Was Adam a Slave?

[Hygro]

That does not follow. Abraham's God is a teaching God. His word is intended to instruct.

J

I don't see how something teaching its subjective opinions changes the subjective nature of its instructions and values.

 

[Narz]

Whoa that was deep. But sometimes people are correct, their future selves will handle it better, making it more efficient in the long run to feel good in the moment.

Sometimes. Knowing when to relax & when to push yourself is much of the art of life.

But it's real. At least it's real insofar as our ridiculous systems of justice are concerned.

Justice doesn't deal with morality, just laws. The justice system is necessarily subjective & imperfect.

At least it's real insofar as the instances where we actually succeed in preserving a future resource at the expense of our current selves. If you genuinely want this world to be better, to "rape it softer?" then you should be embracing objective morality, for all its ridiculous insanity, because it's a decent ridiculous tool for a ridiculous species of jumped-up ape

I don't see how it's useful. It seems to lead to conflict with various stupid humans arguing about the one true way. Doing what's practical should trump following some principle blindly.

Here's where I will disagree using an analogy I've used here before.

We are fundamentally incapable of drawing a perfect circle. Not only are we not evolved to do it, but it's not possible due to the nature of the universe. Does the concept 'perfect circle' exist? Of course it does. I can say that tree trunk is more 'circlelike' than a car. And you'd agree. No one says "oh, it was more circlelike, but our concept of circles must adapt".

I may judge all physical circles against this objective circle.

Hmm, but a circle is something even a child can imagine. Morality is much more complex than a circle.

I'm okay with that. I think of it as 'platonic ideal'. That way, one can just proposed changes as moving towards (or away from) 'ideal capitalism' or 'ideal democracy'. Or, more naturally, a 'healthy lifestyle' or an 'unhealthy lifestyle'.

But morality is different for everyone, just like a healthy-lifestyle is. There is no "objective" healthy lifestyle. One person might feel better waking up at the crack of dawn & swimming naked in a creek in the woods, another staying up to the wee hours discussing programming while smoking pot.

If we have evolved, then there is simply no objective truth, just what we desires want.

I don't see what they have to do with each other. There may be truth but morality is simply a cultural function to keep evolution going (because tribal survival is more important than individual survival).

"I'm too valuable to kill myself". OK. We know where we stand, then.

Just being honest.

So it comes down to a choice between six (was it six? can't remember) people or one person.

What happens if the six people are Hitler, Goering, Himmler (also fat), Goebels, Strasser, and Rohm, and the one person is a 6 month old baby?

Does this affect your choice of pulling the lever? Does it affect your decision, as a fat man, of not jumping on the track?

I still don't think I could kill myself, even to kill Hitler & friends. I'd toss a fat baby on the tracks to kill him though.

 

[Farm Boy]

Justice doesn't deal with morality, just laws. The justice system is necessarily subjective & imperfect.

Laws, such that they can gain compliance past what can be constantly enforced under current surveliance by naked force, require the acquiescence of the governed. That acquiescence is gained through aggregate conceptions of laws being in order with morality and justice. You can quibble and cut broad concepts thin if you want to, but attempting to separate the is still an artificial and inaccurate construct.

I don't see how it's useful. It seems to lead to conflict with various stupid humans arguing about the one true way. Doing what's practical should trump following some principle blindly.

We're all somebody else's stupid human arguing what's either the way, or practical. I see no meaningful distinction drawn by you dividing some cases into "the one true way" and others into "doing what's practical." You've restated the same overarching thing, just in one instance with wording you don't favor and the other with a tone you like.

 

[El_Machinae]

There is no "objective" healthy lifestyle.

There is, but it requires a lot of meta-level thinking ("if this, then that" type rules). BUT, the point is that a person has a personal objective healthy lifestyle that you can either strive towards or move away from.

It's objectively unhealthy for me to drink cyanide right now. Once we recognise this objective truth, you can just keep adding objective truths. That said, there's no implicit insistence that need to be able to discern an objective truth for it to be true. There are a certain number of photons hitting my face right now, despite the fact that I fundamentally cannot ever know the objective truth.

 

[Hygro]

Laws, such that they can gain compliance past what can be constantly enforced under current surveliance by naked force, require the acquiescence of the governed. That acquiescence is gained through aggregate conceptions of laws being in order with morality and justice. You can quibble and cut broad concepts thin if you want to, but attempting to separate the is still an artificial and inaccurate construct.

Are you saying what's legal is effectively what's correctly moral?

 

[AdamCrock]

AdamCrock appears to be a Slav, yes.

Guilty as charged

 

[onejayhawk]

I don't see how something teaching its subjective opinions changes the subjective nature of its instructions and values.

