Morality, Literally Split from Not Literally

[quote]
Incidentally, how do you feel about the police? Aren’t they wrong for imposing their subjective morality on people? If someone wanted to mug you because they felt they deserved your money, what right do the police have to object?[/quote]
LAWS [another funky construct of subjective morality…] Police are sworn to uphold those subjective morality clauses of existence within society [ n.b, each is specific to each country] such that they don’t lose their jobs/ cushy gov’t pensions.

Now…were the mugged to grab a 2X4 with rusty nails and slam the mugger in the meat ball known as his head and pierce his brain =die…he would in some jurisdictions [ make that many] be guilty of manslaughter. The mugged feared for his/her life…and “Might” is not “Right”…and neither is stealing/ mugging. The police arrive AFTER the fact…and woe is the mugged? Absolute Morality…is such a btch*…lol…objectively speaking.

There are rather a collection of opinions that show quite remarkable consistency across societies. You don’t beat up or kill people in your community for the fun of it. You don’t steal from them or destroy their possessions, etc. If you do your actions will be considered “bad”. Perhaps “you” will be considered “bad,” particularly if you don’t show remorse.
That is so basic to the human experience I can hardly believe it needs explaining.

Yes, that’s the definition of chattel slavery, and as you would also have read (in the quotes from the relevant scholarly literature), the Hebrews didn’t have it.

[quote]Well, let’s look at the verses Evil Bible quotes

evilbible.com/Slavery.htm

Foreign slaves are property, i.e. chattel slaves.[/quote]

Wrong. You are not using the definition of chattel slavery which was given.

That’s not what ‘my site’ says, that’s what the academic literature quoted on my site says.

Yes, the Romans went from having chattel slaves to a modified form of chattel slavery.

[quote][quote]Slavery

In its narrowest sense, the word slave refers to people who are treated as the property of another person, household, company, corporation or government. This is referred to as chattel slavery.[/quote]

The foreign slaves I mentioned meet this defintion.[/quote]

I’m afraid that’s not the definition in the relevant scholarly literature. If you make up your own definition, you can define anyone as a chattel slave. And you are overlooking yet again the fact that the Hebrew law permitted servants to flee their masters at will, and receive their liberty and full legal protection when they did so.

No, it’s quoting the relevant scholarly literature.

Absolutely, but that’s not happening here.

You’re kidding, right? I’m supposed to read the Wikipedia definition and take that as gospel, instead of the relevant peer reviewed scholarly literature?

Well of course that’s just your opinion, and even if ‘most people would regard that as unjust and therefore wrong’ that doesn’t mean it is unjust and therefore wrong. Majority opinion does not make things unjust and wrong.

Now you’re getting it.

If they imposed their subjective morality on people, I would be particularly concerned, since there are laws which are intended to prevent this. As it is, they impose the secular law of the state on people (law, not morality), and I have no problem with that. The person trying to mug me is breaking the secular law of the state, and I have no objection to that law being enforced, especially when it is to my benefit.

There are rather a collection of opinions that show quite remarkable consistency across societies. You don’t beat up or kill people in your community for the fun of it. You don’t steal from them or destroy their possessions, etc. If you do your actions will be considered “bad”. Perhaps “you” will be considered “bad,” particularly if you don’t show remorse.
That is so basic to the human experience I can hardly believe it needs explaining.[/quote]

It doesn’t need explaining. It has been explained for years. It’s the product of evolutionary forces such as natural selection. Read some Richard Dawkins.

Spector had his Walls of Sound, and Coltrane his Sheets of Sound, so I guess it’s possible to have Walls of Text. These things shouldn’t be taken literally, though. I mean, it’s not a literal wall. One can, like, go around.

There are rather a collection of opinions that show quite remarkable consistency across societies. You don’t beat up or kill people in your community for the fun of it. You don’t steal from them or destroy their possessions, etc. If you do your actions will be considered “bad”. Perhaps “you” will be considered “bad,” particularly if you don’t show remorse.
That is so basic to the human experience I can hardly believe it needs explaining.[/quote]
No, that’s just like your opinion man! The people doing the beating and killing think it’s ok. Don’t impose your morality on them, that would be evil!

