Jordan Peterson presents a radical and new idea

[Daddy]

Everyone believes in objective morality when it comes to whether or not someone stabs them 20 times.

I guess that's true. We do have laws against excessive force.

Unless it's war anyway. Then it's assumed you are trying to murder each other and nobody cares if it takes 20 stabs or 1 stab, no matter who is the defender or the agressive. I guess that's the funny thing about society, if somebody commits a crime, their actions will be judged and analyzed against some codified law. But if your society is at war, you can only do that if you win, and its on the victor's terms. War is almost like a last-ditch effort to get what you want, without any compromise, except death and destruction of course (but I don't think most humans care too much about that). Is war the absence of morality?

 

[Old Things]

Everyone believes in objective morality when it comes to whether or not someone stabs them 20 times.

I guess that's true. We do have laws against excessive force.

Unless it's war anyway. Then it's assumed you are trying to murder each other and nobody cares if it takes 20 stabs or 1 stab, no matter who is the defender or the agressive. I guess that's the funny thing about society, if somebody commits a crime, their actions will be judged and analyzed against some codified law. But if your society is at war, you can only do that if you win, and its on the victor's terms. War is almost like a last-ditch effort to get what you want, without any compromise, except death and destruction of course (but I don't think most humans care too much about that). Is war the absence of morality?

I used to be a pacifist until I read this verse:

Galatians 2:5 NAS20
“But we did not yield in subjection to them, even for an hour, so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you.”

That being said, this verse has probably been used to force people to convert because it assumes fighting to forward the Gospel, which I reject, but I recently found out Augustine (the person who is painted in my profile picture) said something along the lines of him advocating people convert by putting them to the sword (oops). Of course, the person who brought this to my attention advocates for universalism, which I think is quite clear from the Bible that position does not align with Christianity (which Augustine also did not agree with [funny how that works]).

I believe in having a free society, and, if needed, defend that belief as a nation should it be infringed upon. That's why I think it's fine to be for LGBTQ+ equal rights in medical treatment, for example. As such, I think, all things being equal, let people have their different religions within a society and let the most reasonable one come out on top (even though that probably means Christianity is going to be largely persecuted against, but I digress).

 

[Old Things]

@Hadoblado,

I probably came in hot with what I was saying so I understand why you need to take a break.

Try to consider though if objective morality exists and if it doesn't and the implication of that. I will try and do the same.

 

[Old Things]

@Hadoblado,

After thinking about the question above, I have realized that if I came to believe that morality was subjective (or didn't exist as right and wrong) then I would have to change a few very important axioms on which I build my life and it would probably be a very painful process. I would have to give up objective truth and I would also have to completely redefine what the purpose of my life was.

So that is what I think upon thinking about the question.

 

[Hadoblado]

Hey just FYI I'm taking a break for external reasons. I've got an assignment due. I was enjoying this discussion but it's sucking up my time and I can't afford to do poorly. I will be wanting to continue it once I've got more time.

 

[Hadoblado]

If objective morality existed, it would raise many questions for me about the nature of reality, but it would also answer many questions. Similar to the prospect of a purely deterministic universe, possibilities would collapse to certainties. I must admit, I think I'd prefer to leave it open. The ramifications of objective morality regarding where that objectivity comes from could be troubling, but an afterlife would be nice.

 

[Old Things]

Relevant:

Objective morality is a mental crutch. It's useful for people who are otherwise unable to find intrinsic purpose and need to follow social norms, but it's also inherently a prison that prevents said people from exploring their potential and needs. A prison that forces them to cohabit the degenerate traditions that stifle any drive to improve them.

There's basically not much else to say about this. Every philosophy and religion is just a roundabout obfuscation of the need for certainty and understanding.

Some people need more social obfuscation and others need intellectual obfuscation to hide their uncertainty behind.

There's this ingrained depreciation about subjective and self-derived truth. Subjective values are more important than objective ones, yet the public consensus dictates which norms are objective and what can be allowed to happen on the basis of objectivity.

The notion of whether a truth is objective or normal is simply a power instrument which quotes public consensus or normalcy as its sole basis of justification. The reasoning, evidence or lack thereof behind an objective rule is simply an obfuscation to hide the power being exercised.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

In case this thread and what @Glaensaeth is saying gets lost in translation, they is clearly referring to this thread:

Jordan Peterson presents a radical and new idea

Everyone believes in objective morality when it comes to whether or not someone stabs them 20 times. I guess that's true. We do have laws against excessive force. Unless it's war anyway. Then it's assumed you are trying to murder each other and nobody cares if it takes 20 stabs or 1 stab, no...

www.intpforum.com

It's dishonest and I think my view of objective morality is strengthened by the fact they don't believe in objective morality and as such have done some pretty immoral things towards me.

Oh so this was the thread you were discussing objective morality in? My bad for posting in the wrong thread.

To be perfectly honest I don't target you personally. I just saw the subject "objective morality" and replied in one of your threads regarding supernatural because that's what it is a supernatural concept.

I don't see how what I did was immoral. I just shared my opinion on the matter. Is it not important to see what people think about your ideas? Do you have a written set of rules that define my actions as immoral? I'll study it before I do something that hurts you more.

If you want to understand my engagement pattern on this forum it's basically like this:
1. I see a thread or a subject.
2. I think about it and reply.

Most importantly I don't check who posted it or if they are my ideological enemy or something like that, lol.

 

[Old Things]

In case this thread and what @Glaensaeth is saying gets lost in translation, they is clearly referring to this thread:

Jordan Peterson presents a radical and new idea

Everyone believes in objective morality when it comes to whether or not someone stabs them 20 times. I guess that's true. We do have laws against excessive force. Unless it's war anyway. Then it's assumed you are trying to murder each other and nobody cares if it takes 20 stabs or 1 stab, no...

www.intpforum.com

It's dishonest and I think my view of objective morality is strengthened by the fact they don't believe in objective morality and as such have done some pretty immoral things towards me.

