "others".

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2020 11:58 am Almost every machine and device human beings used comes with a manual or other documentation explaining in as clear language as possible, how the machine is made, how it works, and how to operate it.

Okay.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2020 11:58 am On a day-to-day basis, another good example of communication is a cookbook. They explain in simple terms how to prepare food, and are written intentionally to ensure they can be understood by almost anyone.

Okay.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2020 11:58 am Before attempting to explain the more difficult concepts of philosophy, see if you can write a good explanation of how to prepare a meal.

But there are NO actual difficult concepts of so called "philosophy" at all. Absolutely every thing is relative to the observer.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2020 11:58 am Start with something simple, like making scrambled eggs and bacon, or roasting a chicken. Good luck. (That's English for I hope you are successful.)

Thank you for you advice. It will come in very handy and am I sure it will help me tremendously.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2020 11:58 am One other thing. Before worrying about whether you are making yourself understood,

I am not worrying about making thy 'self' understood at all. I am just aware when I am and I am not understood.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2020 11:58 am make sure what you want to say is worth saying and that any human being would interested in it.

There is absolutely no doubt at all that what I want to and will say is very worth saying, and I am absolutely sure that EVERY human being would be very interested in it as well.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2020 11:58 am I think that is your real difficulty.

Why would you think that that would be my 'real' difficulty?

My real difficulty, to me, is learning how to write in a way that could and will encourage adult human beings to again become interested in obtaining what they Truly want and desire once more like they did when they were a young child.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Mar 25, 2020 6:41 am Can you show how this will fail?

Done. I've so far shown that it's rationally indefensible. That sure looks like failure to me.

As I had stated the secular Framework and System of Morality and Ethics is already in action and in practice albeit crudely and not formalized.
The example I gave is the UN's Slavery Convention.

So the thing you claim we need doesn't exist yet, you admit. But you promise it will exist, and you offer the UN as your paradigm example of success in this regard?

Tragic.

Meanwhile the theistic morality model...

That's an outstandingly poor way to argue. After all, criticizing some other model will not fix your model. Even if EVERY other model were wrong, it would not go one stroke toward showing that yours was good.

If you think your model is any good, you're going to have to defend your own model rationally, on its own terms...not simply deflect like this.

You do this by showing a) what's working in your model, and b) why what's working in your model is rational.

Meanwhile, you should know that in practical terms, the UN convention on slavery is, by most reasonable metrics, a total failure. There are more slaves in the world today than there ever were before. They're just not where they used to be, or of the kind they used to be. They're actually of a worse kind, such as sex-slaves and child slaves. https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/f ... one-in-200

If you think slavery's over, that's just totally naive.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Mar 25, 2020 6:54 am I have stated many times,

And every single time, been wrong...

The secular objective absolute moral ought and golden rule are verified from empirical evidence and philosophical reasoning to be used as a GUIDE only not as something 'duty bound' or to be enforced upon any individual.

Bluff.

You've done nothing to show that this is true. You just keep asserting it, in the absurd hope that if you say it enough, somebody will come to believe it.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Mar 25, 2020 3:06 am In the days of the Black Plague, about 40% of the population died in Europe; and yet, that's not the worst potential plague we have today, plagues for which we have no adequate measures, no protections and no cures. Yet, we continue to globalize, to ship things and people around the world at faster and faster rates, to lengthen our delivery lines, send our essential production overseas, depend on far places like China for our medicines and basic supplies, and even to campaign for wide open borders and the complete dissolution of national protections.

In short, if a plague is ever coming, we're sucking around for it.

So the potential is really there. Which is why we need to learn a lot, and fast, from this smaller incident.

There's a lovely piece of fear-mongering. It's nice that you are doing the oppressors work for them. Mencken wisely observed:

Civilization, in fact, grows more maudlin and hysterical; especially under democracy it tends to degenerate into a mere combat of crazes; the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.

