alexxcJRO wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2024 3:46 am We have the same problems as before. We have the same contradiction.
We have an omni-perfect being(the most wise being, the most just being, the most knowledgeable being, the most benevolent and loving being, the most powerful being) making laws for slavery, for chattel slavery-the worst kind.
And same arguments as before to bring up an omniperfect God, which the Bible never states. It is an illusory target that skeptics paint in order to imagine a straw man God to attack.
“chattel slavery- slaves as chattels (personal property) owned by the enslaver; like livestock, they can be bought and sold at will”
Unlike many other apologists, I accept chattel slaves existed and were even owned by the Israelites.
How the Hebrew slaves are to be treated
“If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.’ If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever.” (Exodus 21:2-6)Beating your slave to death
“When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.” (Exodus 21:20-21 )
As I argued in Ten Commandments and case law, Exodus 21 is discussing case law. These would be addressing how to handle specific situations if they do occur. These are not “commandments” per se.
Slaves as property
“However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.”(Leviticus 25:44-46)
Yes, I agree this passage is referring to chattel slaves.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1140544#p1140544
alexxcJRO wrote: ↑Sun Jan 21, 2024 11:42 am Humans did not viewed chattel slaves as immoral back then. Humans did viewed chattel slaves as immoral since abolitionist movement gain traction.
Exactly. So, our moral judgment on slavery is subjective. Since it is subjective, it is merely personal opinion and carries no ethical weight. Who knows, 100 years from now when the first global dictator takes over the world, he can make slavery legal and then we’ll revert back to it being acceptable. They will then consider us to be wrong in the matter.
The Bible was useless and irrelevant in both condemning chattel slaves or keep it.
If slavery is subjective, why should the Bible make any position on it? Again, you are taking an objectivist approach to claiming the Bible is unethical in regards to slavery. But you’ve already agreed slavery is subjective.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1140770#p1140770
Reality has showed us The Bible and this supposed “Objective Morality from God” was useless and irrelevant in both condemning chattel slaves or keep it.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1141017#p1141017
Yes, I grant the Bible allowed for chattel slavery and the Israelites even owned slaves as property. My argument regarding chattel slavery is it does not fall into objective morality, but subjective morality.
My definition of objective morality is morality that would apply universally at all places at all times. Subjective morality would be morality that does not apply universally, but can differ according to places, times, and situations.
From both an atheistic and theistic point of view, I argue chattel slavery is subjective.
From an atheistic point of view, the dominant position is all morality is subjective. Yes, there are a few people who claims morality can be objective in a naturalistic world, like Sam Harris, but he is in the extreme minority. So, fundamentally, making any type of objective moral judgment would not be compatible with an atheistic position.
From a secular point of view, chattel slavery was practiced and accepted by most of human history. Since it was accepted in the past, then it was not considered immoral in the past. Therefore it is a subjective.
From a theist point of view, the Bible allowed for ownership of people. People could voluntarily be a slave for a master for life. Would this be morally wrong? I don’t think so. Since it’s not morally wrong, then it would make chattel slavery subjective.
As Christians, we are also slaves of Christ, even to the point of being a chattel slave. Since this is not morally wrong, it also points to chattel slavery being subjective.
In the above examples, the commonality is people choose to be a slave, so that is what would make it morally acceptable. So, the only case left is involuntary chattel slavery. We can debate more on this, but as for chattel slavery itself, it is not objectively wrong because there are cases where it would be morally acceptable from any worldview perspective.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1141179#p1141179
Difflugia wrote: ↑Sun Jan 28, 2024 5:42 pm
Are we agreeing to use the first definition of slavery that you mentioned, then? Your comment was specifically concerned with which definition to use.
I’m defining chattel slavery as:
“the enslaving and owning of human beings and their offspring as property, able to be bought, sold, and forced to work without wages, as distinguished from other systems of forced, unpaid, or low-wage labor also considered to be slavery.”
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/chattel-slavery
“A form of slavery where slaves are the legal property of an individual.”
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/chattel_slavery
An important thing to note is chattel slavery is a subset of slavery and they are not synomous.
My definition of objective morality is morality that would apply universally at all places at all times. Subjective morality would be morality that does not apply universally, but can differ according to places, times, and situations.This definition will end up making the distinction between subjective and objective meaningless, leading to arguments based entirely on equivocation. You’ve already done multiple ways, probably unintentionally, in this post.
You’ll have to expand on this. How would you define subjective and objective morality? Since there is an objective criteria to help determine if something is subjective or objective morality according to my definition, then how is it meaningless? Specifically how would it be equivocation?
There are atheists (I’m one of them) that would regard morality as subjective from a universal point of view, but objective from a human point of view, in the sense that we could define a morality that applies to all humans, past, present, or future.
I’m also looking at morality from a human point of view. So, in that sense it seems like we agree on my definition of subjective morality and objective morality.
I do think we need to subdivide morality and not just talk about morality in general. It’s a trivial point to say morality applies to all humans. But the issue is the specific cases of morality that should apply to all humans.
If you are trying to make the argument that there is some human perspective under which chattel slavery would be moral, this doesn’t support your point because you’re switching from subjective in a universal sense to subjective in a human sense and expecting them to be equivalent.
It would go back to what is the basis of morality. So you’ll need to explain your justification of your objective view of morality. Why ought people abide by a universal morality?
That’s a much, much narrower definition that your earlier one. Even if morality is binding on all humans in the past, it can still be subjective.
Not sure what you’re getting at. I’m not talking about morality in general, but objective vs subjective morality.
My argument is simply chattel slavery is not accepted now, but it was accepted in the past. Since views on chattel slavery is different in the past and now, then it is subjective.
Whether humans in the past believed in the morality of their actions, morality could still be objective, either universally or from the point of view of humanity as a whole.
Yes, I agree.
As it is, “the morality of slavery is subjective” as you first defined it is absolutely compatible with “slavery is now and always has been immoral in every situation that it has been practiced.”
Actually, I don’t believe I’ve ever made any claims about slavery, but only chattel slavery. The point of discussion with you is only regarding chattel slavery, not slavery in general. In our discussions, I’m just arguing chattel slavery falls under subjective morality.
Then let’s eliminate any sort of voluntary slavery, whatever that means, from our definition of slavery.
Isn’t that equivocation if definitions are being changed? How are you defining slavery and what is the difference between slavery and chattel slavery? How would you define chattel slavery? Is it possible to voluntarily be a chattel slave?
Even more than this, skeptics also need to address how is slavery equivalent to ebed and doulos. If they are not equivalent, then it is also equivocation.
Is such a voluntary slave allowed to change their mind? Is it still voluntary if they do and are forced to remain a slave? Were they ever a slave for the purposes of this discussion if they’re voluntarily able to leave?
People can voluntarily enter a contract. If the contract states the terms, then one person cannot simply voluntarily exit the contract without consequences. However, if both parties voluntarily agree to end the contract, then the contract can be annulled.
Let’s just remove those that were voluntarily serving another from our definition. If there are no cases of slavery left in the Bible, then we can start splitting hairs over just how voluntary the slavery was. I don’t think we’ll need to, though.
The only way to do that is to define chattel slavery to only mean involuntary slavery, which I have not seen any dictionary definition that qualifies it to only include an involuntary ownership.
I use similar metaphors for my performance at my at-will job (“slaving away” and such).
The difference is you do not worship your manager. So, it is more than just a metaphor for Christians.
This is the same equivocation we see when apologists argue that forced marriage isn’t rape. It’s an equally facile argument, but I think we can narrow our definition enough to eliminate that kind of equivocation and find that the Bible still condones slavery that was immoral then and is immoral now.
To be more relevant, what we see is skeptics equivocating between slavery and chattel slavery.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1141336#p1141336
OK, good, we’ll use the definition that I offered for objective morality.