Oh so this was the thread you were discussing objective morality in? My bad for posting in the wrong thread.

To be perfectly honest I don't target you personally. I just saw the subject "objective morality" and replied in one of your threads regarding supernatural because that's what it is a supernatural concept.

I don't see how what I did was immoral. I just shared my opinion on the matter. Is it not important to see what people think about your ideas? Do you have a written set of rules that define my actions as immoral? I'll study it before I do something that hurts you more.

If you want to understand my engagement pattern on this forum it's basically like this:
1. I see a thread or a subject.
2. I think about it and reply.

Most importantly I don't check who posted it or if they are my ideological enemy or something like that, lol.

We can't even have a discussion if morality doesn't exist, which, as @Hadoblado seems to have worked though, that subjective morality leads to erasing the concept of morality completely.

Therefore, I don't blame you for your immoral actions toward me because you either don't care what is moral (or not) or you don't think it exists.

To me, you sound like a teenager saying, "when I am 40 years old I will kill myself because I don't want to be old" only to die at the ripe old age of 86.

Without objective truth, we have nothing to discuss because all discussions are about getting at the truth of a matter. And good moral actions by humans are a form of true behavior.

Also, with no moral good or evil, the problem of evil completely vanishes since there's nothing to complain about.

 

[ZenRaiden]

TO me objective morality is independent of humans, at all times true.
The only binding principal is true nature of reality and its essence in some fashion of platonic ideal where things simply are the way they are.

Humans need to get of the moral high horse saying things are some what always arbitrary and subjective.

I believe we deal with subjective things.

But there are reasons why humans are the way they are and it rarely has to do with being human.

It has to do with physics, biology and chemical and biological factors, and geology and other things.

These things are objectively devoid of human will.

We can work with our physical environment and thus we less likely to recognize our dependence on nature and physical world.

Our command of nature has made us skeptical of natural connection.

There are also mathematical formulas that are universal and can be used to describe physical relationships, which to my understanding can get complex for humans, but aren't exactly complex enough to make the world somewhat confusing.

There are literally few simple equations in physics that describe pretty much most robust relationships of nature and energy that transforms nature and humans.

I say simple, because these equations don't run in millions of data, like our DNA.

They are few simple equations that can be used in variety of complex math models, but essence of these ideas is simply combining things like acceleration, speed, vectors, space time relations etc.

Most advance physics just happened with breaking of atom.

At present this is still very confusing, but lets be honest these are principals we rarely combine with humanity, because I guess they are not assigned human qualities like intent and motivations or emotions.

So rocks and planets and stars have no moral dilemmas.

Humans do. But humans are influenced by these things objectively.

At the end of the day these are objective constraints on us, and define our options in everyday life.
To think we are somehow subjective enough to have only some sort of subjective
"morality" is simply a type of problem solving model in social domain.
Its the most useful model since most humans don't have use for objective reality or morality.

This does not mean we are not governed by it.

If for example ecology or technology takes the wrong turn.
Humanity is literally dead end of evolution.
If we keep killing of species that might end the life on Earth as we know it, humans will be dead in few years, whether we think its only bees that keep us alive or not.

There are probably 100s if not thousands of species that keep humans alive.
Since everything in nature is interconnected.
TO think "our ignorance in this domains" is somewhat exempting us from this problem is unbelievably naive in relation to what we know of species extinction from evolution and now.

This all is talking about objective structure of universe that we still cannot completely describe.

What else principals govern humanity we cannot say.

To say morality is subjective is simply forgoing truth on basis of "its not going to help me today to deal with things" which is nice.

But if people are inclined to think this way, then word morality should simply not be used at all.
Or used simply as a type of human metric standard as the word moral implies good "vibes" etc.

To me moral means the deed is good whether you or me agree.
Ethic or human goodness implies we agree that its good.
The two are distinct.

Same way humans and animals agree on what is good music in general principal certain melodies are universally liked by animals.

Why should such a thing occur? Well I think because there are some principals in nature that simply are there and are objectively true.

Same way our calories and effort are objective reality.
To think you can just exist in good way is wrong.

 

[Hadoblado]

Subjective morality does not erase the concept? When did I imply that? The concept of morality very much exists, as a concept.

Don't know what's going on here or what you're accusing them of, but Glaensaeth is almost certainly conducting themself in earnest. They've been here a long time, and don't recall a single time they've been less than direct and honest.

 

[Old Things]

TO me objective morality is independent of humans, at all times true.
The only binding principal is true nature of reality and its essence in some fashion of platonic ideal where things simply are the way they are.

Humans need to get of the moral high horse saying things are some what always arbitrary and subjective.

I believe we deal with subjective things.

But there are reasons why humans are the way they are and it rarely has to do with being human.

It has to do with physics, biology and chemical and biological factors, and geology and other things.

These things are objectively devoid of human will.

We can work with our physical environment and thus we less likely to recognize our dependence on nature and physical world.

Our command of nature has made us skeptical of natural connection.

There are also mathematical formulas that are universal and can be used to describe physical relationships, which to my understanding can get complex for humans, but aren't exactly complex enough to make the world somewhat confusing.

There are literally few simple equations in physics that describe pretty much most robust relationships of nature and energy that transforms nature and humans.

I say simple, because these equations don't run in millions of data, like our DNA.

They are few simple equations that can be used in variety of complex math models, but essence of these ideas is simply combining things like acceleration, speed, vectors, space time relations etc.

Most advance physics just happened with breaking of atom.

At present this is still very confusing, but lets be honest these are principals we rarely combine with humanity, because I guess they are not assigned human qualities like intent and motivations or emotions.

So rocks and planets and stars have no moral dilemmas.

Humans do. But humans are influenced by these things objectively.

At the end of the day these are objective constraints on us, and define our options in everyday life.
To think we are somehow subjective enough to have only some sort of subjective
"morality" is simply a type of problem solving model in social domain.
Its the most useful model since most humans don't have use for objective reality or morality.

