Morality? What morality?

[sidbrown]

He (Paul) was obedient to Peter.

Was it wrong to require slaves to be subject to their masters and not to request their freedom?

Ephesians 6:5
Slaves, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ.

Colossians 3:22
Slaves, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God.

1 Timothy 6:1
Let as many slaves as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.

Titus 2:9-10
Exhort slaves to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again; Not purloining, but shewing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things.

1 Peter 2:18
Slaves, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.

 

[Joel_PF]

Here a scenario for you to consider:

Someone strapped a few bombs to his body, and blew up some people whom he considers his enemies. He also died in the process.

If you agree with the person, you will consider him a “morally upright, self-sacrificing hero”.
If you disagree with the person, you will consider him a “morally evil, horrible terrorist”.

Conclusion: the application of the adjective “moral” is the result of your subjective assessment of a fact. It has no “objective” meaning. It is just one of the feel-good, but meaningless “filler” words. Think about it.

Someone says that 3+3=7.

If you agree with the person, you’ll consider the sum 3+3=7 as mathematically correct.
If you disagree with the person, you’ll consider the sum 3+3=7 as mathematically incorrect.

Therefore, our judgments regarding mathematics are the result of our subjective beliefs. The same can be applied to physics, biology, everything else.

You make a confusion. Yes, each and every judgment we make about anything depends on an assessment we make of reality. This assessment is made “inside our minds”, and this you call “subjective”.

The question is, do we have a rational basis for this assessment? Is there a way to objectively compare different, say, mathematical propositions and conclude that some are true and others are false? Of course.

The same holds, I affirm, for ethics, that is, the science of living well as a human being. Its method is not the same as mathematics, but it is possible to arrive at knowledge about it anyway. Sure, people can be wrong about it. Is biology not objective? Well, people have all kinds of disagreements over biological issues; that doesn’t mean that it’s all subjective.

The mere existence of disagreement does not prove that it is impossible to arrive at an objective truth.

 

[davidv]

Was it wrong to require slaves to be subject to their masters and not to request their freedom?

Ephesians 6:5
Slaves, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ.

Colossians 3:22
Slaves, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God.

1 Timothy 6:1
Let as many slaves as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.

Titus 2:9-10
Exhort slaves to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again; Not purloining, but shewing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things.

1 Peter 2:18
Slaves, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.

Why would a God inspired command be wrong?
And before you take that response incorrectly, do you know what kind of “slavery” is being spoken of in these verses?

 

[sidbrown]

Why would a God inspired command be wrong?
And before you take that response incorrectly, do you know what kind of “slavery” is being spoken of in these verses?

So slavery is OK?

 

[davidv]

So slavery is OK?

I cannot say given the ambiguity of the question. Are you speaking of the slavery as it occurred in the first century, or today? Are you speaking of debt slavery or chattel slavery?

In order to jugde the morality of an act, the nature of the act must be clearly understood. Only then can the fonts of morality, object, intention and circumstance, be properly applied.

 

[sidbrown]

I cannot say given the ambiguity of the question. Are you speaking of the slavery as it occurred in the first century, or today? Are you speaking of debt slavery or chattel slavery?

In order to jugde the morality of an act, the nature of the act must be clearly understood. Only then can the fonts of morality, object, intention and circumstance, be properly applied.

Personally, I am opposed to slavery. I think it is wrong to enslave a person.

 

[Betterave]

Personally, I am opposed to slavery. I think it is wrong to enslave a person.

This can certainly be a confusing issue. But as David is suggesting, we have to think carefully about the reasons for slavery being wrong. We can say in general that it is wrong to deprive someone of their liberty. But we also know that in many cases it is not wrong to do so. Right? So it is probably impossible to invoke the general notion of ‘slavery’ and to make universal pronouncements about it. If you want to discuss the slavery that was accepted by Paul, we should do that. If you want to discuss the trans-Atlantic slave-trade, we should do that. (Etc.) We can’t discuss all of these at once, though, and expect to do justice to the different historical realities informing each situation.

 

[AntiTheist]

We can say in general that it is wrong to deprive someone of their liberty. But we also know that in many cases it is not wrong to do so.