God's opinions are not subjective--by definition.

J

 

[El_Machinae]

My definition they are, else they're beholden to some other aspects of the Universe that God has to obey.

 

[Farm Boy]

Are you saying what's legal is effectively what's correctly moral?

No, that would be going too far. What I'm saying is that they're linked. Such that when law, particularly enforced law, is outside of what people consider to be a moral good it will then breed noncompliance with and contempt of the law. For bad Farm Boy examples: Even though there are exceptions, the vast majority of people appear to voluntarily comply with handicapped parking space protocols, even when they aren't worried about getting caught, even when they're in a hurry. People just roundly comply with that law. Is the compliance with that law somewhat different from the form of compliance that the federal laws prohibiting marijuana consumption receive? Getting caught with a bunch of pot is still worse for you in a lot of situations than is needing to pay a parking violation. But way more people I know smoke pot than use the handicapped space at a busy gas station.

 

[Hygro]

God's opinions are not subjective--by definition.

J

Maybe you hold those beliefs yourself, but the Abrahamic religions has a God who promotes his subjective morality. Also what El Mac said, even in a universe where's there's an anthropomorphized, God-borne "objective" morality, that's still God's subjective morality.

No, that would be going too far. What I'm saying is that they're linked. Such that when law, particularly enforced law, is outside of what people consider to be a moral good it will then breed noncompliance with and contempt of the law. For bad Farm Boy examples: Even though there are exceptions, the vast majority of people appear to voluntarily comply with handicapped parking space protocols, even when they aren't worried about getting caught, even when they're in a hurry. People just roundly comply with that law. Is the compliance with that law somewhat different from the form of compliance that the federal laws prohibiting marijuana consumption receive? Getting caught with a bunch of pot is still worse for you in a lot of situations than is needing to pay a parking violation. But way more people I know smoke pot than use the handicapped space at a busy gas station.

That's certainly true. I don't think it contradict's Narz's point however.

 

[onejayhawk]

My definition they are, else they're beholden to some other aspects of the Universe that God has to obey.

If there aspects of the universe god has to obey, then he is not the God of Abraham. God's preferences define the universe.

J

 

[El_Machinae]

I understand that, which is why his moral standards are subjective. That said, the god of Abraham did seemingly have to obey aspects of the Universe, it's only later conceptions (after Greek influence) that reversed the relationship.

 

[onejayhawk]

I understand that, which is why his moral standards are subjective. That said, the god of Abraham did seemingly have to obey aspects of the Universe, it's only later conceptions (after Greek influence) that reversed the relationship.

Which begs to debate whether God changed or we did. Such discussion is misdirected. God is not in any sense subjective. To him, gravity is subjective. Entropy is subjective.

Your scale of what constitutes god is too small. Once you fix that, throw it out, because God is off that scale.

J

 

[El_Machinae]

Wait, what? How does it beg to debate whether God changed or we did? The conception changed. The God of Abraham is depicted as being beholden to greater laws. Later Christian philosophers switched the description. God could not have changed, regardless of whether He exists. It requires no explanation other than 'rabbis can be wrong sometimes'.

I can assure you, I don't have a small conception of God. My God is so awesome, you can tell by looking at the Universe that it's impossible that He exists , every theodicy requires a limit on God that aren't logically necessary. Lotsa people limit God, I can assure you, I'm not one of them.

 

[Borachio]

My God is so awesome She transcends existence itself. No, really, seriously, She does.

 

[Leoreth]

+1 for actually using the female pronoun. This should catch on.

 

[onejayhawk]

Wait, what? How does it beg to debate whether God changed or we did? The conception changed. The God of Abraham is depicted as being beholden to greater laws. Later Christian philosophers switched the description. God could not have changed, regardless of whether He exists. It requires no explanation other than 'rabbis can be wrong sometimes'.

I can assure you, I don't have a small conception of God. My God is so awesome, you can tell by looking at the Universe that it's impossible that He exists , every theodicy requires a limit on God that aren't logically necessary. Lotsa people limit God, I can assure you, I'm not one of them.

You see your god in the mirror. Just sayin'

J

 

[onejayhawk]

+1 for actually using the female pronoun. This should catch on.

Using a nonpersonal pronoun is so demeaning. After all it states clearly that male and female are both in God's image.

J

 

[El_Machinae]

You see your god in the mirror. Just sayin'

Unlikely, I really cared about this question for a couple decades. After awhile, the iterations get tiring.

 

[Leoreth]

Using a nonpersonal pronoun is so demeaning. After all it clearly that male and female are both in God's image.

J

That's why I prefer she. Or maybe even they.