This does not mean we are not governed by it.

If for example ecology or technology takes the wrong turn.
Humanity is literally dead end of evolution.
If we keep killing of species that might end the life on Earth as we know it, humans will be dead in few years, whether we think its only bees that keep us alive or not.

There are probably 100s if not thousands of species that keep humans alive.
Since everything in nature is interconnected.
TO think "our ignorance in this domains" is somewhat exempting us from this problem is unbelievably naive in relation to what we know of species extinction from evolution and now.

This all is talking about objective structure of universe that we still cannot completely describe.

What else principals govern humanity we cannot say.

To say morality is subjective is simply forgoing truth on basis of "its not going to help me today to deal with things" which is nice.

But if people are inclined to think this way, then word morality should simply not be used at all.
Or used simply as a type of human metric standard as the word moral implies good "vibes" etc.

To me moral means the deed is good whether you or me agree.
Ethic or human goodness implies we agree that its good.
The two are distinct.

Same way humans and animals agree on what is good music in general principal certain melodies are universally liked by animals.

Why should such a thing occur? Well I think because there are some principals in nature that simply are there and are objectively true.

Same way our calories and effort are objective reality.
To think you can just exist in good way is wrong.

If you want to chalk up morality as a sort of 'laws of the universe' I'm totally cool with that.

Subjective morality does not erase the concept? When did I imply that? The concept of morality very much exists, as a concept.

Don't know what's going on here or what you're accusing them of, but Glaensaeth is almost certainly conducting themself in earnest. They've been here a long time, and don't recall a single time they've been less than direct and honest.

Glaensaeth accused people who think morality is objective as only holding that view as a crutch.

The question is about the nature of reality. As such, I don't think objective morality is just a made-up concept to make people feel better about themselves. I'm actually shocked that when I make my point saying, "torturing a baby for fun is always wrong" as a demonstration that objective morality exists, this isn't fully reconciled with. You are left with possible worlds where anything can theoretically be justified by saying either morality is subjective or morality doesn't actually exist in reality.

I didn't mean to drag you back into the conversation again, Hado. I mentioned you so when you come back from your break you could engage again if you wanted.

If it helps you think about it this way: consider @ZenRaiden's point of view and what I said about what I think their view entails (objective morality being a part of universal laws).

 

[Old Things]

There is clearly some miscommunication going on.

@Glaensaeth stated people who believe morality is objective only do so out of some sort of crutch they have. This was stated because they assumed it had to do with the supernatural. It was also said that they felt no need to back up what they were saying with any sort of argumentation or evidence. So because it was 1) The comment was made in the wrong thread. 2) The comment was making a negative claim about people in general about all people who believe something and 3) they were unwilling to provide any evidence for their view. This lead to me thinking they were doing so out of ill intent. I don't know how you can blame me for my reaction. But it was a reaction and not a response so I am to blame for saying things that may not be true.

@Hadoblado has said that right and wrong don't actually exist in reality. He didn't clarify at the time that he thinks morality only exists as a concept. So I was left with the impression that Hado had gone from thinking morality is subjective (which I think is the view he still holds) to concluding based on our conversation that morality does not exist in reality. I strongly disagree with that stance because anything that is not inherently rooted in reality is subject to falling apart when we start to analyze it. However, I think Hado has quite a bit of intellectual honesty, so I can buy that he believes what he is saying about morality only existing as a concept. It's a very liberal view of things (perhaps not politically, and that's an entirely different conversation). 500 years ago, if you were to tell someone that morally right and wrong behaviors are only invented concepts, they would not have any idea how to make sense of that. In fact, I don't really know how to make sense of that myself. Further, I assume what comes with this is the idea that people are more moral people today than they were 500 years ago. That has all sorts of problems with it such as all the terrible things that happened in the 20th century. The point is that people who don't believe that morality is objective can and oftentimes do justify all sorts of things that people 500 years ago would think are objectively immoral. But I can't blame Hado, or anyone else here for believing morality is subjective since it seems that education today seems to purport these views quite fervently since at least the industrial revolution when ideas about things started to get more subjective and far less concrete.

 

[Hadoblado]

Haha I'm trying to stay away but when I'm stressed I always find a way to visit.

Objective morality as a crutch is not a personal attack, it is an incidental result of his perspective. Similar to, how as a result of your perspective, you have made many claims about atheists being wishy washy or immoral adjacent. While it's unpleasant to be "attacked" in this way, the alternative is lying or not engaging. While Glae is honest in his interactions, I can't say they're always diplomatic with people with whom they disagree.

Regarding morality not existing vs. existing as a concept, this is starting to pull up the carpet to another layer regarding the nature of meaning, language, and knowledge. I don't have time for that now, but many of the "concrete" realities that we take for granted exist only as concepts or are so transmuted from their objective existence by sensory and perceptual processes that they may as well be.

 

[Old Things]

you have made many claims about atheists being wishy washy or immoral adjacent.

I've given my reasons for thinking so. I don't think all atheists are immoral by certain standards of behavior, but I have reasons to think atheists are less moral than people who believe in objective morality. One example is that religious people, and Christians especially, are more likely to give their time and money to either volunteer or provide financially for organizations that do good in the world.

Of course, one objection to this would be, "Christians only give to organizations that promote Christianity," but this is actually demonstrated to be false. Christians are more willing to volunteer and give financially to organizations that help people to organizations that are not religious organizations.

All I'm trying to show here is that there is a correlation between people who believe morality is objective and them doing things people in general, whether religious or not, would consider good, moral, and virtuous behavior.

 

[Hadoblado]

Wait really? Oh... I don't really care about tribes. I thought we were talking about morality.

If that's all you're trying to convince people of, I'm not opposed to that notion.

 

[Old Things]

Wait really? Oh... I don't really care about tribes. I thought we were talking about morality.