My only quibble is that if you mean an implied reference to the point of view of humanity, then far more atheists believe in an objective morality than just Sam Harris. The idea that Sam is an outlier is wrong and based on the misunderstanding that his objective morality is based on the first definition rather than the second.
I’m not implying what is the source of objective morality in my definition. The justification of objective morality would be another issue, whether it is from God or humans.
Yes, I agree a lot of atheists believe (and even practice) objective morality. But the issue is on what grounds do they believe in objective morality?
Sam Harris is one of the few atheists that have attempted this. Dawkins also tried to do this, but his statements are self-contradictory and self-refuting, so he can be dismissed.
There are many problems with Sam Harris’s arguments, but we can table those for now. But for those interested, I’ve addressed it in Sam Harris – The Moral Landscape.
This is dangerously close to equivocation again. Unless your argument admits that the morality of murder is as subjective as the morality of slavery, then the important question isn’t whether or not there is (or “ought” to be) a universal morality.
I’m using ought in the is-ought problem sense. Morality involves people doing something compared to what they ought to do. If they do something contrary to what they ought to do, then it is morally bad.
So, based on this view of ought, why ought people abide by a universal morality?
I’d say we already agree that there is and we’re discussing whether or not the morality of chattel slavery should be included in that.
My position is chattel slavery should not be included in the list of objective morality. Rather it is subjective since there are cases of chattel slavery that is acceptable.
I’ve already offered my definition of objective and subjective morality. Do you agree or disagree with it? If you disagree, then what are your definitions?
Now, it could be chattel slavery is objectively wrong and all cultures in the past were wrong to allow it. But on what basis can it be said it is objectively wrong?
This is commonly seen in all discussions on slavery. So, this is one reason this topic is so hard to discuss because of equivocation across the board.
The Hebrew ebed broadly means any male slave. Whether or not every use fits your definition of chattel slavery is open to discussion. As long as we’re aware of the possibility that some evedim aren’t necessarily chattel slaves, I’m pretty sure we can avoid any unintentional equivocation.
Greek doulos and douleia refer to chattel slavery.
I’d disagree with this, but we can table this for later. For those interested, I’ve touched on this in Ebed and doulos.
The only way to do that is to define chattel slavery to only mean involuntary slavery, which I have not seen any dictionary definition that qualifies it to only include an involuntary ownership.Then just state that we’re only talking about involuntarily servitude.
Then that would be equivocation because we’re talking about chattel slavery. I’ve offered the definitions of chattel slavery and there is no qualification mentioned of only involving involuntary servitude.
My argument would be that the Bible allows the worst forms of slavery and associated abuse. If your argument is that if it’s voluntary, then it’s also moral (or even can be moral), then I’m willing to grant you that because I don’t need it as part of my argument.
Before we go on to debate involuntary chattel slavery, do you agree chattel slavery would fall under subjective morality?
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1141425#p1141425
OK. I’ll add that all my definitions I’ve provided and will provide by default are from a human point of view.
otseng wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2024 8:07 amI’m using ought in the is-ought problem sense. Morality involves people doing something compared to what they ought to do. If they do something contrary to what they ought to do, then it is morally bad.
So, based on this view of ought, why ought people abide by a universal morality?
My own feeling is that we’re all stuck here together in this life and we only get one crack at it, so morality revolves around helping each other have as good a run as possible. I haven’t built a philosophical framework around it, though.
Here’s the fundamental problem. And it’s not just with you, but it’s a problem for all skeptics that believe in objective morality. There is no viable justification for the belief in objective morality for skeptics (in particular naturalists), but it is simply a personal belief.
What if a skeptic asked me why do I believe God exists and I simply said my own feelings says God exists? How would skeptics respond to this?
I’m fine with your definition, but that’s not the definition you’re using here, at least as you’ve presented both statements.
Let me state it this way:
1. Subjective morality is morality that is different for different people, places, times, and situations.
2. Chattel slavery was morally accepted by societies in the past.
3. Chattel slavery is not morally accepted by societies today.
4. Voluntary chattel slavery is morally acceptable.
5. Therefore chattel slavery is subjective morality.
Where is the error in the logic?
Please present your argument that chattel slavery is objectively wrong.
Whether someone objectively ought to own someone (or do anything) has nothing to do with either their personal acceptance of it or a cultural acceptance of it. As far as I’m concerned, if someone thinks chattel slavery isn’t objectively immoral, they’re wrong regardless of personal feelings or cultural norms.
If you have no justification of the objective morality of chattel slavery, how can you justify saying everyone else’s view of chattel slavery is wrong? Why should your personal feelings trump everyone else’s view?
It can’t just be a whatever.
“Do unto others” is simply borrowing religious morality.
It might be wrong to exploit people, but that is just another statement that needs justification.
Equivocation would be if I used “slavery” to mean two (or more) different things, but implying that I’m still only using one definition.
You had originally used the word “slavery” to refer to “chattel slavery”. You stated, “I was using “slavery” to mean chattel slavery in particular.” This is what I’m referring to as equivocation. And you’re not alone in this. Almost all discussions and debates use the term slavery to specifically mean chattel slavery, not slavery in general. This is so ingrained in the public mind that it’s hard to separate the two.
I’ve offered the definitions of chattel slavery and there is no qualification mentioned of only involving involuntary servitude.OK. I’m trying to narrow the discussion based on what you’re telling me, but you’re telling me that doesn’t fit the discussion.
I’m just trying to address chattel slavery first and then later we can drill down into involuntary chattel slavery.
Explicitly narrowing the definition isn’t equivocation; it’s trying to eliminate potential equivocation.
I understand. But the term we are debating now is the morality of “chattel slavery”, not “involuntary chattel slavery”, which we will get to later.
If you have a few moments, read the Wikipedia article on the fallacy of four terms.
I entirely agree we need to be clear on the usage of our terms and that our arguments should avoid using words/phrases that have multiple meanings and to use them in our arguments with different meanings.
Before we go on to debate involuntary chattel slavery, do you agree chattel slavery would fall under subjective morality?No.
Since we differ on this, we’ll need to hash out chattel slavery before diving deeper into involuntary chattel slavery.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1141538#p1141538
If you have no justification for your belief, then why should anyone accept your belief as being true?
As for God and objective morality, I’ve presented the justification at Objective morality of Christianity.
From the point of view of human beings, it’s immaterial whether our commonalities are natural or supernatural in origin.
I’ve covered many attempts at naturalistic explanations of morality and summarized them at Summary argument of atheism and morality.
So, you’re being “refreshingly honest” that you have no justification of objective morality?
otseng wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 9:56 am Let me state it this way:
1. Subjective morality is morality that is different for different people, places, times, and situations.
2. Chattel slavery was morally accepted by societies in the past.
3. Chattel slavery is not morally accepted by societies today.
4. Voluntary chattel slavery is morally acceptable.
5. Therefore chattel slavery is subjective morality.Where is the error in the logic?
There are multiple. First, numbers 2 and 3 are invalid. You said this earlier:
If you meant that, then whether or not it was “morally accepted” by someone in the past or, indeed, someone in the present, is immaterial.
It goes back to whose morality is correct? Why should your view of morality trump everyone else’s view in the past? Why should your feelings be considered an objective source of morality?
I’m surprised you reject premise 3. Chattel slavery is morally accepted by societies today?
Second, numbers 4 and 5 seem to be conflating “voluntary” chattel slavery with involuntary chattel slavery in a way that I suspect is going to be central to your argument.
Number 5 is the conclusion of the given premises.
Voluntary chattel slavery is one who willingly becomes a chattel slave. Involuntary chattel slavery is one that unwillingly becomes a chattel slave.
As for exiting voluntary chattel slavery, it depends on the agreed upon conditions. If one knew ahead of time the condition for chattel slavery is for a lifetime, then one cannot simply willingly break that condition unless all parties agree to break it. If there is no condition, then yes that person can be free at anytime to leave.
