Evidence for God from Science

Kenny wrote:

plouiswork wrote: Slavery is one of many things that causes problems for our society. I don't just mean from a utilitarian standpoint of what children born into slavery can accomplish for society. I mean from a psychological perspective of what it does to all citizens, both would-be slave owners and those who are put under subjugation. It fosters the belief that a person is deserving of respect, not for their inner qualities or contributions to society, but for the status of their birth. More importantly, it curbs the development of empathy, limiting it only to those people who are "like me" on both sides of the divide. These psychological effects, of course, have corresponding manifestations in behavior.

If we look at slavery as practiced in the USA during the 18th and 19th centuries, the society practicing slavery saw the primitive people they enslaved as inferior to themselves. They didn’t have the modern POV that all people are equally capable of contributing to society, they felt they were more capable of thinking and controlling, and those they enslaved were only good for working and taking orders. When you dehumanize an entire race of people that way, the psychological effects you spoke of isn’t going to apply to them.

plouiswork wrote: One of the biggest dangers in today's society is the "us vs them" mentality. Small, dedicated groups (such as terrorists) have required our society to heighten security measures and breaches of privacy just to contain this real threat. Slavery would extend this threat to every household in which it's implemented, as slaves have been designated as outside of those with protection of basic rights. What motive do slaves have to cooperate with society if their basic rights are being overruled by the personal preferences of others? The only reliable motive I can see is through the use of force that slave owners have through their power over their slaves, and this behavior has further implications for the issues of domestic abuse and violence within families, to say nothing of the rising resentment of the oppressed.

Again; if you were raised to believe the enslaved race is inferior to your race, to mistreat them would be akin to mistreating your dog.


Ken

Not following this.
Are you saying it is wrong to be raised to believe an enslaved race is inferior?
What you appear to be saying is that the slave holders weren't really wrong, because they believed that slaves were again to a lower animal.
But it seems once again you are smuggling in OM, in saying that the modern view is BETTER. Again you are measuring without grounding any standard of measure.

plouiswork wrote:

Kenny wrote:Again; if you were raised to believe the enslaved race is inferior to your race, to mistreat them would be akin to mistreating your dog.

I don't agree, but it is enough for me to see why someone would believe objective morality is necessary to prevent things such as slavery in light of my argument.

How could objective morality prevent something such as slavery? Please explain.

Ken

PaulSacramento wrote:It is very simple and I don't why why people STILL continue to argue this.
Morals are objective:
The notion of right and wrong, good and bad is universal to ALL people and ALL culture through recorded history.
The only thing that IS subjective is WHAT is viewed as right and wrong BUt the notion, the understanding of there BEING a RIGHT and a WRONG is absolute and objective as recorded history shows us.
If you disagree, please show evidence of any culture or group that believed that ANYTHING is permissible and that there is no good or bad at all.
Not theoretical evidence ( hearsay) but concrete evidence.

When I say morality is subjective; not objective, I am referring to what is viewed as right and wrong. IOW the actions judged as right or wrong. Right and wrong are meaningless unless applied to an act

Ken

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:It is very simple and I don't why why people STILL continue to argue this.
Morals are objective:
The notion of right and wrong, good and bad is universal to ALL people and ALL culture through recorded history.
The only thing that IS subjective is WHAT is viewed as right and wrong BUt the notion, the understanding of there BEING a RIGHT and a WRONG is absolute and objective as recorded history shows us.
If you disagree, please show evidence of any culture or group that believed that ANYTHING is permissible and that there is no good or bad at all.
Not theoretical evidence ( hearsay) but concrete evidence.

When I say morality is subjective; not objective, I am referring to what is viewed as right and wrong. IOW the actions judged as right or wrong. Right and wrong are meaningless unless applied to an act

Ken

You have it backwards Kenny.
It isn't that "right and wrong are meaningless unless applied to an act", that is pure subjectiveness.
It is that there IS a right and wrong.

Kenny wrote:

plouiswork wrote:

Kenny wrote:Again; if you were raised to believe the enslaved race is inferior to your race, to mistreat them would be akin to mistreating your dog.

I don't agree, but it is enough for me to see why someone would believe objective morality is necessary to prevent things such as slavery in light of my argument.

How could objective morality prevent something such as slavery? Please explain.

Ken

What kind of slavery are you referring to?

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

plouiswork wrote:

Kenny wrote:Again; if you were raised to believe the enslaved race is inferior to your race, to mistreat them would be akin to mistreating your dog.

I don't agree, but it is enough for me to see why someone would believe objective morality is necessary to prevent things such as slavery in light of my argument.

How could objective morality prevent something such as slavery? Please explain.

Ken

What kind of slavery are you referring to?