If that's all you're trying to convince people of, I'm not opposed to that notion.

My point isn't that people who believe in objective morality are more moral people. That's only some sort of off-center evidence of my main point that morality is objective.

 

[Hadoblado]

Oh okay, I was interpretting this:

All I'm trying to show here is that there is a correlation between people who believe morality is objective and them doing things people in general, whether religious or not, would consider good, moral, and virtuous behavior.

to mean that all you were trying to do in this thread. I'll grant you that religious people are more moral by some metrics np.

 

[Old Things]

Oh okay, I was interpretting this:

All I'm trying to show here is that there is a correlation between people who believe morality is objective and them doing things people in general, whether religious or not, would consider good, moral, and virtuous behavior.

to mean that all you were trying to do in this thread. I'll grant you that religious people are more moral by some metrics np.

Yeah, when I said "here" I meant in that post. Sorry if that was unclear.

 

[Hadoblado]

In the video, Gavin Ortlund talks about one of the early church fathers (ECF) position on slavery and how this man, Gregory of Nyssa was against such notions. This was in a time when slavery was completely accepted and even in some cases advocated for by Christians in this era.

(from another thread) @Old Things

Doesn't the NT condone slavery? How is Gavin not advocating for his own subjective morality against the objective morality of the NT?

 

[Old Things]

In the video, Gavin Ortlund talks about one of the early church fathers (ECF) position on slavery and how this man, Gregory of Nyssa was against such notions. This was in a time when slavery was completely accepted and even in some cases advocated for by Christians in this era.

(from another thread) @Old Things

Doesn't the NT condone slavery? How is Gavin not advocating for his own subjective morality against the objective morality of the NT?

Where does the NT condone slavery? I don't think it does if you read and understand the book of Philemon.

Secondarily to that, the Jewish understanding of slavery was completely different from what we think about it today. Slavery in the OT actually had rules about slavery which was pretty outstanding for the time, to understate it quite a bit!

And then when you understand that Christ knew the human heart better than anyone else, you understand Christ did not abolish slavery because He knew it would always exist. There's plenty of slavery today, it's just gone away from the public eye. But slavery is alive and well - even in the US. So if Christ were to say, "Stop having slaves," something far worse could have happened in its place.

Judeo-Christian values have always been about justice. It isn't always handled right, meaning, people do bad things in the name of Christ all the time, but this does not mean that at core Christians do not care about justice. Those of us who understand what the Biblical views about these things are are not fooled.

 

[Hadoblado]

Are these NT?

Ephesians 6:5-8 Slaves, be obedient to your human masters with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ”

Peter 2:18, “Slaves, be subject to your masters with all reverence, not only to those who are good and equitable but also to those who are perverse.”

Colossians 3:22, "Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord."

 

[Old Things]

Are these NT?

Ephesians 6:5-8 Slaves, be obedient to your human masters with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ”

Peter 2:18, “Slaves, be subject to your masters with all reverence, not only to those who are good and equitable but also to those who are perverse.”

Colossians 3:22, "Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord."

They are.

What tells you this is giving people permission to take on slaves as Christians as opposed to those who are already slaves to be obedient?

Keep reading in those passages and Paul says things like, "as a slave is free in Christ, so a free man is a slave to Christ," etc.

I haven't actually looked up the passages yet, but I'd be willing to do that if you want.

 

[Old Things]

@Hadoblado,

Besides, it's like saying I can't hire a maid to do chores around my house if I was rich. So even if I paid them a fair wage I would not be able to do that with the logic of "don't have slaves."

 

[Hadoblado]

The other stuff I saw was telling people to treat their slaves well.

The NT, which is a moral authority, tells slaves to obey their masters and tells masters to treat their slaves well. It speaks against masters further abusing their slaves, but this is a stance on further abusing power, not on the institution of slavery.

If it an objective morality, and slavery is wrong, then to the extent the NT talks about slavery, it should denounce slavery. I don't see a way around this.

Keep in mind I'm not arguing that the NT is pro-slavery (I am not equipped to tackle that). I am saying that the NT fails to condemn it which is something an objective morality would certainly do.

So correct me if I'm incorrect, but for your view to be consistent, you must think that slavery is not objectively wrong. And if it's not objectively wrong, since you reject subjective morality, slavery must not be wrong.

 

[Old Things]

The other stuff I saw was telling people to treat their slaves well.

The NT, which is a moral authority, tells slaves to obey their masters and tells masters to treat their slaves well. It speaks against masters further abusing their slaves, but this is a stance on further abusing power, not on the institution of slavery.

If it an objective morality, and slavery is wrong, then to the extent the NT talks about slavery, it should denounce slavery. I don't see a way around this.

Keep in mind I'm not arguing that the NT is pro-slavery (I am not equipped to tackle that). I am saying that the NT fails to condemn it which is something an objective morality would certainly do.

So correct me if I'm incorrect, but for your view to be consistent, you must think that slavery is not objectively wrong. And if it's not objectively wrong, since you reject subjective morality, slavery must not be wrong.

Here is my answer. The conclusion is, "It is not slavery." Why? Because the roles as we might think of them are only a "shell" of what exists as a master/slave relationship.

I'd encourage you to watch the whole video if this is a real hang-up for you.


P.S. I don't agree fully with this video (or this person), but it gives a pretty strong indication, if you look at the whole NT, that although slavery is not abolished in the NT, there is a clear indication that, as the book of Philemon says, it becomes about brotherhood and not about owning people. I feel the reason that the NT does not outright abolish slavery is that Christians did not want to start an insurrection and that is exactly what would have happened if the people who wrote the NT said, "Don't have slaves." I can't prove that from the Bible, but I can look at history and see that this is a very plausible explanation as Christianity is very much a religion of peace. I can quote verses about Christianity being about peace if you want.