We are living in the age of gullibility and paranoia. Those who would like to control others know the easiest way to manipulate the ignorant is to keep them terrified of endless threats. Of course those who promote these ideas of endless dangers and impending disasters are the, "saviors," that everyone must follow.

Since World War One, some popular fears have been: "We're all going to die when poisonous gas is used," "we're all going to die in a nuclear holocaust," "we're all going to die when all the resources are used up," "we're all going to starve to death due to overpopulation," "we're all going to freeze to death do to man-made global cooling," "we're all going to die from man-made global warming," "we're all going to die from some natural disaster--volcanoes, tsunamis, earthquakes, hurricanes," "we're all going to die from some terrible plague or disease for which there is no cure," (your favorite).

The truth is, "WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE." It may be all at once or one at a time, but there is absolutely nothing that can be done about it, but every con man, scam artist, politician, or individual promoting some ideology promises they can, just give them power or support their program.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Mar 25, 2020 9:36 pmThere's a lovely piece of fear-mongering.

Nothing in it isn't true. To speak of "fear mongering," one would have to speak of falsehoods.

Of course those who promote these ideas of endless dangers and impending disasters are the, "saviors," that everyone must follow.

Well, that won't be me; so you can put your little heart to rest.

The truth is, "WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE."

That is certain. The mortality rate around here is 100%, wherever you happen to live. It's only a question of when.

Interesting, though, that people who plan assiduously for their education, for insurance, and for retirement, often live their entire lives with no plan for the inevitable death. It's almost like they are so terrified by the prospect that they put both hands over their own eyes, like children, and cry "You can't see me."

As the Bible puts it, "It is appointed to a man once to die, and after this, the judgment." That's as inevitable as yesterday's news.

So what's your plan, RC?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Mar 25, 2020 9:46 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Mar 25, 2020 9:36 pmThere's a lovely piece of fear-mongering.

Nothing in it isn't true. To speak of "fear mongering," one would have to speak of falsehoods.

When you say, "So the potential is really there. Which is why we need to learn a lot, and fast, from this smaller incident," aren't you implying that some worse disaster is likely, and that some measures need to be taken to avert them? If that's not what you intended, then I have no idea you bothered saying it. Of course there is potential for future disaster, just as there is a potential none of us will ever see one, or be affected by one.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Mar 25, 2020 9:46 pm

Of course those who promote these ideas of endless dangers and impending disasters are the, "saviors," that everyone must follow.

Well, that won't be me; so you can put your little heart to rest.

But it is you. You are promoting an ideology by using the scare tactic of death and the threat of judgement to encourage others to accept your idea of salvation.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Mar 25, 2020 9:46 pm

The truth is, "WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE."

That is certain. The mortality rate around here is 100%, wherever you happen to live. It's only a question of when.

Interesting, though, that people who plan assiduously for their education, for insurance, and for retirement, often live their entire lives with no plan for the inevitable death

Plans, such as for education, work, and retirement, only pertain to life. Many people do make some plans related to death, like planning their own burials and buying life insurance for the sake of those who are still living, but planning for death would be like planning to make sure the sun comes up tomorrow. There is no need to plan for death (unless one plans suicide), death will take care of itself, and there is no need for any more plans related to death, because plans only pertain to life and death is the end of life.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Mar 25, 2020 9:46 pm As the Bible puts it, "It is appointed to a man once to die, and after this, the judgment." That's as inevitable as yesterday's news.

--Orphic poetry, and the Vedas (Hindu), say souls enter new bodies, (transmigration of souls).
--The Avesta (Zoroastrianism), Says the suffering of the wicked will last only three days, after which all humankind will enjoy much happiness.
--The Book of Enoch, Second Book of Enoch, and The Book of Giants (Manichaeism), teach death is the event that allows the seed of light of every human being to be liberated from the human body.
--The Kitêba Cilwe [Book of Revelation], the Mishefa Reş [Black Book], and qawls [hymns] (Yazidism) say there is a paradise, but there is no hell, and souls that do not go to paradise are lost or extinguished.
--Calvinist Christians say, according to the same Bible you quote, that God has already decided the fate of everyone, some for heaven, some for hell, and there is nothing one can do about it.
--Universalist Chirstians quote the same Bible you quote to prove everyone is going to heaven, and there is no hell.
--If there were a heaven and hell, Mark Twain suggests one pick what suits them, "Heaven for climate, Hell for society."