/Though apparently, it’s just fine for the people doing the beating and killing to impose their morality on the people they beat and kill

There are rather a collection of opinions that show quite remarkable consistency across societies. You don’t beat up or kill people in your community for the fun of it. You don’t steal from them or destroy their possessions, etc. If you do your actions will be considered “bad”. Perhaps “you” will be considered “bad,” particularly if you don’t show remorse.
That is so basic to the human experience I can hardly believe it needs explaining.[/quote]
No, that’s just like your opinion man! The people doing the beating and killing think it’s ok.[/quote]

It’s just his opinion, but it doesn’t mean that the people doing the beating and killing are right.

Hey, it’s the post-modernist mantra. Why be counter-cultural?

No it’s not. That’s very wicked. For a given value of ‘wicked’, which in this case is ‘my opinion’. However, if you want something a little more soothing, try the Moral Zeitgeist (courtesy of Richard Dawkins).

You keep saying that name, but Dawkins said

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Root_o … l_morality

[quote]Biblical morality

Next, Dawkins questions whether the Bible really does provide a suitable moral framework, and contends that the texts are of dubious origin and veracity, are internally contradictory and, examined closely, describe a system of morals that any civilised person should find poisonous.[10] He describes the Old Testament as the root of Judaism, Christianity and Islam; and, as example, readings are given of Deuteronomy 13 which instructs believers to kill any friend or family member who favours serving other gods, and Numbers 31 where Moses, angered at the mercy his victorious forces show in taking women and children captive, instructs them to kill all save virgin girls, who are to be taken as slaves: an act Dawkins describes as genocide. Dawkins also questions another story from Judges 19 in which a lesser character, an old man, offers his maiden daughter out to an angry mob of “wicked men” to be raped and humiliated to save his male guest from being raped by the “wicked men”. In Dawkins’s opinion, the Old Testament God must be “the most unpleasant character in all fiction.”

Dawkins then discusses the New Testament which, at first, he describes as being a huge improvement from the moral viewpoint. But he is repelled by what he calls St Paul’s nasty sadomasochistic doctrine that Jesus had to be hideously tortured and killed so that we might be redeemed – the doctrine of atonement for original sin – and asks “if God wanted to forgive our sins, why not just forgive them? Who is God trying to impress?" He says that modern science demonstrates that the alleged perpetrators Adam and Eve never even existed, undermining St Paul’s doctrine.[/quote]

You can see the video here too.

uk.youtube.com/watch?v=NSx0UQBPP … re=related

You keep saying that name, but Dawkins said[/quote]

I know he did. Don’t you read my posts? I already directed you to the Moral Zeitgeist. You seem to think that I’m saying Dawkins doesn’t believe that anything can meaningfully be termed ‘moral’ or ‘immoral’. I have already corrected you on this once before.

You keep saying that name, but Dawkins said[/quote]

I know he did. Don’t you read my posts? I already directed you to the Moral Zeitgeist. You seem to think that I’m saying Dawkins doesn’t believe that anything can meaningfully be termed ‘moral’ or ‘immoral’. I have already corrected you on this once before.[/quote]

But this whole argument started because I said Biblical morality was worse than modern secular morality. You said they are both equally good and you cited Richard Dawkins as someone who agreed with you. But actually Richard Dawkins spends his time trolling people the like ‘Bible Apologetics’ site you linked to and thinks Biblical Morality is is something any civilised person would find poisonous. In a very real sense, he’s like a much smarter version of the Evil Bible guy.

I think the problem is not that I don’t read your links, it’s that you don’t understand that much of the stuff you’re linking to completely contradicts your argument.

No I did not say that they are both equally good (I keep telling you this), and I did not cite Richard Dawkins as someone who agreed with me. I cited Richard Dawkins as an example of how morality emerged as a result of evolutionary forces such as natural selection, a fluid construct invented for reasons of social control.

In my last post I specifically contrasted the idea of absolute moral relativism with Dawkins’ view of a ‘Moral Zeitgeist’:

Please note the language of contrast. Please read my posts.