It’s not shifting the burden of proof if I’ve already given my argument for chattel slavery being subjective. I’m simply asking for you to justify your position that chattel slavery is objectively wrong.
You’re the one that said that showing that the morality of chattel slavery is subjective somehow shows that the Bible doesn’t necessarily condone immorality.
Actually, I haven’t stated anything regarding the Bible and the morality of chattel slavery yet.
I’m here because you invited “skeptics” to this thread to debate you “on slavery.” Considering the context of this thread, I’m saying that the important part of the claim is that the Bible contains at least one example of God condoning an unambiguously (and perhaps even “objectively”) immoral practice.
What you claimed was “chattel slavery” which is what we’re debating now…
If chattel slavery is not objectively wrong, then your original implication that chattel slavery is bad is just a subjective opinion.
I’m also pointing out to readers if you have no justification for your view of objective morality, then it has no normative weight and is simply a personal opinion.
In that light, my claim would be that I can find at least one example of God condoning slavery (or “chattel slavery,” or “involuntary chattel slavery”) that a Christian ought to find immoral in its biblical context.
Yes, I know that is what you claim. But we can look deeper at that particular case later.
Don’t know what you mean. We’re debating chattel slavery and whether it is objectively wrong or a subjective morality. My position is it is subjective and your position is it is objective. And now we’re defending our positions.
For “everyone”, I’m referring to premise 2 – “Chattel slavery was morally accepted by societies in the past.” Everyone is all the people in the past before slavery was made illegal. If slavery was legal back then, why should chattel slavery be considered objectively immoral when it was practiced and accepted?
Until you help me nail down what you’re talking about, it will be. In this thread, I’ve already had to deal with shifting and vague claims being important to your arguments. I’m willing to treat it as unintentional for a bit and try to help you through it, but I’m not going to keep guessing at what you mean and then have you tell me I guessed wrong.
I’ll let readers judge for themselves regarding the discussion on the flood.
Not sure what you’re referring to with shifting and vague claims regarding the current topic of chattel slavery. I’ve given definitions of chattel slavery, objective morality, and subjective morality, which you’ve agreed to. And I’ve given my argument why chattel slavery is subjective based on the agreed upon definitions. Whereas when asked for you to provide your justification that chattel slavery is objectively wrong, you just claim we’re still trying to define what we’re debating.
Not unless Jesus was a time traveller.
I’m not claiming Jesus was the first to say it. I’m referring to religion in general.
And there might be circumstances under which involuntary chattel slavery isn’t immoral, but you haven’t justified that yet, either.
Of course. I’ve explicitly stated we’ll discuss involuntary chattel slavery after dealing with chattel slavery.
The sooner we agree about what we’re debating, the sooner we can start justifying our positions.
You don’t agree we’re discussing about chattel slavery? Weren’t you the one to bring that up?
Even though you apparently misunderstood what I meant and even if I was using the word incorrectly, I was maintaining a consistent and narrow definition. That’s the opposite of equivocation. That’s why I asked you to read the Wikipedia article.
Isn’t this the argument skeptics make?
The Bible allows for slavery.
Chattel slavery is morally bad.
Therefore the Bible condones morally bad things.
The equivocation in the above is equating slavery with chattel slavery.
And here’s the argument you are making:
The Bible allows for chattel slavery.
Involuntary chattel slavery is morally bad.
Therefore the Bible condones morally bad things.
The equivocation is saying chattel slavery is involuntary chattel slavery.
If part of your argument is that involuntary chattel slavery isn’t necessarily immoral because voluntary chattel slavery isn’t necessarily immoral, then it’s based on a logical fallacy.
I’ve never stated that and it is also not what I claim. What I do claim is chattel slavery is subjective morality. As for my position on involuntary chattel slavery, I’ll get to that later.
Alternatively, you could claim that none of the chattel slavery condoned by the Bible is involuntary and I’d be willing to debate that with you.
I’ve never claimed that either.
If you were the one to bring up chattel slavery, why are you asking me why we need to hash out chattel slavery?
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1141617#p1141617
Please elaborate. What is the conflict?
The Bible condones chattel slavery.
Chattel slavery is morally bad.
Therefore, the Bible condones morally bad things.Even if it’s false, it’s no longer logically fallacious.
Right, that’s why we’re debating the morality of chattel slavery now. If chattel slavery is not objective, then one cannot say it is objectively morally bad.
One common problem when dealing with apologists is that they try to broaden definitions in order to sneak another concept in that they can argue about, like saying that some kinds of chattel slavery are “voluntary.”
I don’t know how common apologists talk about involuntary vs voluntary chattel slavery. I’ve rarely come across this in any book or video on the subject.
The argument that you seem to be working toward is this:
The Bible condones chattel slavery.
Some kinds of chattel slavery aren’t morally bad.
Therefore, the Bible doesn’t condone morally bad kinds of chattel slavery.
No, I’m not making this argument. I’m not arguing about the morality of specific kinds of chattel slavery now.
The argument I’m trying to make is this:
The Bible condones involuntary chattel slavery.
Involuntary chattel slavery is morally bad.
Therefore, the Bible condones morally bad things.Instead, you keep insisting that I broaden my premise to make it easier to attack.
Again, you were the one to bring up “chattel slavery”. I’m not broadening anything, but precisely addressing what you brought up. What you are doing is narrowing it from your original accusations of the Bible.
So we have to ask why do you want to narrow on involuntary chattel slavery when we haven’t resolved the morality of chattel slavery yet? The only reason I see is a tacit admission that chattel slavery would be subjective and there is no valid justification that you can present for it being objectively wrong.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1141710#p1141710
It is impossible to make any normative statement about anything that is subjective. So, there is no need for God to command, prohibit, sanction, or condemn chattel slavery.
What you are assuming is chattel slavery is objectively wrong. Then since God does not condemn it, then God is not loving.
POI Your argument is that (God’s nature) is what is deemed ‘right’. And if you do not agree, you are deemed “wrong” and also may be punished by the same rule maker.
I’ve never brought up punishment.
But yes, it’s most likely if people violate objective morality, then there can be consequences, including punishment.
POI LOL! This from the one who opted to use evolution and the Big Bang
I brought it up to address your charge that we need to know the origin of God in order to accept God as a foundation for morality.
I drew a direct parallel. Do you have the right to judge “economics”?
What does economics have anything to do with morality? Rather, this seems just like more equivocation.
Let me demonstrate how annoying Christians apologetic arguments are, when confronted with topics they do not like….
Baseless accusation. Isn’t slavery the topic that skeptics bring up? Isn’t that what we’re talking about now? What skeptics even bring up about economics in the Bible?
I’m not avoiding the hard topics, but avoiding the irrelevant ones that skeptics keep bringing up.
Otseng – “Wow, that guy is filthy rich.”
POI – “Who are you to judge who is truly rich?”
Since there exists no economic standard, it’s all subjective 
I agree in your example that it is subjective. How is it relevant to morality?
POI Then so is “economics”You have no grounds or basis to judge anything in “economics”. Starting to annoy you yet????
Yes, it is annoying since it’s another diversionary tactic. We’re talking about the morality of slavery, not economics (which is even doubtful your examples are even discussions on economics).
We have to ask the question why do you avoid answering the question about why chattel slavery should be considered objectively wrong? The only reasonable answer is you cannot, but instead deflect.
POI Then I rest my case. The Bible can objectively be used to keep lifetime chattel slaves, as well as breed them. Illogical!
