Philosophy Now Forum

All of us, unless we have a psychological disorder, exercise morality every day, and in most cases without the slightest thought of, or reference to, God. Morality that is not founded on God’s opinion, which is no less subjective than anyone else’s, is nowhere near as fragile as some suggest, and its fallibility does not make it not the case. Even Jesus did not tell us to look to God, but to look inside ourselves, and he gives us a principle by which we can arrive at an answer.

I love you, Jesus.

I think there might be something to what IC says, after all. I thought I should at least try IC's approach to morality before I carry on telling him he's wrong, so I asked God. I put a couple of sample moral questions to him: When I asked him about homosexuality, he said he's fine with it; "no problemo" were his exact words. Then he said he doesn't even see it as a moral issue, so I asked him about abortion. He said it was regrettable, but should ultimately be the woman's choice, and that it was very often the lesser of two evils. Which prompted me to then ask if there really was such a thing as evil, to which he replied, "no, I was speaking metaphorically".

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 2:52 am My point that what I describe does permit us to do all the moral activities that we are used to stands. And your claim that we can't does not.

My point is that what you describe also allows the opposite: as much rape and slavery as your society, or any society, will tolerate, and provides absolutely no basis upon which you can object.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 3:09 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 2:52 am My point that what I describe does permit us to do all the moral activities that we are used to stands. And your claim that we can't does not.

My point is that what you describe also allows the opposite: as much rape and slavery as your society, or any society, will tolerate, and provides absolutely no basis upon which you can object.

I'm lucky: My society doesn't tolerate any rape and slavery, but in the highly unlikely event that it started to tolerate them, I could object on the basis that I didn't like it. I'm just glad that God isn't in charge of my society, because I don't think he takes much notice of objections.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 4:40 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jun 30, 2023 11:50 pm Saying what? Slavery is worse in today's world than it's been at any time in history. See: https://www.walkfree.org/reports/global ... very-2022/.

Obviously your link completely demolishes your claim too, it says less than 1% are slaves worldwide.
I looked at vague estimates of slavery before 1900, it was probably somewhere around 10-20%.
What did you hope to achieve by writing down this blatant lie, I wonder?

It's not a lie. And here's why.

The International Labour Organization estimates there are 50 million right now. The UN agrees with that number. So now you have three organizations, none "right wing" that agree on those numbers. We actually only have what you call "vague estimates" of the numbers of slaves in 1900, for the very good reason that world statistics were not being kept. For example, the trans-Saharan slave trade is often not included in the numbers, and it was far bigger than the trans-Atlantic slave trade. And today, sex slaves and child slaves often live "below the radar," so locating many of them is impossible...we have to rely on estimates.

However, in 1900, we do know that there were only 2 billion people on the whole planet. Now, there is about 7.8 billion. That means that a proportional reduction and an absolute increase are not only reasonable, but unavoidable, unless the number of slaves increases in perfect proportion to world population. That's how statistics work.

So you're looking at proportions, not at absolute numbers. My claim was that there are more slaves today, that is, in raw numbers not proportional ones, than at any time in history: that is the same claim made by all three of the organizations I have cited. So there you are...fight with the UN and the other organizations if you want.

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 3:20 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 3:09 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 2:52 am My point that what I describe does permit us to do all the moral activities that we are used to stands. And your claim that we can't does not.

My point is that what you describe also allows the opposite: as much rape and slavery as your society, or any society, will tolerate, and provides absolutely no basis upon which you can object.

I'm lucky: My society doesn't tolerate any rape and slavery,..

Actually, you would have to take that opinion up with somebody who tracks it. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... /march2020.

Apparently, your society is very tolerant of both, judging by how long the Rotherham scandal was allowed to persist. Would your suspicion be that no such things go on in, say, Birmingham or Manchester?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 3:35 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 3:20 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 3:09 pm
My point is that what you describe also allows the opposite: as much rape and slavery as your society, or any society, will tolerate, and provides absolutely no basis upon which you can object.

I'm lucky: My society doesn't tolerate any rape and slavery,..

Actually, you would have to take that opinion up with somebody who tracks it. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... /march2020.

Apparently, your society is very tolerant of both, judging by how long the Rotherham scandal was allowed to persist. Would your suspicion be that no such things go on in, say, Birmingham or Manchester?