Please provide an example. To date you haven’t done so.

Fortigurn: Do you agree that human beings are genetically predisposed to form communities in which moral codes exert a strong influence?

Of course I do. I have cited Richard Dawkins several times to that effect. He explains that this is the product of evolutionary forces such as natural selection. Moral codes emerged as social control mechanisms in order to optimize the reproduction of genes. They continue to evolve according to their success at ensuring the reproduction of genes. Dawkins invented the term ‘meme’ as part of his explanation of how such social constructs emerge, evolve, and are reproduced.

[quote=“Dr. McCoy”]I hope that we can dispense with the arguments. You guys can start your own thread.[/quote]That’s a reasonable request. Your OP had a clear enough topic, and the morality stuff belongs in another thread.

[quote=“1 Kings 19”]11 And he said, Go forth, and stand upon the mount before the LORD. And, behold, the LORD passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the LORD; but the LORD was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; but the LORD was not in the earthquake:

12 And after the earthquake a fire; but the LORD was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice.[/quote]Quakers really like that last bit. They often take it to mean that the “still small voice” is always there if you listen hard enough. Maybe not as a literal voice as such, maybe more like a sense of the inner spiritual nature which they believe everyone has, whether it’s recognised and cultivated or not.

Of course I do. I have cited Richard Dawkins several times to that effect. He explains that this is the product of evolutionary forces such as natural selection. Moral codes emerged as social control mechanisms in order to optimize the reproduction of genes. They continue to evolve according to their success at ensuring the reproduction of genes. Dawkins invented the term ‘meme’ as part of his explanation of how such social constructs emerge, evolve, and are reproduced.[/quote]

Do you agree also that there exists naturally in human beings something that, for lack of a less loaded term, might be called “shame”? Something that arises spontaneously almost every time any sane person is conscious of hurting anybody?

Absolutely not. Shame is a learned behaviour. It’s a social control mechanism. We are conditioned by society to believe certain acts are shameful.

Absolutely not. Shame is a learned behaviour. It’s a social control mechanism. We are conditioned by society to believe certain acts are shameful.[/quote]

Certainly that is true of some kinds of shame, and I hesitate to use the word “shame” precisely for that reason.

But what about the feeling of shame a person experiences when they know that they have, through negligence, stupidity, greed, etc, hurt someone? I don’t think I can ask any more plainly.

Is that basic sense innate to the human animal? (The basic sense, not the particular way that sense manifests itself in any sort of behaviour.)

Entirely conditioned. It requires a learned value judgment.

No. It is learned behaviour.

Entirely conditioned. It requires a learned value judgment.

No. It is learned behaviour.[/quote]

Compassion then. Do you think that the capacity to feel bad when you see the suffering of others needs to be taught. Or is it naturally occuring?

(Yes, I understand that it can be developed or discouraged, what I’m asking is whether or not you think there exists an innate capacity, a tendency toward compassion in emotionally healthy people.)

[quote=“bob”]Compassion then. Do you think that the capacity to feel bad when you see the suffering of others needs to be taught. Or is it naturally occuring?

(Yes, I understand that it can be developed or discouraged, what I’m asking is whether or not you think there exists an innate capacity, a tendency toward compassion in emotionally healthy people.)[/quote]

I don’t think so. These are all behavioural responses which are typically conditioned at such an early age that it’s easy to think of them as present from the very beginning. There appears to be a certain tendency to altruistic behaviour, but this is not emotionally motivated, according to biologists such as Richard Dawkins it’s just a form of survival instinct which has been preserved because of its usefulness to the organism and the reproduction of its genes.

And when you break it all down as biologists do, nothing we ever do is really compassionate, sympathetic, loving, or anything else, it’s all just a set of learned and instinctive behaviours which are aiming to preserve the organism long enough for the genes to reproduce. Every impulse we think is voluntary is simply a Pavlovian response to stimuli, and what we call ‘consciousness’ is simply a mechanism for rationalizing our actions and attributing coherent motives to them.

Do you think cardboard exists, in an absolute sense?