I rest my case as well. As I’ve argued, chattel slavery falls under subjective morality and not objective morality. Since it is subjective, it doesn’t matter how one views chattel slavery, because ultimately it is just one’s personal opinions on the matter. And when skeptics continually say, “Chattel slavery is wrong”, it has no normative value and we can dismiss it as personal opinion.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1141906#p1141906
POI wrote: ↑Mon Feb 05, 2024 1:24 pm (POI) If the God you believe in does not condemn chattel slavery, then the God you believe in’s definition of loving his creation includes granting permission to instill “full slavery in its traditional form whereby slaves are the complete property of their master, can be bought and sold by him and treated in any way that he wishes, which may include torture and other brutality, excessively bad working conditions, and sexual exploitation“. I have already laid out my case here (http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v … hp?t=40608).
The key words in your definition of chattel slavery is “which may include”. First off, there is no definition of chattel slavery that includes that. Secondly, other things may include “torture and other brutality, excessively bad working conditions, and sexual exploitation”, not just chattel slavery. Debt slavery could include that or being a hired servant or even being a free person.
True, there is no commandment in the Bible that condemns these activities from the negative perspective, but there is a commandment from a positive perspective on how people should act.
[Lev 19:18 KJV] 18b thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I [am] the LORD. [Jas 2:8 KJV] 8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:I guess the above quoted conditions are a-okay?
According to the second greatest commandment, no, it is not a-okay to torture, brutalize, oppress, or rape.
(U) I’ve never brought up punishment.
POI I know. I did. It relates to “might makes right.” If one violates God’s nature, God may punish them.
If you attack claims that I have not made, then isn’t that a straw man?
But let’s go with your argument. What is wrong with punishing someone who violates objective morality? Isn’t that what the state does? If someone murders or steals or rapes, they are punished.
Also, God does not punish people every time they violate objective morality. So, there is no might or punishment in these cases.
Now, if you’re referring to “might” as authority instead of punishment, then I agree with you. In all cases authority would apply.
But why is God’s nature “objective”? Kind of a rhetorical question here… In essence, God’s personal opinion becomes the law. If a human disagrees, they are wrong and may be punished because this human violates this God’s personal opinion.
It’s not really God’s personal “opinion”, but God’s personal “nature”. It’s not like God arbitrarily decided on what right should be, but that right is a reflection of who God is.
POI If people violate God’s opinion, they may be punished.
Correction, if people violate God’s nature, they may be punished.
Torture, brutality, excessively bad working conditions, and sexual exploitation is all okay, according to the God you believe in. In your case, any chattel slave master, who performs the above acts to their deemed lifetime chattel slaves, is also exempt from punishment.
Why should the Bible have to list out all possible negative scenarios? What about experimenting on people, skinning people alive, drugging people, impaling people, and we could go on forever.
Instead, there is a single positive commandment that gives the general principle of how people should act.
POI Then we need to know if some invisible arbitrator actual exists for ALL SORTS of stuff in which does not have an invisible objective arbitrator in reality, such as:
high vs not high
tall vs not tall
tastes good vs doesn’t taste good
overweight vs not overweight
rich vs not rich
etc etc etc etc………….
Irrelevant. What we are talking about is morality.
If a doctor told you that you needed to lose weight, would you give him/her the same type of nonsensical answer you give here? (i.e.) weight is subjective. I doubt it. It would not even likely cross your mind, even though weight IS subjective (under your rationale).
You fail to understand the philosophy of morality. There are serious people (including atheists) who discuss this and I’ve covered them in:
Christian apologists seem to use your argument as a go-to. Why? Because it becomes a technicality in wiggling themselves out of the facts about the God they believe in… The God they believe in sanctions/allows/permits actions in which they would never likely do themselves, rather than to just condemn it. So please, continue on with your charade. We will all read along as you continue to shoot yourself in the foot and hide behind the flimsy technicality you feel you have.
What I see here is just posturing, mischaracterizing my position and accusations.
POI I, again, have to chuckle here… Your deflection is the avoidance. Stating “chattel slavery is subjective” is the deflection you have opted to run with…
It’s not deflection, but the fundamental issue. What we see actually is your avoidance of this fundamental issue because it undermines the entire argument you are trying to make. So, who’s the one deflecting?
Well, according to the God you believe in, he is a-okay with treating many humans as lifetime property, beating them just short of death with complete impunity, breeding new chattel slaves, etc… If your God exists, and his opinion on these matters are indeed objective, then you should agree with him. That such acts are a-okay. Do you?
Yes, God accepted the practice of owning people as property. Even further, as Christians, we are to be slaves of Christ. So, not only does God accept it, Christians are to be properties of Christ.
As for beating slaves, I don’t see a commandment either way that says it is okay or not okay to beat slaves. What we see is the case law of how to handle cases if a slave was beaten. And again, these case laws are similar to the other laws in the ANE.
We’ve already covered the breeding of slaves.
Not everything in the Bible is necessarily an objective statement. That is, not all commands apply to all people at all times. The objectivity that we’re currently talking about is the philosophical nature of morality.
POI As explained prior, I doubt there exists some invisible celestial economic arbitrator which gives objective laws about economics.
Another straw man. Nobody is claiming this.
(U) We have to ask the question why do you avoid answering the question about why chattel slavery should be considered objectively wrong? The only reasonable answer is you cannot, but instead deflect.
POI Again, according to the God you believe in, God is a-okay with keeping humans as property for life, beating them with impunity, breeding new chattel slaves, etc. I guess this means you do to, right?
I’ve answered these. Now please answer my question.
The Bible God thinks chattel slavery is a-okay. Do you think keeping chattel slaves (for life and sometime against their choice), beating them without just cause and with impunity, and breeding them, is perfectly a-okay?
You’re equivocating. There is a difference between “chattel slavery” and “chattel slavery where the master beats them without just cause and with impunity”.
The implication with your question is there are cases where chattel slavery is acceptable. What if a master treats his chattel slaves well and does not beat them? Is that OK?
— You assume all Israelites knew all of the Torah. You have much more faith than I do. This would be like assuming all Christians know the NT.
I’m not necessarily assuming that they know all of the Torah, but they should at least know it exists and it is their ruling document and know of someone to ask if they have any questions.
— Ignorance to the law does not absolve one from the law.
Of course.
This also assumes the slave could even read. The poor often could not.
Probably true, but they can still hear. It was mainly an oral tradition back then, so they would have heard the laws. Even today the Jews have the practice of reading through the entire Torah out loud in the synagogue every year.
— Slave offspring, females, and non-Israelites, and maybe others, are not given the choice to leave otherwise lifetime chattel slavery. Why?
I’ve already addressed this.
— The Bible does an equally crappy job in explaining laws in which merit further clarification. One of them being chattel slavery, as evidence by the vast discussion needed here…
And as I’ve extensively argued (and which has not been refuted), chattel slavery is subjective morality and it is impossible to make a normative commandment about it. For addressing the possible cases of abuse within chattel slavery (or any other type of slavery), people should follow the second greatest commandment.
Which begs the question of your topic, why trust the Bible?
We can trust the Bible because:
– It affirms the existence of objective morality.
– It provides a rational justification for objective morality.
– It withstands the skeptics’ moral attacks on genocide and slavery.
– It exposes the weakness of skeptical arguments since they often have to resort to fallacious arguments such as straw man arguments, equivocation, false accusations, red herrings, and ad hominem attacks.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1141969#p1141969
POI wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2024 12:49 pm (U) First off, there is no definition of chattel slavery that includes that.
POI Yes there is… (http://encyclopedia.uia.org/en/problem/chattel-slavery)
Granted.
POI You already agreed the Bible condones chattel slavery. Chattel slavery deems the slave direct property of the slave master. The master is free to do virtually, as he wills, with impunity — (ala the Bible’s say so).
Why limit it to just chattel slavery? Why not any type of slavery? What about when slavery is not even involved? So, torture, brutalization, oppression, and rape are separate issues and is not exclusively limited to chattel slavery.