 

[Hadoblado]

Only a shell? Tell that to the man who lives life without freedom for the material benefit of others. If you think that more palatable slavery is acceptable, you are not actually against slavery. That "shell" of the entirety of your human freedom is not something to be downplayed lightly.

This is IMO pretty fatal for the position of the NT as an objective moral authority.

This is a box that once open, cannot be shut. If the NT shifts in message with the times, it's not objective. It could wake up one morning and change its mind just like an atheist. You can argue that objective morality exists and it's not the NT, but that's a different conversation.

So is the current NT okay with slavery so long as the slaves aren't treated with further abuse?

 

[Old Things]

Only a shell? Tell that to the man who lives life without freedom for the material benefit of others. If you think that more palatable slavery is acceptable, you are not actually against slavery. That "shell" of the entirety of your human freedom is not something to be downplayed lightly.

This is IMO pretty fatal for the position of the NT as an objective moral authority.

This is a box that once open, cannot be shut. If the NT shifts in message with the times, it's not objective. It could wake up one morning and change its mind just like an atheist. You can argue that objective morality exists and it's not the NT, but that's a different conversation.

So is the current NT okay with slavery so long as the slaves aren't treated with further abuse?

I understand your concern. If the NT says things that are immoral, then it has no bearing on being objectively moral.

Some questions though.

If the NT said slavery was not good, how would your view of the Bible change?
If people started saying, "I am not working for a company anymore. It's just slavery," and then they go on to start their own business in which they hire people to be their employers, how would you view that?
Further, if people in society started saying, "working for anyone means they own you," How would you then interpret the video?
What does the word "boss" mean to you? And how is it different than slavery?

 

[Hadoblado]

But here's the thing, if the bible is objective morality distilled, then anything it says is morally correct regardless of what we think nowadays. Which means that if it does legitimise slavery as I believe, then slavery is morally correct and it is everyone that disagrees that is wrong.

And we've sort of got a road map for this. The old testament was based on even older moral norms, and treated as objective truth. But it was horrible. The NT is a vast improvement. And now much later, we are once again seeing the limitations of a static codified morality and it's time to update again.

Re: Your questions
I feel it's kind of odd you're putting all of this in my court when your conclusion is on the ropes like this. But I'll try.

1) I'd view the bible as more consistent than it is now. In fact, it would be pretty impressive for it to have gone against the grain that hard (so long as it was really explicit and not ambiguous). The bible would shift to somewhat positive valence for me. Maybe it'd overtake Buddhism.
2) I'd say that so long as someone has the option to go and start their own company, they were being hyperbolic when they referred to their plight as slavery. Not only are they no slaves they are workers, but apparently they have the freedom and privilege to leave and start a business?
3) Working for anyone means they own you. Hmmm. I think this is somewhat true, less ownership and more hiring a tool. I'm not a fan of the objectification of the worker but at the same time the interaction is voluntary. Regardless, just because attitudes change, does not change whether or not its slavery. If slavery comes to mean something else, that's fine and plausible, but that's just lingual obfuscation. The moral facts remain unchanged from an objective moral perspective that a person being involuntary property is immoral, and I would extend this to wage slavery where the earnings one gets fail to exceed living requirements.
4) A boss is someone who has hierarchical authority over you in matters regarding your shared occupation. This can mean they pay you for your labour, this can mean that you are both paid to do something by a third party with an arrangement that they are your superior. I push for more horizontal leadership models but I can't ignore that there are some benefits to vertical hierarchy.

But really, I think you need to explain more and not throw it back to me. You have a giant hole in your stated position, but it feels like you're trying to push attention away from it by focusing on me (I don't think you intend this btw).

 

[Old Things]

But here's the thing, if the bible is objective morality distilled, then anything it says is morally correct regardless of what we think nowadays. Which means that if it does legitimise slavery as I believe, then slavery is morally correct and it is everyone that disagrees that is wrong.

And we've sort of got a road map for this. The old testament was based on even older moral norms, and treated as objective truth. But it was horrible. The NT is a vast improvement. And now much later, we are once again seeing the limitations of a static codified morality and it's time to update again.

I could give you a lot of homework here, but I won't.

I don't think the NT legitimizes slavery. I can make a case for that if you want, but the case pretty much hinges on two verses:

Ephesians 6:9 NAS20
“and there is no partiality with Him.”

(προσωπολημψία) Partiality = Not found in God (pertaining to: named as a sin, with other sins). So you can see that if the master mistreats his slave, then he is liable to judgment from God because God does not excuse the master because he is a master. That is literally what that word means.

Basically, it means God does not say, "You are free to do wrong but this other person is not." It shows up only three times in the NT. The other references are Romans 2:11 and Colossians 3:25. In both cases it is talking about God not being partial towards anyone who sins. The implication is that, if the Bible says, "love one another" then it is wrong to treat people wrongly. If God is a being who does not excuse evil behavior for any reason, then what Jesus said is still true when he says, “By this all people will know that you are My disciples: if you have love for one another.” You can also search for the word "judgment" in the Bible and find Jesus has a lot to say about it that has to do with sin against other people, but it even goes beyond that to Him saying if you lust after a woman then you are liable to judgment. Most people have no clue how terrible of people they are. If they actually sat down with Jesus for an hour, then they would see just how different He was from them.

The second text is more explicit.

Philemon 1:15–16 NAS20
“For perhaps it was for this reason that he was separated from you for a while, that you would have him back forever, no longer as a slave, but more than a slave, a beloved brother, especially to me, but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.”

From your perspective of the Bible, this is what slavery is. How can the man take his "slave" back and think more of him than what Paul does? It is rather explicit isn't it? Do you think this, when compared to the other texts in the NT about slavery, it shows that there is any kind of negativity in the "would-be" master/slave relationships? That is why I said to watch the video and why I said the institution of "slavery" ends up actually being painted in better light than the kind of relationship you would have with your boss because it would be a relationship based on love, not in the romantic sense, but in a deeply affectionate sense where you want to do what is good for the other person.