So how does one decide which Scripture and which interpretation of that Scripture to accept?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Mar 25, 2020 9:46 pm So what's your plan, RC?

That's a silly question. It's like asking me what I plan to do in South Africa this summer, when you know I'm not going to be in South Africa. I'm not going to be anywhere after I'm dead.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu Mar 26, 2020 2:40 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Mar 25, 2020 9:46 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Mar 25, 2020 9:36 pmThere's a lovely piece of fear-mongering.

Nothing in it isn't true. To speak of "fear mongering," one would have to speak of falsehoods.

When you say, "So the potential is really there. Which is why we need to learn a lot, and fast, from this smaller incident," aren't you implying that some worse disaster is likely,

No, certain.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Mar 25, 2020 9:46 pm

Of course those who promote these ideas of endless dangers and impending disasters are the, "saviors," that everyone must follow.

Well, that won't be me; so you can put your little heart to rest.

But it is you. You are promoting an ideology by using the scare tactic of death and the threat of judgement to encourage others to accept your idea of salvation.

Not at all. I can "save" nobody. But as you, yourself have pointed out, death is certain. I just point out that judgment follows. Not to tell people that would be an act of utterly unconscionable unkindness to them.

...death will take care of itself

No. Death will "take care" of us. And since that is an inevitable fact, I merely suggest that we ought to "take care" how we "take care" of what follows.

So how does one decide which Scripture and which interpretation of that Scripture to accept?

I see you've read some other religious works. I have too. I know most of the sources to which you refer, and probably a few you don't, as well.

You're right to point out there are a lot of different stories out there. Some people mistakenly assume that this must mean they're all wrong. But there's no reason to think that. In fact, it may well be the case that one of them is right, and even that parts of others also contain parts of truth, since every deception is at least partly made up of truth.

The problem is discerning the false from the true. And that takes more than dismissing the lot. That takes a sincere search. God says, "You shall seek for me and find me, when you seek for me with all of your heart." The seeker has to be sincerely willing to find, and has to look with that spirit. But if one does, then finding is possible.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Mar 25, 2020 9:46 pm So what's your plan, RC?

That's a silly question. It's like asking me what I plan to do in South Africa this summer, when you know I'm not going to be in South Africa. I'm not going to be anywhere after I'm dead.

Actually, RC, I don't believe that for a minute. And if you do, then perhaps you'd better plan on going on safari this summer.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Mar 25, 2020 4:28 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Mar 25, 2020 6:41 am Can you show how this will fail?

Done. I've so far shown that it's rationally indefensible. That sure looks like failure to me.

You think so but offer no justifications.

As I had stated the secular Framework and System of Morality and Ethics is already in action and in practice albeit crudely and not formalized.
The example I gave is the UN's Slavery Convention.

So the thing you claim we need doesn't exist yet, you admit. But you promise it will exist, and you offer the UN as your paradigm example of success in this regard?

Tragic.

I had admitted earlier, the secular objective absolute moral ought do not exists in nature.
However it can be justified from empirical evidence and philosophical reasoning.
As such this secular moral ought is to be used as a GUIDE only and never enforced.

Nope I never promise it will exist in the future.
What I am optimistic is this secular moral ought to be embedded within an efficient Framework and System of Morality and Ethics will work to drive progress in human behavior towards the ideal highest good.

I mentioned the UN's Slavery Convention [not everything] as clue to its eventual possibility and highest productivity when organized and formalized efficiently.

Meanwhile the theistic morality model...