POI But you already agreed the Bible endorses/condones/permits chattel slavery. Either it does or it doesn’t. Pick a lane.
You’re equivocating “chattel slavery” and “chattel slavery where slaves are tortured, brutalized, oppressed, and raped”. Yes, I said the Bible allows for chattel slavery. I have not said the Bible endorses torturing, brutalizing, etc.
POI That is not what I’ve been doing. I’m explaining “might makes right.” Please do not deflect.
And I’ve explained multiple times the argument is not “might makes right”. You are simply attacking what you claim it is.
POI You have yet to demonstrate that the Bible offers “objective morality”. You first need to demonstrate God, and then explain why his morality is objective. You have done neither.
Yes, I’ve already addressed this:
otseng wrote: ↑Sat Feb 03, 2024 7:16 am
The second you give reason(s) to justify any moral judgement, you no longer appeal to a God-given authority. Thus, in YOUR case, do ‘objective morals’ even exist? If you believe they do, you first need to demonstrate that this claimed objective moral law giver exists.Logically, no I do not have to first demonstrate God exists. If you believe this, then we should also reject evolutionary theory since nobody can explain how the first cell arose. We should also reject the Big Bang theory since it cannot explain the origin of the initial singularity.
But, practically, there are plenty of other arguments and evidence that points to the existence of God. And we’ve covered some of that already in the cosmology discussion.
I’ll state the argument in another way:
1. Objective morality exists.
2. There is no viable naturalistic explanation for objective morality.
3. There is a viable supernaturalistic explanation for objective morality.
4. Objective morality is best explained by a supernatural source.
The moral argument is an argument for the existence of God and it does not assume God does exist, but only could exist.
POI “might” implies he is all powerful and his opinion is THE opinion. And if you do not agree, he may punish you for it. Not much different than a dictator or mafia boss.
Sure, if one violates a command from any authority, it’s possible one will be punished. Are you saying that is objectively wrong?
POI Just like you and I, we have opinions, or gut reactions. It is in your “nature” to react a certain way. Asserting a God does not then, all of a sudden, make the opinion or nature become objective — just because he has more power or creates.
An opinion implies facts and experiences have been gathered and a judgment is made based on those to derive a position. This scenario does not apply to God and morality.
POI Why is the chattel slave master instructed to be immune from punishment, if the slave master should decide to beat his slaves, just short of death?
These are not instructions per se, but case law to handle certain situations. Here’s the passage:
[Exo 21:26-27 KJV] 26 And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye’s sake. 27 And if he smite out his manservant’s tooth, or his maidservant’s tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth’s sake.And this also is similar to other laws in the ANE.
As for beating slaves, I don’t recall the Bible either condoning it or condemning it. Not saying anything about one of them does not necessarily mean it supports the other. But, I would say the general principle of the second greatest commandment would apply. Also, they were to remember they were once slaves in Egypt with the implication they are to treat others like how they would’ve wanted to be treated while they were in Egypt.
[Deu 15:15 KJV] 15 And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in the land of Egypt, and the LORD thy God redeemed thee: therefore I command thee this thing to day. [Deu 16:12 KJV] 12 And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in Egypt: and thou shalt observe and do these statutes. [Deu 24:18 KJV] 18 But thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in Egypt, and the LORD thy God redeemed thee thence: therefore I command thee to do this thing. [Deu 24:22 KJV] 22 And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in the land of Egypt: therefore I command thee to do this thing.Why are the females, non-Israelites (males and females), as well as the offspring, instructed to remain with the chattel slave master for life?
Now sure why you’re asking me this. As you know, this happens if they bought them as lifetime slaves and they also had children. Are you saying this is objectively wrong?
POI I’m afraid it is quite relevant. Simply replace the term ‘morality with ‘economics’ and <you> have the exact same argument and rationale.
I see it as another equivocation fallacy. “Wow, that guy is filthy rich” does not have any is-ought judgment in it.
POI Please do not patronize me and then offer up a Gish Gallop. If you have a point, just make it.
You were the one who stated I’m giving nonsensical answers:
If a doctor told you that you needed to lose weight, would you give him/her the same type of nonsensical answer you give here? (i.e.) weight is subjective. I doubt it. It would not even likely cross your mind, even though weight IS subjective (under your rationale).
I’m simply pointing out I’m not giving nonsensical answers and have given serious treatment to scholars on this topic.
My argument is predicated, so far, upon the “Euthyphro dilemma” as well
I’ve already addressed the Euthyphro dilemma.
as asking for demonstration of this asserted “God’s” existence to begin with…
If you want to go through all the arguments for God’s existence, we can deep dive into that after morality of God and the Bible.
(U) Yes, God accepted the practice of owning people as property.
POI Thank you. Why does God allow chattel slave masters to own other humans as chattel slaves, where they can be beaten (just short of death) with impunity, bred, and kept for life (without their choice) if God also claims to love his creation?
I’ve addressed this above.
POI I’ve already disclosed where the Bible grants permission, as well as commands impunity for slave beatings. But it seems you are ignoring this part.
No, I haven’t ignored this. See above.
(U) I’ve answered these. Now please answer my question.
POI I’ve already answered.
Where have you addressed the question why anybody should accept your moral judgments about slavery as being objective?
According to the God you believe in, chattel slavery is a-okay.
I’m not saying either me nor the Bible is making any normative statement about chattel slavery. As I’ve argued, it is subjective.
The ones who instead opt to abolish these practices are wrong, because they should instead permit/allow chattel slavery.
Only if chattel slavery falls under objective morality would this be the case.
But this command, from the God you believe in, is illogical, if this God you believe in also claims to “love” his creation?
Again, you’re assuming chattel slavery falls under objective morality.
(U) You’re equivocating. There is a difference between “chattel slavery” and “chattel slavery where the master beats them without just cause and with impunity”.
The implication with your question is there are cases where chattel slavery is acceptable. What if a master treats his chattel slaves well and does not beat them? Is that OK?
POII am doing no such thing.
You didn’t answer my question. If a master treats his chattel slave with love and respect, is it morally bad? If so, why?
I explained in the OP of my thread, for which you have not refuted. God sanctions beating with impunity, breeding, and lifetime chattel slavery without their choice. Any way you want to sugar coat it, your God is in conflict with the term “love”.
And I’ve been addressing this since the very beginning. Simply repeating your assertion does not give greater weight to your claim.
(U) I’m not necessarily assuming that they know all of the Torah, but they should at least know it exists and it is their ruling document and know of someone to ask if they have any questions.
POI And all Christians should know the NT, but hardly any really do. My point being you are merely arguing (ought verses is). I’m demonstrating the (is), you want the (ought).
Most people don’t know all the laws of anything. But as you noted, “Ignorance to the law does not absolve one from the law.”
POI And yet, God offers no safeguards against many falling into lifetime chattel slavery. What a God!
Since chattel slavery is subjective, how can there be any normative safeguard?
God offers no safeguard for having cafes in churches, or having loud music in worship services, or making sure the walls of churches are not pink.
But even if this WERE true, non-Israelites, women, and offspring need not apply. Why?
Because the Torah was given to the Israelites.
POI You cannot have your cake and eat it too. God weighed in on it. His position is that it is a-okay. Anyone who does not agree is wrong. So is this objective, or not? Again, pick a lane buddy.
False dilemma. It’s not either I pick chattel slavery is objectively wrong or objectively right. I’m saying chattel slavery is subjective.
(U) We can trust the Bible because:
– It affirms the existence of objective morality.
– It provides a rational justification for objective morality.
– It withstands the skeptics’ moral attacks on genocide and slavery.
– It exposes the weakness of skeptical arguments since they often have to resort to fallacious arguments such as straw man arguments, equivocation, false accusations, red herrings, and ad hominem attacks,
POI According to what and/or who???
