[Kid Twist]

(02-23-2019 01:53 AM)Sherman Wrote:  

Slavery was condoned reported in both the Old and New Testaments. But today slavery is universally considered immoral. So, obviously morals come from humans and not some supernatural source that never makes mistakes. The Bible just went along with the conventions of the day. It took almost 2000 years of civilization Christian people to finally conclude slavery wasn't moral. But why is slavery not moral today but was in the past? Because morality is not constant over time.

However, it is interesting that the Buddha rejected the caste system which was accepted by everyone in his community circa the 5th century BC. Also, many Ancient Greek and Roman philosophers spoke out against slavery. Epictetus, the stoic philosopher was a slave. They were able to come to their conclusion just using logical thought.



https://donaldrobertson.name/2017/11/05/...n-slavery/

I had to edit your sloppiness.

[ilostabet]

It's important to realize that slavery as an institution was not a single entity, but had many different structures, varied depending on time, place and people - Egyptian slavery, ancient Roman & Greek slavery, early Islamic slavery and African colonial slavery are all very different. One could argue that medieval serfdom or modern democracies can constitute a form of slavery, maybe a step below - but certainly an aspect of servitude. There is no society with absolute freedom as it soon devolves into chaos and/or anomie. In a way we are faced with a situation close to anomie, in the sense that no morality is enforced - or if you prefer, an inverted morality is enforced.

The moral perspective, Christian or otherwise, about each of these is not necessarily the same. It's known, for example, that in XIX century America, Irish hired workers were preferred for certain dangerous jobs, in which several lost literal lives and limbs, instead of slaves, because the maintenance of their health was a concern for the masters, which priced them very highly - in some cases, there were inter-generational loyalty relations between masters and slaves, which did not exist between entrepreneurs and hired hands.

In this situation, is slavery worse than unrestrained capitalism from a moral perspective? Does the Irishman who must do highly dangerous, grueling work that lead to a very short lifespan, many times away from family and community, for a small pay, have more freedom than the African man who is guaranteed for him and his family all the basics of life, relatively safe and steady work, community and leisure time, perhaps even education, basic or advanced? Which one has more autonomy? Which system is more moral?

I am not condoning one kind or another, just saying it's not black and white.

[Sherman]

(03-25-2019 09:07 PM)Kid Twist Wrote:  

(02-23-2019 01:53 AM)Sherman Wrote:  

Slavery was condoned reported in both the Old and New Testaments. But today slavery is universally considered immoral. So, obviously morals come from humans and not some supernatural source that never makes mistakes. The Bible just went along with the conventions of the day. It took almost 2000 years of civilization Christian people to finally conclude slavery wasn't moral. But why is slavery not moral today but was in the past? Because morality is not constant over time.

However, it is interesting that the Buddha rejected the caste system which was accepted by everyone in his community circa the 5th century BC. Also, many Ancient Greek and Roman philosophers spoke out against slavery. Epictetus, the stoic philosopher was a slave. They were able to come to their conclusion just using logical thought.



https://donaldrobertson.name/2017/11/05/...n-slavery/

I had to edit your sloppiness.

You're kidding, right?

"5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. "

Ephesians 6:5

[ilostabet]

Sherman, Jesus also says to forgive and pray for those who persecute you, does that mean He condones the persecution?

[Sherman]

(03-26-2019 12:27 PM)ilostabet Wrote:  

Sherman, Jesus also says to forgive and pray for those who persecute you, does that mean He condones the persecution?

This verse wasn't written by Jesus. It's actually clear in what it says. I don't see the point in denying this. Even Plato and Aristotle thought slavery was normal, which strengthens my point which was that morality changes with culture.

[ilostabet]

The fact that it was normal, says nothing about its morality. Once upon a time, abortion was considered immoral in the West. Now it is considered moral - and the restriction of abortion considered immoral.

What people consider moral or immoral may change, but does morality change? Is killing an unborn child moral based on societal consensus? Theoretical moral relativists would say yes, but in practice will still observe moral rules in their life, without coercion, even if their ideology tells them that these are mere conventions.

[questor70]

IMHO, morality follows sort of a bell-curve. The average (majority of the bell) tend to agree on what is or isn't moral according to common scenarios. However, there will always be outliers.

Left vs. right-wing thinking tends to correspond to the outliers. The left are called "bleeding hearts" for a reason. Take Roger Waters, for instance. His bleeding heart is so extreme that he fixates on the suffering of what he perceives to be "underdogs" to the point where he spends all of his time feeling compassion for terrorists and none for victims of islamist terror.

The extreme right is so fixated on order and keeping the peace that they are guilty of supporting police-state conditions as a means to an end.

Anyway you slice it you're talking about the push-pull of empathy vs. security.

If you feel less secure, you reduce your empathy and shift more towards a seige mentality. If you feel more secure (i.e. rich senior-age rock stars like Roger Waters) then you can afford to whine about each and every bit of collateral damage.

But you can see how all this points back to environment. The more prosperity, the more security, the more you can begin to trust thy neighbor, so to speak. The less prosperity, the more crime, the more things revert back to a tribal system, like Crips vs. Bloods in the inner-city or the various sects that tend to their own in the worst places of the Middle-east.

I have learned, as per above, that prejudice and generalizations serve an evolutionary purpose. All decisions you make are based on probability. The SJW infestation that infiltrated, let's say, the security aparatus of airports made us LESS safe by having us pat-down little-old-ladies and pass through swarthy middle-easterners rather than make a judgment call based on demographics/appearance.