The type where one human being is the legal property of another

Ken

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:It is very simple and I don't why why people STILL continue to argue this.
Morals are objective:
The notion of right and wrong, good and bad is universal to ALL people and ALL culture through recorded history.
The only thing that IS subjective is WHAT is viewed as right and wrong BUt the notion, the understanding of there BEING a RIGHT and a WRONG is absolute and objective as recorded history shows us.
If you disagree, please show evidence of any culture or group that believed that ANYTHING is permissible and that there is no good or bad at all.
Not theoretical evidence ( hearsay) but concrete evidence.

When I say morality is subjective; not objective, I am referring to what is viewed as right and wrong. IOW the actions judged as right or wrong. Right and wrong are meaningless unless applied to an act

Ken

You have it backwards Kenny.
It isn't that "right and wrong are meaningless unless applied to an act", that is pure subjectiveness.
It is that there IS a right and wrong.

But how does right and wrong exist unless it is applied to an act?

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:It is very simple and I don't why why people STILL continue to argue this.
Morals are objective:
The notion of right and wrong, good and bad is universal to ALL people and ALL culture through recorded history.
The only thing that IS subjective is WHAT is viewed as right and wrong BUt the notion, the understanding of there BEING a RIGHT and a WRONG is absolute and objective as recorded history shows us.
If you disagree, please show evidence of any culture or group that believed that ANYTHING is permissible and that there is no good or bad at all.
Not theoretical evidence ( hearsay) but concrete evidence.

When I say morality is subjective; not objective, I am referring to what is viewed as right and wrong. IOW the actions judged as right or wrong. Right and wrong are meaningless unless applied to an act

Ken

You have it backwards Kenny.
It isn't that "right and wrong are meaningless unless applied to an act", that is pure subjectiveness.
It is that there IS a right and wrong.

But how does right and wrong exist unless it is applied to an act?

How can an act be right or wrong UNLESS there IS a right and wrong?

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

plouiswork wrote:

Kenny wrote:Again; if you were raised to believe the enslaved race is inferior to your race, to mistreat them would be akin to mistreating your dog.

I don't agree, but it is enough for me to see why someone would believe objective morality is necessary to prevent things such as slavery in light of my argument.

How could objective morality prevent something such as slavery? Please explain.

Ken

What kind of slavery are you referring to?

The type where one human being is the legal property of another

Ken

You do realize that some slavery was self -imposed ( indentured servitude) to pay off debt for example.

It is important to make the moral distinction between forced slavery ( chattel slavery) and elective or "prisoner" slavery.

PaulS, I think it is better today is Western societies where we cast people out on the street into the cold and without food, and then turn a blind eye to it all. Such is definitely more compassionate and less barbaric than the social laws suppose to be set in place for Israel.

jlay wrote:

Kenny wrote:

plouiswork wrote: Slavery is one of many things that causes problems for our society. I don't just mean from a utilitarian standpoint of what children born into slavery can accomplish for society. I mean from a psychological perspective of what it does to all citizens, both would-be slave owners and those who are put under subjugation. It fosters the belief that a person is deserving of respect, not for their inner qualities or contributions to society, but for the status of their birth. More importantly, it curbs the development of empathy, limiting it only to those people who are "like me" on both sides of the divide. These psychological effects, of course, have corresponding manifestations in behavior.

If we look at slavery as practiced in the USA during the 18th and 19th centuries, the society practicing slavery saw the primitive people they enslaved as inferior to themselves. They didn’t have the modern POV that all people are equally capable of contributing to society, they felt they were more capable of thinking and controlling, and those they enslaved were only good for working and taking orders. When you dehumanize an entire race of people that way, the psychological effects you spoke of isn’t going to apply to them.

plouiswork wrote: One of the biggest dangers in today's society is the "us vs them" mentality. Small, dedicated groups (such as terrorists) have required our society to heighten security measures and breaches of privacy just to contain this real threat. Slavery would extend this threat to every household in which it's implemented, as slaves have been designated as outside of those with protection of basic rights. What motive do slaves have to cooperate with society if their basic rights are being overruled by the personal preferences of others? The only reliable motive I can see is through the use of force that slave owners have through their power over their slaves, and this behavior has further implications for the issues of domestic abuse and violence within families, to say nothing of the rising resentment of the oppressed.

Again; if you were raised to believe the enslaved race is inferior to your race, to mistreat them would be akin to mistreating your dog.


Ken

Not following this.
Are you saying it is wrong to be raised to believe an enslaved race is inferior?
What you appear to be saying is that the slave holders weren't really wrong, because they believed that slaves were again to a lower animal.
But it seems once again you are smuggling in OM, in saying that the modern view is BETTER. Again you are measuring without grounding any standard of measure.