Re: Your questions
I feel it's kind of odd you're putting all of this in my court when your conclusion is on the ropes like this. But I'll try.

You haven't let me down yet and the truth has nothing to hide.

1) I'd view the bible as more consistent than it is now. In fact, it would be pretty impressive for it to have gone against the grain that hard (so long as it was really explicit and not ambiguous). The bible would shift to somewhat positive valence for me. Maybe it'd overtake Buddhism.
2) I'd say that so long as someone has the option to go and start their own company, they were being hyperbolic when they referred to their plight as slavery. Not only are they no slaves they are workers, but apparently they have the freedom and privilege to leave and start a business?
3) Working for anyone means they own you. Hmmm. I think this is somewhat true, less ownership and more hiring a tool. I'm not a fan of the objectification of the worker but at the same time the interaction is voluntary. Regardless, just because attitudes change, does not change whether or not its slavery. If slavery comes to mean something else, that's fine and plausible, but that's just lingual obfuscation. The moral facts remain unchanged from an objective moral perspective that a person being involuntary property is immoral, and I would extend this to wage slavery where the earnings one gets fail to exceed living requirements.
4) A boss is someone who has hierarchical authority over you in matters regarding your shared occupation. This can mean they pay you for your labour, this can mean that you are both paid to do something by a third party with an arrangement that they are your superior. I push for more horizontal leadership models but I can't ignore that there are some benefits to vertical hierarchy.

Right. I notice a pattern and I am not sure if you do (or not). The pattern I see is that all that matters is how it is framed. That seems to be your biggest issue. Not the concept of having an authority figure, but that it is labeled as "slave" and "master." If you peel away the layers, what you are really saying here is that you want freedom to do what you want when you want. That might be dangerous if taken too far. For example, if people had no restraints, then they would go rob, kill, and burn everything to the ground. We saw that in 2020 with the riots. In other words, if taken to the extreme, all it is, in principle, is anarchy. That's not the kind of place you want to live. We need boundaries. So while you perhaps get triggered by the word "slave" (because of the African slave trade that is ingrained in our minds) when you break it down, it is a category or kind of slavery you don't like, not that you think any and all authority should be done away with. The model of the Bible is that God the Father is at the top of the food chain, then Jesus Christ is just below Him, and then all other humans fall under that, and then everything else in creation falls under that. And this idea of hierarchy where God is at the head and everything falls under that is mapped on really well to human relationships as well. For example, we call Him God the Father because He loves us as a perfect father would. It is anthropomorphic language to talk about God. God is not literally a father, well, not really. He is being itself. I digress. The authority structure we find in the Bible is a loving one where the one with authority loves those underneath Him. There are many verses about this in the Bible.

But really, I think you need to explain more and not throw it back to me. You have a giant hole in your stated position, but it feels like you're trying to push attention away from it by focusing on me (I don't think you intend this btw).

If I explained more, then you would tell me I need to ask more questions. I am trying to understand your view which is why I am asking you questions. We already talked about this once. You said I was explaining too much and assuming too much and now when I ask you questions you tell me I am asking too many questions? Of course, this does not surprise me at all as atheists are by nature opposed to God and by extension those who follow Him. I don't say that to be derogatory towards you specifically, Hado. Just that I run into people being unfair to me all the time because I am a Christian. I don't mind. I expect it. I just try and call it out when I see it.

 

[Hadoblado]

Can we try to keep it more concise? I find it really difficult to engage with a post bigger than a screen - I get lost and am forced to not respond to things if I don't want stuff inflating further.

What I'm seeing here is that the bible is against mistreating slaves, but not against slavery. While its stance on mistreating slaves was probably progressive for the time, and so to be applauded from a subjective framework, from an objective framework it is just wrong (if slavery is wrong).

Err... I'm gonna use an edgy analogy here but it's not meant disrespectfully. If the bible was okay with rape so long as you kiss them on the cheek and snuggle after, it would condone rape and make it slightly more palatable. It'd still be rape though.

If I own you, and you are my property, you are not free, no matter how kindly I treat you and no matter if God loves to use both equally. If I had two children and one enslaved the other, I would be remiss if I treated their actions as equal. This is slavery and it is wrong. Now you can argue that freedom can be misused, and that'd true and I'll grant this. But it is an anti-freedom argument in favour of slavery. While I believe morality is subjective, slavery is not compatible with my worldview. If your objective morality sees natural human attraction as a sin, but not slavery, I don't know how you can possibly consider your morality superior.

For me right now, nothing else in this discussion matters other than how you reconcile slavery being okay with your view that your moral system is superior.

 

[Old Things]

Can we try to keep it more concise? I find it really difficult to engage with a post bigger than a screen - I get lost and am forced to not respond to things if I don't want stuff inflating further.

What I'm seeing here is that the bible is against mistreating slaves, but not against slavery. While its stance on mistreating slaves was probably progressive for the time, and so to be applauded from a subjective framework, from an objective framework it is just wrong (if slavery is wrong).

Err... I'm gonna use an edgy analogy here but it's not meant disrespectfully. If the bible was okay with rape so long as you kiss them on the cheek and snuggle after, it would condone rape and make it slightly more palatable. It'd still be rape though.

If I own you, and you are my property, you are not free, no matter how kindly I treat you and no matter if God loves to use both equally. If I had two children and one enslaved the other, I would be remiss if I treated their actions as equal. This is slavery and it is wrong. Now you can argue that freedom can be misused, and that'd true and I'll grant this. But it is an anti-freedom argument in favour of slavery. While I believe morality is subjective, slavery is not compatible with my worldview. If your objective morality sees natural human attraction as a sin, but not slavery, I don't know how you can possibly consider your morality superior.

For me right now, nothing else in this discussion matters other than how you reconcile slavery being okay with your view that your moral system is superior.