I’ll let the readers assess it.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1142062#p1142062
I’m granting this is how you are using chattel slavery. I’m not granting this is how I’m defining chattel slavery. Here’s the definition of chattel slavery that I use:
otseng wrote: ↑Mon Jan 29, 2024 9:42 am I’m defining chattel slavery as:
“the enslaving and owning of human beings and their offspring as property, able to be bought, sold, and forced to work without wages, as distinguished from other systems of forced, unpaid, or low-wage labor also considered to be slavery.”
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/chattel-slavery“A form of slavery where slaves are the legal property of an individual.”
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/chattel_slavery
(U) Why limit it to just chattel slavery? Why not any type of slavery? What about when slavery is not even involved? So, torture, brutalization, oppression, and rape are separate issues and is not exclusively limited to chattel slavery.
POI As defined and also granted, they are part of chattel slavery. Deal with it. Your God is a-okay with such behavior(s). Care to augment your argument now?
More evasions of my questions. And I am dealing with it by revealing you are using equivocation. You are using a very specific view of chattel slavery which is contrary to other definitions. By conflating the two, you are equivocating.
POI Then you are redefining chattel slavery and ignoring the already granted definition. See my OP in the other thread, where I clearly lay out my case.
See what I stated above.
What would you call slavery where a master owns another person and he treats him humanely?
POI It is “might makes right.” Whatever God’s nature happens to be, is “right”. In this case, God’s nature condones slave beatings, slave breeding, and keeping slaves for life.
Slave beatings would be a separate issue. It happens also to other slaves and not exclusively to chattel slaves.
Aside from God creating and being more powerful, humans are to adhere to God’s nature, even if it does not align with ours. Otherwise, we are wrong.
Yes.
POI This is a false analogy. Your argument pre-assumes the necessity for a God without proving this so-called god.
No, I’m not assuming God must exist, but God could exist.
POI Okay, here we go… Check this out.
Yes, another evasion.
(U) Sure, if one violates a command from any authority, it’s possible one will be punished. Are you saying that is objectively wrong?
POI No. That is not what I’m saying. I’m saying your belief system pretty much parallels that of a mafia boss or that of a dictator. Cross either and you may be punished accordingly.
Why only bring up a mafia boss and dictators? Is it only because of bringing up extreme forms of authority that it is the only way to make your case look better?
Consequences of violating rules can happen in all situations when the rules from authorities are violated. This can happen in governments, in schools, on roads, at the workplace, filing taxes, in prisons, in clubs, and on this forum.
(U) An opinion implies facts and experiences have been gathered and a judgment is made based on those to derive a position. This scenario does not apply to God and morality.
POI In regard to ‘god’, why not, and how do you know?
The burden is not on me to show the negative of your claim is true, but for you to show your positive claim is true. How do you know God is making an opinion decision?
Ex. 20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property. <– Are instructed to remain immune from punishment as long as the slave lives.
I wouldn’t say this is a command either, but rather handling a case situation. If a slave dies, then they are to be punished. If they don’t, then they are not to be punished.
(U) I’ve already addressed the Euthyphro dilemma.
POI Simplified… It’s ‘right’ because God says so, or, it’s right because of other reasons (which does not need God).
Wrong simplification. It’s right because it’s God’s nature.
(U) why anybody should accept your moral judgments about slavery as being objective?
POI It’s not my moral judgement at all. God is a-okay with the defined and granted form(s) of chattel slavery. And yet, he claims to also love his creation? How is this compatible?
Yes, you are making a moral judgment with your implication that chattel slavery is morally wrong. You’ve admitted you have no basis for making any objective judgment:
So, your judgment is subjective and so has no more weight than a personal opinion. So the question stands, why should anybody accept your moral judgments about chattel slavery as being objective?
Your statement also reveals your equivocation by stating “granted form(s) of chattel slavery”. Why did you have to add “forms”? Are you acknowledging “chattel slavery” and “forms of chattel slavery” are different?
(U) I’m not saying either me nor the Bible is making any normative statement about chattel slavery. As I’ve argued, it is subjective.
POI Yet again, there is nothing subjective about it, under your rationale. God commands that chattel slavery is a-okay, Anyone who disagrees is WRONG.
You’re just restating your claims and not even understanding my position.
(U) Only if chattel slavery falls under objective morality would this be the case.
POI Under your believe, it is objective.
False attribution. Where have I said anything is objective regarding chattel slavery?
POI The Bible does not give the reason(s) for the “just cause(s)”. All it really states is that the slave is the master’s property. Your problem, not mine.
And as I’ve been arguing, chattel slavery is subjective, so there’s nothing morally wrong with it.
The only way it can be argued it could be morally wrong is by pointing out different “forms” of chattel slavery.
(U) You didn’t answer my question. If a master treats his chattel slave with love and respect, is it morally bad? If so, why?
POI According to your rationale, and the God you believe in, it is morally good to beat your slaves, just short of death, keep them for life, and breed them. Please tell me how this is also compatible with the term love?
Did you even answer my question? No. And doubtful you’ll ever answer this so I’ll answer it for you. No, it is not morally bad to have a chattel slave when a master treats them with love and respect. And the reason you won’t answer this is because it is a defeater to the argument that chattel slavery is morally bad. This is why you avoid discussing chattel slavery, but have to debate a “form” of chattel slavery.
If we resolve the issue of chattel slavery (according to the general definition that I’ve provided), then we can go on to debate the morality of your specific “forms” of chattel slavery.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1142137#p1142137
When your definition has to add “which may include torture and other brutality, excessively bad working conditions, and sexual exploitation”, then it is narrowing it, not broadening it. What if I add “which may not include torture and other brutality, excessively bad working conditions, and sexual exploitation”, is that narrowing it or broadening it?
Here are some more dictionary definitions of chattel slavery:
“slavery in which a person is owned as a chattel.”
https://www.merriam-webster.com/diction … %20slavery
“slavery, condition in which one human being was owned by another. A slave was considered by law as property, or chattel, and was deprived of most of the rights ordinarily held by free persons.”
https://www.britannica.com/topic/slavery-sociology
“The condition in which one person is owned as property by another and is under the owner’s control, especially in involuntary servitude.”
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Chattel+slavery
Whether there exists or does not exist torture, brutality, oppression, or rape does not define chattel slavery. Chattel slavery is simply owning a slave as property.
POI Under the umbrella of a deemed chattel slave, it’s all okay by the God you believe in.
You’ve just contradicted yourself by acknowledging my definitions are umbrella definitions, which means your definition is narrower.
POI Afraid not. Chattel slavery is a term you obviously do not like, so you wish to only argue the parts you feel you can ‘defend’ or justify.
More false accusations. We’ve been talking about chattel slavery for pages. Rather, why are you arguing against dictionary definitions that I’ve provided?
(U) What would you call slavery where a master owns another person and he treats him humanely?
POI A chattel slave owner.
Exactly.
And in that case is it morally wrong? No.
Since there are cases where chattel slavery is morally acceptable, chattel slavery (as the dictionaries I’ve presented have defined it) is subjective.
What would you also call a chattel slave owner who beats their slaved short of death, breeds them, and never lets them go free?
Beating someone short of death would be abusive chattel slavery and it would be morally wrong.
If people voluntarily breed, then it is not morally wrong. Never letting someone go free would be subjective since there are differing situations for that.
A chattel slave owner as well. God does not have any problem with that, do you?
Chattel slavery by itself is subjective. So, no, I don’t have a problem with chattel slavery. But there is a case under chattel slavery which would be wrong and that would be abusive chattel slavery.
(U) Slave beatings would be a separate issue. It happens also to other slaves and not exclusively to chattel slaves.
POI It is not a separate issue.
Yes, it’s a separate issue from chattel slavery because there are two forms of chattel slavery – abusive chattel slavery and non-abusive chattel slavery. Abuse in any situation would be morally wrong. If there’s no abuse, then it would not necessarily be morally wrong.