I can assure you that those things are illegal here, and morality, in the form of the law, prevailed in the end. It's also interesting to note that the offenders came from a much more religious community than the victims.

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 3:45 pm I can assure you that those things are illegal here, and morality, in the form of the law, prevailed in the end. It's also interesting to note that the offenders came from a much more religious community than the victims.

Religions are different, of course. They're not all the same thing. The formal banning of slavery in your country was achieved by the tireless efforts of a fellow named William Wilberforce, a devout evangelical. Some of the new religions coming in work tirelessly to undo his work, it seems.

Has the law really prevailed? Had slavery been eliminated from England with the Rotherham scandal? What would your suspicions be?

In any case, if morality is socially-produced, then those societies DO approve of it. Who are we, then, to tell them they cannot? Our say-so only lasts as long as our numbers...and they are vastly out reproducing and out-immigrating us, so it's only a matter of time until their way becomes the English way.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 3:31 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 4:40 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jun 30, 2023 11:50 pm Saying what? Slavery is worse in today's world than it's been at any time in history. See: https://www.walkfree.org/reports/global ... very-2022/.

Obviously your link completely demolishes your claim too, it says less than 1% are slaves worldwide.
I looked at vague estimates of slavery before 1900, it was probably somewhere around 10-20%.
What did you hope to achieve by writing down this blatant lie, I wonder?

It's not a lie. And here's why.

The International Labour Organization estimates there are 50 million right now. The UN agrees with that number. So now you have three organizations, none "right wing" that agree on those numbers. We actually only have what you call "vague estimates" of the numbers of slaves in 1900, for the very good reason that world statistics were not being kept. For example, the trans-Saharan slave trade is often not included in the numbers, and it was far bigger than the trans-Atlantic slave trade. And today, sex slaves and child slaves often live "below the radar," so locating many of them is impossible...we have to rely on estimates.

However, in 1900, we do know that there were only 2 billion people on the whole planet. Now, there is about 7.8 billion. That means that a proportional reduction and an absolute increase are not only reasonable, but unavoidable, unless the number of slaves increases in perfect proportion to world population. That's how statistics work.

So you're looking at proportions, not at absolute numbers. My claim was that there are more slaves today, that is, in raw numbers not proportional ones, than at any time in history: that is the same claim made by all three of the organizations I have cited. So there you are...fight with the UN and the other organizations if you want.

Yes the proportion went down, that's why it's a blatant lie to claim that slavery is worse in today's world than it's been at any time in history.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 4:40 am ... it's a blatant lie to claim that slavery is worse in today's world than it's been at any time in history.

Well, you don't know that the proportions have gone down. You don't have any real numbers. But let's play along.

Even if they had, then your argument amounts to this: that it's better to have MORE slaves in absolute numbers, so long as there are fewer proportionally, because there are also fewer human beings alive.

Too funny.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 4:00 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 3:45 pm I can assure you that those things are illegal here, and morality, in the form of the law, prevailed in the end. It's also interesting to note that the offenders came from a much more religious community than the victims.

Religions are different, of course. They're not all the same thing.

The religion of the majority of offenders was Islam, which looks to the same God as you do for its morality, I believe.

The formal banning of slavery in your country was achieved by the tireless efforts of a fellow named William Wilberforce, a devout evangelical.

Well done, William.

Has the law really prevailed? Had slavery been eliminated from England with the Rotherham scandal? What would your suspicions be?

It has been eliminated from things that are permitted under the law. Of course, some people will always break the law, but they more often do it in the form of robbery and violence, slavers are quite unusual, statistically.

In any case, if morality is socially-produced, then those societies DO approve of it. Who are we, then, to tell them they cannot?

Which societies approve of slavery? If any do approve of it, I suppose it will be the morally outraged who will tell them they must not.

Our say-so only lasts as long as our numbers...and they are vastly out reproducing and out-immigrating us, so it's only a matter of time until their way becomes the English way.

No, the British way must become their way.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 4:31 pm Well, you don't know that the proportions have gone down. You don't have any real numbers. But let's play along.

Another blatant lie. We don't have exact numbers, rough estimates suggest a 10-30 fold decrease. Even with a massive margin of error, we can know for sure that there's been a decrease. At this point you're ignoring the entire known history of humanity for your argument's sake.