That's an outstandingly poor way to argue. After all, criticizing some other model will not fix your model. Even if EVERY other model were wrong, it would not go one stroke toward showing that yours was good.

If you think your model is any good, you're going to have to defend your own model rationally, on its own terms...not simply deflect like this.

You do this by showing a) what's working in your model, and b) why what's working in your model is rational.

Meanwhile, you should know that in practical terms, the UN convention on slavery is, by most reasonable metrics, a total failure. There are more slaves in the world today than there ever were before. They're just not where they used to be, or of the kind they used to be. They're actually of a worse kind, such as sex-slaves and child slaves. https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/f ... one-in-200

If you think slavery's over, that's just totally naive.

I believe it is relevant to contrast my model with other inefficient models like the theistic model and the crude UN Model.

The UN Slavery Model on Chattel Slavery [note Chattel, not slavery in its widest definition] had its improvements to date.
You missed my point with the UN Slavery Model.
It is not about the results but rather the principles and mechanics involved.

The principles and mechanics involved are'

• 1. The secular objective absolute moral ought is "justified" and established as a GUIDE only. No Nation is forced to ratify and enforce the slavery convention.
  
  2. Each Nation adopt the slavery convention, i.e. the moral ought on a voluntarily basis and adapt the moral ought ethically to suit their present circumstances.
  So far all recognized sovereign Nations had ratified the convention on a voluntarily basis.
  This is an indication is they are spontaneously following the inherent moral proclivity they have within their brains.
  
  3. With the adoption of the Slavery convention and the secular moral ought of the IDEAL 'zero chattel slavery' a variance is generated when compared to what is going on in practice.
  Since enslavement is an inherent evil, there will be people who are still practicing chattel slavery against established ethics and political laws.
  (in my proposal there is no involvement of political laws on slavery).
  
  4. The above variance between ideal and actual practices of chattel slavery had triggered each Nation to find solutions to reduce the number of chattel slavery via various efficient methods.
  Obviously there are less chattel slaves at present as compared to say to 500, 250, 100 and 50 years ago when in the past there is no ideal to control against.
  Surely you cannot deny this?
  
  5. As with other forms of slavery, the ideal on such slavery will also generate a variance which will trigger actions to reduce the numbers. Reports by the media like the Guardian as above, by NGOs, etcs. are a form of feedback to compute the variance between ideal and actual to enable actions to be taken.
  
  6. What is missing with the present crude UN slavery system is due to ignorance of the fundamental principles, mechanics and the management of the critical variables.
  This crude system has to rely on political enforcement.
  The framework and System I proposed is independent on the political system but work on the natural inherent human moral proclivity from within the brain/mind.
  
  • Are you familiar with this Training Principle
    i.e. the continuum from
    1. unconscious incompetence to
    2. conscious incompetence to
    3. conscious competence to
    4. unconscious competence -no thinking but act spontaneously
  All humans will be motivated to improve their moral competence via the above cycle with effective training strategies.

The majority [e.g. yourself] are at a stage of unconscious incompetence, thus throwing all sorts of resistance for improvement for your selfish salvation to heaven.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Mar 25, 2020 4:30 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Mar 25, 2020 6:54 am I have stated many times,

And every single time, been wrong...

The secular objective absolute moral ought and golden rule are verified from empirical evidence and philosophical reasoning to be used as a GUIDE only not as something 'duty bound' or to be enforced upon any individual.

Bluff.

You've done nothing to show that this is true. You just keep asserting it, in the absurd hope that if you say it enough, somebody will come to believe it.

I had already shown;

The UN Slavery Convention is already practiced at present and it relied upon a secular objective moral ought;

• No human ought to enslave [own] another human being as a slave [chattel].

All recognized sovereign nations had already ratify the above convention as a GUIDE.
The above consensus by all has given it a semblance of objectivity.
However from a deeper philosophical reflection, this secular moral ought is in alignment with their natural moral proclivity, else there would not be 100% consensus.