POI The ‘evasion‘ is you skipping my direct analogy of your given rationale. By replacing a single word phrase (chattel slavery with economics), and still using the exact same set of points, you still have the exact same rationale.
Even the rationale doesn’t apply as I’ve pointed out before:
“Wow, that guy is filthy rich” does not have any is-ought judgment in it.
I guess we cannot ground economics without an implied supernatural force either?
Another straw man. Nobody is claiming we need to ground economics on God.
(U) Why only bring up a mafia boss and dictators? Is it only because of bringing up extreme forms of authority that it is the only way to make your case look better?
POI Chattel slavery, as defined and granted by the God you believe in, does not include “extreme forms of authority“?
It includes any form of authority, including extreme forms. But by you only including extreme forms, you are fallaciously appealing to extremes.
POI All under “God”. Under your belief, God is the ultimate authority, and all other said systems are still under him. Thus, I guess many governments are now wrong, by completely abolishing slavery rather than to continue permitting slavery?
You’re switching the topic. We’re addressing chattel slavery now, not talking about slavery in general. If you want to argue about the general case of slavery, we can discuss that after chattel slavery.
(U) How do you know God is making an opinion decision?
POI For the exact same reason you state I am making an opinion decision. Your entire argument is that God has a “nature.” Well, so do humans then. You are merely replacing one ‘moral agency’ with another ‘moral agency’. Case/point (paraphrased), ‘we inherently know murder and rape are wrong, because it is in our given nature to believe so, and it is God who gives us this nature.”
Is it peoples’ opinions that murder and rape are wrong?
You are not solving the problem you attempt to create, but instead just pushing the problem over.
There is no need to solve all the problems, but only need to find what is the most viable explanation.
Thus, is stating ‘chattel slavery is wrong’ an opinion or not?
What we’re talking about is objective moral values, not subjective moral values. Chattel slavery would be subjective, not objective. So, chattel slavery is not relevant to the discussion of God being the basis of objective morality.
Well, if God supplies us humans with his nature, because we realize the difference between objective right and wrong, then why did we eventually abolish chattel slavery in most parts of the world? Are we now on the side of ‘evil’? God’s nature instead tells us to permit/condone/allow chattel slavery.
Again, chattel slavery is subjective, so your question is meaningless.
God commands impunity for slave beatings, as long as they do not die.
Where does the Bible command slave beatings short of death? There is none.
The end. Deal with it. Do not instead merely whitewash it. Again, what version of “love” allows for such actions? Illogical.
I have dealt with it:
otseng wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2024 11:14 am These are not instructions per se, but case law to handle certain situations. Here’s the passage:
[Exo 21:26-27 KJV] 26 And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye’s sake. 27 And if he smite out his manservant’s tooth, or his maidservant’s tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth’s sake.And this also is similar to other laws in the ANE.
As for beating slaves, I don’t recall the Bible either condoning it or condemning it. Not saying anything about one of them does not necessarily mean it supports the other. But, I would say the general principle of the second greatest commandment would apply. Also, they were to remember they were once slaves in Egypt with the implication they are to treat others like how they would’ve wanted to be treated while they were in Egypt.
[Deu 15:15 KJV] 15 And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in the land of Egypt, and the LORD thy God redeemed thee: therefore I command thee this thing to day. [Deu 16:12 KJV] 12 And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in Egypt: and thou shalt observe and do these statutes. [Deu 24:18 KJV] 18 But thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in Egypt, and the LORD thy God redeemed thee thence: therefore I command thee to do this thing. [Deu 24:22 KJV] 22 And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in the land of Egypt: therefore I command thee to do this thing.
(U) Yes, you are making a moral judgment with your implication that chattel slavery is morally wrong. You’ve admitted you have no basis for making any objective judgment.
POI I’m not making a moral judgement.
OK, if you’re not making any moral judgment about chattel slavery, then there’s nothing morally wrong with it. Do you accept that?
I’m instead stating the God you believe in does not follow his own logic, unless you have a differing version of the term “love”, for which I have never read or heard about. <Chattel slavery and love> are not compatible with one another logically — (by definition).
Chattel slavery would be subjective, so it’s not possible to make any objective moral statement about it. We need to look at forms of chattel slavery to make an objective moral judgment about it. Abusive chattel slavery would not be compatible with love. Non-abusive chattel slavery can be compatible with love.
(U) False attribution. Where have I said anything is objective regarding chattel slavery?
POI Yet again… God’s nature/opinion/rulings are not objective? God states such practices are okay. Does this make chattel slavery objectively okay or not? Much of the globe now states it is not okay. Is most of the globe now objectively wrong?
You’re conflating two issues – the grounding of objective morality and the subjective nature of chattel slavery.
POI Then I guess it is “morally right” to beat slaves, (as long as they do not die, masters can breed them, and masters can keep them for life against their will).
Abuse of slaves would not be morally right.
POI I already laid out my case, long ago, here (http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v … hp?t=40608).
And what I’ve been showing is you’re equivocating between chattel slavery and abusive chattel slavery.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1142210#p1142210
POI wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2024 12:51 pm POI What does the Bible state you can do with your property? That’s right, God states: “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.”
Still not answered….
I touched on this by saying this is a case law, but we can go deeper on this after resolving chattel slavery.
Chattel slavery, and love, are not compatible. It is thus an illogical construct.
Actually, you are the one being illogical with the equivocation.
Here’s your logic:
1. Chattel slavery is morally wrong.
2. The Bible condones abusive chattel slavery.
3. The Bible commands to love.
4. There is an incompatibility in the Bible with chattel slavery and love.
You conflate chattel slavery with abusive chattel slavery and thus your logic is fallacious.
POI You missed my entire point. the Bible-God defines what is allowed as a chattel slave master.
I didn’t miss your point. I’m simply first addressing your equivocation of your usage of chattel slavery. After that I’ll deep dive into abusive chattel slavery.
(U) I don’t have a problem with chattel slavery. But there is a case under chattel slavery which would be wrong and that would be abusive chattel slavery.
POI You are now stepping all over yourself. Beatings would be abusive, by objective definition.
No, I’m logically presenting my case by addressing chattel slavery first and then going on to abusive chattel slavery next.
POI But beating your slave is abusive, and God grants such actions with complete impunity. Thus, God disagrees with you.
Who’s the one sidestepping the issue when you keep on repeating this claim and not even acknowledging my arguments?
POI Your given rationale also necessitates the need for a supernatural force in order for economics to be objective.
Who’s claiming a supernatural force is necessary in order for economics to be objective? What’s even objective about the statement “Wow, that guy is filthy rich”?
(U) Is it peoples’ opinions that murder and rape are wrong?
POI Please do not deflect. Under your belief/argument, God gives you your nature, which is also God’s nature.
You won’t answer the question and accuse of deflection? You’re the one who stated: “Case/point (paraphrased), ‘we inherently know murder and rape are wrong, because it is in our given nature to believe so, and it is God who gives us this nature.”
Even the example you gave of murder and rape is not an opinion. Only if our view of rape and murder is our opinion would your argument be consistent.
Your position does not ground objective morals, but instead just moves it ‘sideways.’ You state God’s nature is objective. Okay, why is God’s nature “objective”?
I don’t ever recall saying God’s nature is objective. I have said the grounding for morality being objective is God’s nature.
(U) What we’re talking about is objective moral values, not subjective moral values.
POI Then you are again shooting yourself in the foot. Is abusive chattel slavery objectively right or wrong?
I’ve already stated “there is a case under chattel slavery which would be wrong and that would be abusive chattel slavery” and “beating someone short of death would be abusive chattel slavery and it would be morally wrong” and “abusive chattel slavery would not be compatible with love”, so abusive chattel slavery would be objectively wrong.