I was just disagreeing with his claim that slavery causes psychological, (or anything other than moral)problems for those who were enslaving others.

ken

PaulSacramento wrote:
You do realize that some slavery was self -imposed ( indentured servitude) to pay off debt for example.

It is important to make the moral distinction between forced slavery ( chattel slavery) and elective or "prisoner" slavery.

I'm not talking about indentured servants, I'm talking about slavery where you own a person as you would an animal.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:
You do realize that some slavery was self -imposed ( indentured servitude) to pay off debt for example.

It is important to make the moral distinction between forced slavery ( chattel slavery) and elective or "prisoner" slavery.

I'm not talking about indentured servants, I'm talking about slavery where you own a person as you would an animal.

Ken

Ah, good because it is always important to be clear in these matters.
As to your question:

How could objective morality prevent something such as slavery? Please explain.

Objective morals in of themselves can't do anything.
BUT the belief that there is a absolute right and wrong for everyone is the beginning stage from which one can get to the point where slavery is wrong.
Without that, at best, slavery MAY be wrong under certain conditions, ie: it becomes totally subjective and can ONLY be subjective.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:
You do realize that some slavery was self -imposed ( indentured servitude) to pay off debt for example.

It is important to make the moral distinction between forced slavery ( chattel slavery) and elective or "prisoner" slavery.

I'm not talking about indentured servants, I'm talking about slavery where you own a person as you would an animal.

Ken

Ah, good because it is always important to be clear in these matters.
As to your question:

How could objective morality prevent something such as slavery? Please explain.

Objective morals in of themselves can't do anything.
BUT the belief that there is a absolute right and wrong for everyone is the beginning stage from which one can get to the point where slavery is wrong.
Without that, at best, slavery MAY be wrong under certain conditions, ie: it becomes totally subjective and can ONLY be subjective.

Okay I see, and this is one of the reasons I find the belief that morality as objective; frightening. To believe morality is based upon the word of a Deity, God, another being, etc prevents discourse on the specific moral issue. If right and wrong, is determined by what this person says, what happens when this person says something you believe is wrong? Is there a system in place to state your case? I have always believed the truth should always be up for question. But if God’s word is seen as the ultimate truth, then there will be no questions allowed!

To use Slavery as an example, if your God Yahweh says slavery is wrong, that’s fine as long as you agree slavery is wrong; but what happens if someone says his God Ahura Mazda says slavery is good? Sure you can yell till you’re blue in the face and say Ahura Mazda is a false God, and he will yell till he is blue in the face that Yahweh is a false God, and neither of you will get anywhere because the same faith that you have that Yahweh is the moral base is the exact same faith that he uses to determine Ahura Mazda is. And as I’ve said before, the problem with faith is there is no means of establishing the truth!

Objective morality doesn’t solve moral problems, it only kicks the can one step further down the road and prevents discourse on moral issues by saying God said it, I believe it, and that settles it! And that is a frightening attitude to have IMO

Ken

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:
You do realize that some slavery was self -imposed ( indentured servitude) to pay off debt for example.

It is important to make the moral distinction between forced slavery ( chattel slavery) and elective or "prisoner" slavery.

I'm not talking about indentured servants, I'm talking about slavery where you own a person as you would an animal.

Ken

Ah, good because it is always important to be clear in these matters.
As to your question:

How could objective morality prevent something such as slavery? Please explain.

Objective morals in of themselves can't do anything.
BUT the belief that there is a absolute right and wrong for everyone is the beginning stage from which one can get to the point where slavery is wrong.
Without that, at best, slavery MAY be wrong under certain conditions, ie: it becomes totally subjective and can ONLY be subjective.

Okay I see, and this is one of the reasons I find the belief that morality as objective; frightening. To believe morality is based upon the word of a Deity, God, another being, etc prevents discourse on the specific moral issue. If right and wrong, is determined by what this person says, what happens when this person says something you believe is wrong? Is there a system in place to state your case? I have always believed the truth should always be up for question. But if God’s word is seen as the ultimate truth, then there will be no questions allowed!

To use Slavery as an example, if your God Yahweh says slavery is wrong, that’s fine as long as you agree slavery is wrong; but what happens if someone says his God Ahura Mazda says slavery is good? Sure you can yell till you’re blue in the face and say Ahura Mazda is a false God, and he will yell till he is blue in the face that Yahweh is a false God, and neither of you will get anywhere because the same faith that you have that Yahweh is the moral base is the exact same faith that he uses to determine Ahura Mazda is. And as I’ve said before, the problem with faith is there is no means of establishing the truth!

Objective morality doesn’t solve moral problems, it only kicks the can one step further down the road and prevents discourse on moral issues by saying God said it, I believe it, and that settles it! And that is a frightening attitude to have IMO

Ken

Months and months of conversing through countless posts and kenny comes up with that. Just ... wow.