We can also say that we find it horrendous for one human being to own another human being as property, regardless of whatever “historical circumstances” underlay those instances of ownership.

Further, we can say that we find completely despicable the idea of a god who would condone human beings owning each other as property (complete with those nifty Old Testament laws with details on the whole process, including rules for beating your slaves).

 

[Betterave]

We can also say that we find it horrendous for one human being to own another human being as property, regardless of whatever “historical circumstances” underlay those instances of ownership.

Further, we can say that we find completely despicable the idea of a god who would condone human beings owning each other as property (complete with those nifty Old Testament laws with details on the whole process, including rules for beating your slaves).

Of course. But then if that’s all that we have to say - “Personally, I find X horrendous!” - we really haven’t said anything very interesting.

 

[davidv]

We can also say that we find it horrendous for one human being to own another human being as property, regardless of whatever “historical circumstances” underlay those instances of ownership.

Why do you presume all slavery involves ownership?

Further, we can say that we find completely despicable the idea of a god who would condone human beings owning each other as property (complete with those nifty Old Testament laws with details on the whole process, including rules for beating your slaves).

Non sequitur - see above.

 

[AntiTheist]

Of course. But then if that’s all that we have to say - “Personally, I find X horrendous!” - we really haven’t said anything very interesting.

Yeah, but if you’re going around saying, “Well, I personally don’t find X horrendous!” where X is something that just about everyone finds horrendous, you are saying something pretty darn interesting about yourself and your values.

 

[tonyrey]

According to an article in First Things, October 2005, by Avery Cardinal Dulles, S.J., under the title “Development or Reversal?”:
“In 1863 John Henry Newman penned some fascinating reflections on slavery. A fellow Catholic, William T. Allies, asked him to comment on a lecture he was planning to give, asserting that slavery was intrinsically evil. Newman replied that, although he would like to see slavery eliminated, he could not go so far as to condemn it as intrinsically evil. For if it were, St. Paul would have had to order Philemon, ‘liberate all your slaves at once.’ Newman, as I see it, stood with the whole Catholic tradition. In 1866 the Holy Office, in response to an inquiry from Africa, ruled that although slavery (servitus) was undesirable, it was not per se opposed to natural or divine law. This ruling pertained to the kind of servitude that was customary in certain parts of Africa at the time.”
According to a statement issued by the Holy Office, June 20, 1866:
"Slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature, is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law, and there can be several just titles of slavery and these are referred to by approved theologians and commentators of the sacred canons… It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given.”

Do you believe John Henry Newman and the Holy Office were infallible?

 

[inocente]

Of course. But then if that’s all that we have to say - “Personally, I find X horrendous!” - we really haven’t said anything very interesting.

I’d have thought the exact opposite – it’s really interesting that OT writers had a different morality and that they wanted to deposit their morality in God in an attempt to make it permanent. And they weren’t by any means alone, we all (theists and atheists alike) have an expectation that our own way of thinking trumps all others. We can learn from this (or we can accuse others of being disingenuous, as per post #492 ).

 

[Betterave]

I’d have thought the exact opposite – it’s really interesting that OT writers had a different morality and that they wanted to deposit their morality in God in an attempt to make it permanent.

LOL! You’re quite a character. You’d have thought the exact opposite… but about a completely different proposition.
Me: I don’t like apples.
inocente: I think the exact opposite - I really enjoy oranges.

And they weren’t by any means alone, we all (theists and atheists alike) have an expectation that our own way of thinking trumps all others.

Speak for yourself.

We can learn from this (or we can accuse others of being disingenuous, as per post #492 ).

Again, you’re ignoring the context of my comments, i.e., you’re ignoring my comments! You’re just dismissing them as if they were groundless accusations, when obviously they were nothing of the kind. Again, this *is *disingenuous, surely?

 

[Betterave]

Yeah, but if you’re going around saying, “Well, I personally don’t find X horrendous!” where X is something that just about everyone finds horrendous, you are saying something pretty darn interesting about yourself and your values.

Am I? What, pray tell? Anything in particular? (Or is this just another “personally I find it pretty darn interesting!” - which again, I will suggest, is not a very interesting comment.)