Now your turn, does chattel slavery fall under objective morality or subjective morality? Please answer this and then we’ll go into abusive chattel slavery.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1142287#p1142287
POI wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 12:18 pm (U) Now your turn, does chattel slavery fall under objective morality or subjective morality? Please answer this and then we’ll go into abusive chattel slavery.POI It matters not what I “morally” think. I already stated at the top of this response, as to why. It’s about logic, not morals.
The entire point of skeptics bringing up slavery, genocide, rape, homosexuality, etc is charging God and the Old Testament is immoral. So it is on ethical grounds, not logical grounds that these are brought up.
We also have to ask why you won’t answer this question. But the answer is obvious. Since chattel slavery is subjective, it defeats any argument that chattel slavery is immoral. So, knowing that it cannot be challenged on ethical grounds, it’s moved to “logical” grounds. Further, it’s also moved from chattel slavery to abusive chattel slavery.
Since you claim it doesn’t matter what you morally think, then all charges from you relating to the morality of God or the Bible (and even outside the Bible) can be dismissed.
Even if we look at your argument logically, it is also not viable.
1. Otseng states there exists 2 types of chattel slavery (abusive and non-abuse)
Yes, I stated that. Do you also accept it?
2. By definition, beating your chattel slaves, just short of death, is “abusive”
Nobody has presented a definition of “abusive” yet. What would be the objective test to determine if something is abusive? Is simply beating a slave abusive?
3. God permits such “abusive” acts and also commands impunity, because the chattel slave is the master’s property
The Bible says nothing explicitly about either sanctioning or condemning beatings with impunity. The context of the passages is how to judge a situation if a slave loses an eye, tooth or life. The context is not about how much a slave owner can beat his slave.
Here’s the passages again:
[Exo 21:26-27 KJV] 26 And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye’s sake. 27 And if he smite out his manservant’s tooth, or his maidservant’s tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth’s sake. [Exo 21:20-21 KJV] 20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. 21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he [is] his money.Even if a master beats his slave with impunity and the slave does not die, it can still be considered to be immoral. All the text says is he shall not be punished. Not all immoral actions are punished.
4. God condones “abusive” chattel slavery, while Otseng rejects abusive chattel slavery
I reject abuse in general, not just in chattel slavery. Do you reject abuse? On what grounds do you reject abuse?
5. God is also love
Yes, but God also judges and punishes sin.
6. Love does not include abusive chattel slavery
Sure, I can go with this.
7. There is then an incompatibility in the Bible – (“abusive” chattel slavery vs. love).
This conclusion has not been demonstrated yet.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1142335#p1142335
Then why not simply answer my question by stating chattel slavery is subjective instead of saying it is irrelevant?
(U) Since you claim it doesn’t matter what you morally think, then all charges from you relating to the morality of God or the Bible (and even outside the Bible) can be dismissed.POI My personal opinions, just like yours, are all subjective.
I’m not arguing based on my opinions, but based on my rational argumentation that the best explanation for the existence of objective moral values is God.
I explained this, many responses ago, with ‘economics’ (rich vs poor), also tall vs short, also high vs low, also fat vs skinny, also tastes good vs tastes bad, also horrible vs great, etc etc etc etc………..
Irrelevant analogies. As I’ve stated, none of these deal with the is-ought problem.
POI As my daddy used to say, pretty much any topic can be “argued” (for or against)
Sure. So it depends on the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments to see which one is more viable. And I’ll let the jury decide.
(U) Yes, I stated that. Do you also accept it?POI Sure, just like I accept someone who wants to argue there exists abusive and un-abusive hostage takers, or abusive and un-abusive dictators, etc etc etc.
More appealing to the extremes.
(U) Nobody has presented a definition of “abusive” yet. What would be the objective test to determine if something is abusive? Is simply beating a slave abusive?POI I reckon beating your chattel slave, just short of death, with instructed complete impunity, would qualify under the umbrella term of “abusive”.
You’ve giving a circular definition. If you have no definition, then you’re just going down the path of equivocation again.
Also, you did not answer my additional questions:
What would be the objective test to determine if something is abusive?
Is simply beating a slave abusive?
(U) The Bible says nothing explicitly about either sanctioning or condemning beatings with impunity.POI Yes it does, right here. –> “21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.” God orders no punishment, as long as they recover.
All it says is they are not to be punished. There is no statement such as “thou shall beat your slaves with impunity” or “thou shall not beat your slaves with impunity”.
This is because the chattel slave master has property rights over his chattel slave.
Just because someone has property rights over something or someone does not give them rights to abuse.
Why do you think many chattel slave owners beat their slaves from the back side?
Obviously to get them to obey their masters. And you haven’t answered the question is simply beating a person abusive?
A blind chattel slave is not worth much on the open market, I reckon
Of course. What about one that is missing a tooth?
(U) Even if a master beats his slave with impunity and the slave does not die, it can still be considered to be immoral. All the text says is he shall not be punished. Not all immoral actions are punished.POI Well, maybe you and I, in applying our own personal opinions, might think beating chattel slaves is “immoral”, but not to the God you worship.
Who cares what you think about the beating of slaves being immoral? As you’ve stated, “It matters not what I morally think.”
I know this will be a bit controversial, but as for my position on beatings, I also consider this to fall under subjective morality. So beating of slaves would be subjective and there can be no objective moral statement made on the beating of slaves.
But since he specifically orders no punishment, while at the same time issuing capital punishment for many deemed “offenses”, I guess the God you worship is a-okay with beating chattel slaves. Why? Because he decided to specifically weigh in on it. He states NO PUBISHMENT for doing so.
There is also no punishment stated for abusive behavior in any other form of slavery. Even further, there is no punishment stated for many forms of abusive behavior outside of slavery. So, with your logic, God is a-okay with many forms of abuse.
Again, the purpose of the Exodus 21 passages is concerning the case situations of what should happen if a slave loses a tooth, eye, or life. It is not stating how much abuse can a chattel slave owner get away with.
Hence, the chattel slave master is free and clear. His conscious can be free and clear.
No, conscious is not free and clear since it’s in violation of other commandments as I’ve already discussed.
God’s okay with it, thus, so should the chattel slave owner. So why aren’t you? (~5th attempt at an answer).
Simply reiterating “God’s okay with it” (probably for more than 5 times) does not make it true. So why should I agree with something that is false?
(U) I reject abuse in general, not just in chattel slavery. Do you reject abuse? On what grounds do you reject abuse?POI This is you deflecting, by asking me about my personal opinion again. As I’ve stated repeatedly, using YOUR logic, the only opinion which should matter to you, is God’s. And yet, it seems you and him disagree. Maybe be a little more ‘concerned’ about that.
You’re the one arguing the Bible allows for abusive behavior. Or do you now reject that?
God is against abuse. And so am I. It is you claiming that God condones abuse. If you do not reject abuse, then why are you even arguing against it even if God condones abuse?
(U) Yes, but God also judges and punishes sin.POI Here’s where things logically fall apart. (Love and abusive chattel slavery) are not logically compatible.
Right, it logically falls apart which signals your interpretation is wrong. The fundamental issue is the assumption that you have is God is condoning abusive behavior in Exodus 21, which is a false assumption.
Unless you wish to change the working definition(s) of the given terms — (love and/or abusive chattel slavery).
You haven’t even defined abusive yet.
God, in this case, orders no punishment for abusive chattel slavery.
God orders no punishment for many immoral things. But that does not mean they are morally acceptable.
6. Love does not include abusive chattel slavery(U) Sure, I can go with this.
POI Right, because logic would dictate such a position. (Love and abusive chattel slavery) are not compatible. I rest my case your honor.
I rest as well since there is no support where God is sanctioning abusive chattel slavery. And I’m content letting the jury decide on the case.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1142397#p1142397