Hierarchies are inherent to human behavior. Society cannot function without them. You get triggered by the word "slavery" but if I were to say, "Hado come live at my place. I'm a multi-billionaire and when you are not working for me you can go nuts. My only condition is that you have to work for me from 9-5 and live at my house. Deal?" In other words, that would not be slavery. But since the word "slavery" is so triggering for you it does not matter how it is phrased because the word slavery is involved. As I said, slavery in the days of antiquity are completely different than the African slave trade. You have to make peace with that. If you don't then it doesn't matter how I say it, you will always object to what the Bible says about this because the word "slave" and "master" are used. Fundamentally, you just want to be able to do whatever you want whenever you want.

 

[Hadoblado]

No, that would not be slavery, because you gave me the choice.

If you said "Hado you must come to my mansion, you don't have a choice because I own you, I will shower you with money" that would be morally wrong. You don't seem to understand that it's not the word that I care about, it's the complete removal of someone's freedom. You've just decided for me that I'm triggered by a word because I think slavery is bad, assuming the weakest reasoning for my concerns.

The word "slavery" has nothing to do with anything. It just represents the underlying moral considerations of the removal of agency, especially for personal gain.

 

[Old Things]

No, that would not be slavery, because you gave me the choice.

If you said "Hado you must come to my mansion, you don't have a choice because I own you, I will shower you with money" that would be morally wrong. You don't seem to understand that it's not the word that I care about, it's the complete removal of someone's freedom. You've just decided for me that I'm triggered by a word because I think slavery is bad, assuming the weakest reasoning for my concerns.

The word "slavery" has nothing to do with anything. It just represents the underlying moral considerations of the removal of agency, especially for personal gain.

Show me where in the NT it says, "you don't have a choice because I own you, I will shower you with money." Where does it say anywhere in the NT to take NEW slaves? Surely you can show me a verse that says this? Else, we are left with the type of slavery where people volunteered themselves as slaves in the times of antiquity and Philemon.

This is just going to be a back and forth between you and I because you don't understand what I am saying. I understand your position just fine. You think ownership of another person is wrong. So do I and I don't think the NT condones that at all.

 

[Hadoblado]

Show me where in the NT it says, "you don't have a choice because I own you, I will shower you with money."

What? I was addressing your analogy and pointing out how it only described capitalism, not slavery. I was not suggesting anything about the content of the bible.

Where does it say anywhere in the NT to take NEW slaves? Surely you can show me a verse that says this? Else, we are left with the type of slavery where people volunteered themselves as slaves in the times of antiquity and Philemon.

Is your stance that slavery was 100% voluntary?

 

[Old Things]

Show me where in the NT it says, "you don't have a choice because I own you, I will shower you with money."

What? I was addressing your analogy and pointing out how it only described capitalism, not slavery. I was not suggesting anything about the content of the bible.

Where does it say anywhere in the NT to take NEW slaves? Surely you can show me a verse that says this? Else, we are left with the type of slavery where people volunteered themselves as slaves in the times of antiquity and Philemon.

Is your stance that slavery was 100% voluntary?

Not 100%, but that is why we look at what the NT says about what masters should do and compare that to Philemon. In other words, after the person has paid their debt as a slave, or otherwise their condition of being a slave is over, the master would let them go. If the person had already said, "I will be your slave if you do X," then when conditions for X have come then the slave is released. That's why I brought up the illustration of a boss - because slavery then was not much different than what we would think of as having a boss today apart from that you lived at your boss' house, which is weird to us, but was totally normal and fine for them. It functions much the same way. If the Bible doesn't say to take NEW slaves and then it also says, "Don't put yourself in slavery," then that creates a path out of slavery. I don't really expect you to understand this nuance at this point because you still haven't reconciled that your concept of slavery is based on the African slave trade and you don't know what slavery was like in times of antiquity, but whatever.

 

[Hadoblado]

Okay so your stance is that slavery as it was practiced by Christians was fine, but slavery, as we think of it today, would not be fine, according to the NT? That's cool.

If you found out that slavery as practiced by Christians was actually not the equivalent of a modern boss-worker relationship, would you change your view on objective morality and the NT?

 

[Old Things]

Okay so your stance is that slavery as it was practiced by Christians was fine, but slavery, as we think of it today, would not be fine, according to the NT? That's cool.

If you found out that slavery as practiced by Christians was actually not the equivalent of a modern boss-worker relationship, would you change your view on objective morality and the NT?

Depends on how it was different.

 

[Old Things]

@Hadoblado,

Consider that "owning people" is not a good thing in the NT. In fact, it explicitly says slave trading is sinful.

 

[Hadoblado]

Hypothetically, say it was much worse. Christians bought and sold slaves, the people who captured slaves were Christians, and slaves weren't allowed to own property or make their own decisions. Would this be enough for you to change your mind and if so, in what way?

 

[Old Things]

Hypothetically, say it was much worse. Christians bought and sold slaves, the people who captured slaves were Christians, and slaves weren't allowed to own property or make their own decisions. Would this be enough for you to change your mind and if so, in what way?

My beliefs in Christianity don't depend on what other Christians do. They don't even depend on what I myself do. I'm saved by grace and my own response to the Gospel. Yes, during the African slave trade, many Christians owned slaves. That's completely irrelevant to whether Christianity is true though. All that makes Christianity true is whether Christ rose from the dead or not. If Christ rose from the dead, then nothing else matters.

Spoiler

This thread has shifted so far away from the OP. It would have been better if you stuck to the designated thread on Christianity and slavery.

 

[Hadoblado]

Just so I'm understanding you correctly, whether morality is objective or subjective does not matter, it is only the resurrection of Christ that matters? If Christ rose from the dead, then whatever slavery that was perpetrated or perpetuated in the name of Christ is okay, whether it be gentle and friendly slavery or traditional whip-cracking villainy?

I'm not phased by the derail. The other topic was dead so you and I are the only stakeholders.