The left's fixation on political correctness is a luxury of living in a relatively free and easy society. In a world with rampant crime you can be damn sure that people would begin to mentally profile who looks suspicious and who doesn't, PC be damned. Security trumps virtue-signalling.

So again...ENVIRONMENT ENVIRONMENT ENVIRONMENT.

[Iconoclast007]

Man is the most ferocious beast of prey that inhabits the earth. Common sense provides no precise solution of right or wrong. All moral philosophy is false and vain.

The world is TOO peacefull, too tame. It is a castrated world! It must be made fiercer before it can becomw better- more natural.

It is the false standards of morality that debase individuals.

The natural world is a world of war. The natural man is a warrior. The natural law is tooth and claw. All else is error.

A man truly free is under no obligation to obey any injunction, human or devine. Obedience is the sign of the degenerate. Disobedience is the stamp of the hero. Men should not be bound by moral rules invented by their foes.

The whole world is a slippery battlefield. Ideal justice demands that the vanquished shall be exploited, emasculated and scorned. The free and brave may seize the world. And therefore there shall be eternal war for life, land, love, women, power and gold.

Let us return to nature for our moral standards. Let us search our own hearts and brains for the true meaning of right and wrong.

We are living and dying (mostly dying) in a poisonous environment of deap seated moral dimentia, social disease and political illusions.

A crucified Jew slave (terrorized under authority) is set up to be a god? As a standard of measurement?

_____________

Inferior organisms succumb and perish or are enslaved. Superior organisms survive, propogate and POSSES.
-Darwin

[Crusader]

Patriarch Kirill has a lot to say when it comes to morality.

[Pride male]

Do what thou wilt harm none shall be the whole law.

[ratoj9]

History has never been kind to Empires

[Iconoclast007]

Might is right should be the law. Survival of the fittest.

[Man of Truth]

(04-06-2019 04:39 AM)Pride male Wrote:  

Do what thou wilt harm none shall be the whole law.

I believe that term was derived from the late Aleister Crowley the Satanist and high level Freemason.

[Iconoclast007]

A man truly free is under no obligation to obey any injunction, human or devine.

[ilostabet]

(04-26-2019 07:50 AM)Iconoclast007 Wrote:  

A man truly free is under no obligation to obey any injunction, human or devine.

This is true, in a sense. We all have free will and we can freely choose to do or not do what we want. The big question is: do we accept the consequences of our freely chosen actions?

Say you want to murder someone. There's not much we can do to stop you. But there will be consequences (legal, human ones - if you're caught; heavy conscience, if you are not a psychopath; and judgment by God after your death).

Or say you want to eat all the sweets you can. Again, not much to stop you. But you will have to deal with cavities, diabetes, etc.

And if you only follow your own desires, being thus free in the way you posited, aren't you a slave to your freedom?

This is the paradox: if you are not subject to a higher code, your freedom effectively means being a slave to your desires (since there is nothing else guiding your actions); and if you are bound by a higher code, you are free of your desires.

So no man is truly free. And you can say these are word games, but you can see it play out all around you and in you.

[Iconoclast007]

It is not true "in a sense". It is true in fact. It is inconsequential if we accept consequences as they are enforced by might. Which brings us full circle.... Might IS right.

[Dr. Howard]

(04-26-2019 06:17 AM)Iconoclast007 Wrote:  

Might is right should be the law. Survival of the fittest.

Might is right is true, though I don't know if it should be a law. If a society has peaceful laws they can be upended by war and then re-written by the victor. It is a terrible truth to live under, but it is the truth of mankind.

Might is right is like a truth, like gravity. Mankind then makes laws to try to mitigate the truth and preserve power or another state.

God then overwrites man's law, will and truth with his might. To say that might is right is true for man, it is also true for a hurricane, volcano, lighting bolt or cancer that ends the mightiest man.

So, Might is right is true. God is the mightiest of them all. So his might is right, he is the most fit and we should all submit to his law, which is written in the bible.

Iconoclast is correct, Might is right. Specifically God's might.

[ilostabet]

(04-26-2019 08:46 AM)Iconoclast007 Wrote:  

It is not true "in a sense". It is true in fact. It is inconsequential if we accept consequences as they are enforced by might. Which brings us full circle.... Might IS right.

I was just pointing out that, while true, it explains nothing and provides no guidance.

[Iconoclast007]

Might is right.... , It explains everything and is all the guidance a man needs.

Common sense provides no precise solution of right or wrong. All moral philosophy is false and vain.

[ilostabet]

[Iconoclast007]

Dr Howard.

I appreciate your candor and espousing my statement. I will reflect on your post and will report back when apropriate. Now is not the time as i have 3 gin and grapefruits in my system and I am headed out to slay some lizards.

Iconoclast007

[Iconoclast007]

Might is right is true for man.

The discussion becomes more convoluted when one enevitably brings in a spiritual aspect to the discussion. Which god or which holy book is right or wrong is highly subjective.

One could argue that what happens is their gods will and thus his might is right. This could be true, but the moment a man can verify this to be fact (death) is a moment to late to share with the rest of mankind directly.

The bible is an important historical document written by men. This is Fact. Whether it is the word of god, I do not know nor do I take another mans insistance that it is. The same goes for the Koran or any other holy "document

I follow nor subsrcribe to no organized religion. I beleive in God(s) of a pagan nature. Similar to Native American Indians or Ancient Nordic culture. I close my eyes and pray to gods of nature. This is what I choose to beleive. Every man makes his own decision to beleive or not.

In the end when you go into battle, business, relationships etc most men pray for strength and protection from a higher "mightier" power.

Might is right.