Even if they had, then your argument amounts to this: that it's better to have MORE slaves in absolute numbers, so long as there are fewer proportionally, because there are also fewer human beings alive.

Too funny.

You mean more human beings alive. Indeed too funny, as you're making one of the most bafflingly wrong arguments I've ever seen. Of course it's the proportion that counts, just about any social issue, ever.

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 4:31 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 4:00 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 3:45 pm I can assure you that those things are illegal here, and morality, in the form of the law, prevailed in the end. It's also interesting to note that the offenders came from a much more religious community than the victims.

Religions are different, of course. They're not all the same thing.

The religion of the majority of offenders was Islam, which looks to the same God as you do for its morality, I believe.

Ah, then you believe incorrectly. But we can straighten that out.

The only real similarity between the Islamic "god," Allah, and the real one is that the Muslims believe there's one of Him. But Islam denies that the Jewish and Christian scriptures tell the truth about God, and the Islamic "god" has very different characteristics from the God of Christians and Jews.

But you could find that out, if you wished. You probably don't wish, so I'll say no more about that.

Has the law really prevailed? Had slavery been eliminated from England with the Rotherham scandal? What would your suspicions be?

It has been eliminated from things that are permitted under the law.

That's not much of a victory. A law which is not effectively enforced is protecting nobody...and the problem with social constructivism is that as soon as the numbers favour the abusers, abuse becomes tolerated and approved again. And then, there's no objective basis on which to protest that that is unfair.

England's in trouble: I wish it were not so, but it is. Native Englishmen and Englishwomen are aborting their babies or preventing them. The recent immigrant waves clearly have different practices, and are having lots of children and inviting lots of relatives. The demographics are shifting fast. Even now, as you know, there are areas of England where Sharia is effectively in force, and neither police nor the public is doing anything about it. And there are very different practices and attitutdes in those communities. The law follows the demographics.

Or, as one person astutely put it, "The future belongs to those who show up for it." It seems the English are unwilling that they should have any progeny to "show up" for the future.

In any case, if morality is socially-produced, then those societies DO approve of it. Who are we, then, to tell them they cannot?

Which societies approve of slavery?

Lots. Did you not know that the World Cup stadia were mostly built on the backs of captive workers from places like Nepal? The arabs there would invite them for "jobs," then take their passports and use them as work slaves, then send the bodies back in boxes. And the world watched and cheered their teams playing on stadia soaked in slave-blood. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0EsOFDA6uM&t=645s

If any do approve of it, I suppose it will be the morally outraged who will tell them they must not.

We tried. There was too much money involved. They wouldn't listen, and the public just wanted to see football. Nobody cared.

Our say-so only lasts as long as our numbers...and they are vastly out reproducing and out-immigrating us, so it's only a matter of time until their way becomes the English way.

No, the British way must become their way.

Wouldn't it be nice to imagine that's how it's going to play out? But you and I are too old for such naivete, I think. Have people come over and assimilated? Or have they set up ghettos in Birmingham, or Rotherham, or Newham, and carried on as they see fit?

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 4:45 pm

Even if they had, then your argument amounts to this: that it's better to have MORE slaves in absolute numbers, so long as there are fewer proportionally, because there are also fewer human beings alive.

Too funny.

You mean more human beings alive. Indeed too funny, as you're making one of the most bafflingly wrong arguments I've ever seen. Of course it's the proportion that counts, just about any social issue, ever.

So the absolute numbers don't count at all? It's just the proportions? So if we have three criminals in a group of 10 people, our crime situation is improving when later we have 100 people and there are 28 criminals? I can see the headline now: "Crime is improving, as we now only have 25 more criminals than we did before."

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 4:51 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 4:45 pm

Even if they had, then your argument amounts to this: that it's better to have MORE slaves in absolute numbers, so long as there are fewer proportionally, because there are also fewer human beings alive.

Too funny.

You mean more human beings alive. Indeed too funny, as you're making one of the most bafflingly wrong arguments I've ever seen. Of course it's the proportion that counts, just about any social issue, ever.

So the absolute numbers don't count at all? It's just the proportions? So if we have three criminals in a group of 10 people, our crime situation is improving when later we have 100 people and there are 28 criminals? I can see the headline now: "Crime is improving, as we now only have 25 more criminals than we did before."

Of course the 28/100 is better, Jesus Christ you seriously think in absolute numbers?
Are.. you from another planet?