 

[Old Things]

Just so I'm understanding you correctly, whether morality is objective or subjective does not matter, it is only the resurrection of Christ that matters? If Christ rose from the dead, then whatever slavery that was perpetrated or perpetuated in the name of Christ is okay, whether it be gentle and friendly slavery or traditional whip-cracking villainy?

I'm not phased by the derail. The other topic was dead so you and I are the only stakeholders.

You are completely missing the point, which is expected since you are not a Christian. I want to be frustrated, but I can't be frustrated with you because you don't know any better.

Morality is objective whether Christ rose from the dead or not. That doesn't change if I all of a sudden deconvert from Christianity. Christ rising from the dead is all I need to demonstrate both that Christianity is true and that morality is objective.

No, what Christians do is still wrong if it contradicts the Bible. If anyone is cracking any whips, then they are clearly in the wrong since the Bible says over and over and over and over, "love one another."

You wanted to make this issue about me and Christianity rather than about objective morality, which, you assume I have to hold to Christianity to maintain my stance on objective morality and I just don't need to. The same goes for my stance on Free Will while we are at it.

I expect you to twist this into some contrived manipulation of what I said (again). I will just have to "show my reasonableness" (Philippians 4:5) with you in that case.

No offense but this seems to be taking a turn towards an all-out assault on Christianity at this point.

 

[Hadoblado]

Resorting to condescension and pearl clutching does not become you.

Believe me when I tell you I have no intention of questioning your belief in Christianity, that's just the fulcrum I'm using to interrogate your belief in objective morality. I pick my battles and converting the religious is not one I will ever voluntarily commit to.

I'm not twisting your words, I'm narrowing you down. These are questions and I will respect your answers unless they contradict one another. At least, that's how I see it. You can shut me up pretty hard if you can show me where what you've said has been willingly distorted.

But it looks like I've pushed you too far, so I'll leave it. Good luck in all things.

 

[Old Things]

Resorting to condescension and pearl clutching does not become you.

Believe me when I tell you I have no intention of questioning your belief in Christianity, that's just the fulcrum I'm using to interrogate your belief in objective morality. I pick my battles and converting the religious is not one I will ever voluntarily commit to.

I'm not twisting your words, I'm narrowing you down. These are questions and I will respect your answers unless they contradict one another. At least, that's how I see it. You can shut me up pretty hard if you can show me where what you've said has been willingly distorted.

But it looks like I've pushed you too far, so I'll leave it. Good luck in all things.

If you are just asking me questions, I have no problem with that. But when you ask me questions that I feel like I have already answered (in the same thread) then I don't know what to think and it very much feels like the same sort of discussions with atheists I have had in the past. Granted, I will say you are quite a bit tamer than other atheists I have engaged with (even in the case you don't have good motives in your questioning [I think]).

So, yeah. It was more that I felt you were asking things (clarifying questions, really) that I had already answered. And given it feels like you still don't understand some of the points I am making (surely not giving me credit for any of my positions) I don't know what to make of it that you 1) ask questions I feel I've answered already and 2) don't ask about things I feel I have already talked well about already.

 

[Old Things]

@Hadoblado,

I think I understand how I am coming across. You might think I am coming across as hypocritical as though I am aggressive with my questioning and then when someone else asks questions to me aggressively, I have a negative reaction. That is probably correct. All I can say is that I am only being as honest as I can be. I am not a deceitful person. So I try not to lie and I usually don't and don't make a habit of it. I don't know your framework of lying at all so I can't comment on you. All I can do is control myself.

TTYL

 

[Hadoblado]

I'm being honest in my engagement, I've even outlined my "gameplan" for you because it does not rely on deceit. The questions may feel a bit repetitive because I am trying to nail down your position to the point the contradiction lays bare. You started off claiming Christians are morally superior and finished up playing apologist for (some but not all) slavery. You've claimed I'm being triggered or twisting words, but this is your beliefs as stated and I'm giving you ample opportunity to reframe them because truly they're kind of shocking.

My only focus is on your claim about objective morality, which I want to convince you is wrong. Everything else has been to progress that conversation. Honestly, I haven't even begun the case I was planning to make because the slavery thing eclipses it and then some.

 

[Old Things]

I'm being honest in my engagement, I've even outlined my "gameplan" for you because it does not rely on deceit. The questions may feel a bit repetitive because I am trying to nail down your position to the point the contradiction lays bare. You started off claiming Christians are morally superior and finished up playing apologist for (some but not all) slavery. You've claimed I'm being triggered or twisting words, but this is your beliefs as stated and I'm giving you ample opportunity to reframe them because truly they're kind of shocking.

My only focus is on your claim about objective morality, which I want to convince you is wrong. Everything else has been to progress that conversation. Honestly, I haven't even begun the case I was planning to make because the slavery thing eclipses it and then some.

There are still a lot of questions you have not answered.

 

[onesteptwostep]

Slavery isn't condoned by the bible. Slavery as an institution, it doesn't forward any opinion on it. But generally the bible is clear on the relational aspect, that it should be a two sided affair and both parties need to treat each other with respect. Slavery is more of an economic issue rather than a topic of morality anyway. If we didn't have the industrial revolution we'd probably still have slavery on a wide scale, and people would generally be content with it. (People are pretty oblivious on what globalism entails, so..)

I think the Bible is more of a principle setter in regards to morality rather than legislator. Most of the NT morality is Paul coming in conflicts with the legal interpretations of the Mosaic laws because of the cultural differences between Jews and the people of the hellenistic culture. If we follow through with the intent of the law, and the principle that guides them, that is what we'd call Christian morality. A good portion of Acts is on this matter.

 

[Hadoblado]

If we're still doing this, point me at the ones that you think pertinent. When posts get big and arguments long I start being ruthless with how much I answer. It's not a tactic to win or mislead, it's to keep conversations sustainable and productive. But it also entails me unilaterally deciding whats important, which is unfair. So I'll try to answer anything that you think will benefit the conversation.