Is teaching religion to kids abuse?

TKDB

@Happy_Killbot

And any Atheist can talk all sorts of lazy smack, about Religious parents are abusing their kids with Religion, just because you think so?

Happy_Killbot

@TKDB Were you abused by religion or not?

MayCaesar

ZeusAres42 said:

So yeah, it depends on what is being taught basically. If for example a child is being taught that female genital mutilation is okay because it's the religion that would come under abuse, also by law in several modern countries including the United States. Furthermore, the right to religious freedom does not entail you the right to do as you please with other human beings, and fortunately, our legal systems now acknowledge this. 

I do not think this correct. Simply teaching a child that female genital mutilation is okay is in no way abuse; it is just a point of view that, in itself, means little. Teaching a child that illegal things are okay is not illegal; doing those illegal things is, however.

I would also add that female genital mutilation is okay, as long as it is consensual. Now, it is pretty weird, and I do not see why anyone would possibly want to go through this - but, in the end, it is people's bodies, and it is not up to anyone to tell them what to do with them.

Granted, one could make the argument that such views cultivated in a society are likely to lead many people down a misguided path, where they hurt themselves unnecessarily in the name of some abstract cultural or religious ideals. Here we again come to the same discussion as the one we are having with @Happy_Killbot in the drug legalisation thread: is the person fully responsible for their choices, or is someone who makes those choices readily available and/or rewarding shares responsibility? This is a complicated question.
I recently watched an interesting documentary about South Korea. They have a pretty oppressive beauty culture, where many young girls go through extensive plastic surgery, simply because looking near-perfect is expected of women there, and one is significantly disadvantaged both on the job market and the social life by having less-than-stellar looks.
A culture in which a similar attitude is cultivated towards female genital mutilation (and there are several such societies in Africa) will push people towards going through that, even if they do not want to, because the downsides of not doing so are too great. At that point, I think, we can talk about the societal abuse - and similarly, I suppose, if parents do not explicitly force their female kid to go through this process, but threaten ostracizion for not doing so, could be considered an act of abuse. But that is a very edge case scenario, not something that happens a lot even in the most authoritarian families.

Regardless, punishing people for simply peacefully instilling values in their children is going well over the board. It would be a different case entirely if they actually forced their children to act on those values. Society should not put its nose in the business of individual families, unless absolutely clear abuse is taking place - and simply having controversial conversations with one's kids cannot be considered such.

ZeusAres42

MayCaesar said:

ZeusAres42 said:

So yeah, it depends on what is being taught basically. If for example a child is being taught that female genital mutilation is okay because it's the religion that would come under abuse, also by law in several modern countries including the United States. Furthermore, the right to religious freedom does not entail you the right to do as you please with other human beings, and fortunately, our legal systems now acknowledge this. 

I do not think this correct. Simply teaching a child that female genital mutilation is okay is in no way abuse; it is just a point of view that, in itself, means little. Teaching a child that illegal things are okay is not illegal; doing those illegal things is, however.

You said quite a bit here and so I will go through more at a later date. What I would just like to make clear for now though is that I never said that simply telling a child that FGM is okay is abuse or the message I conveyed; this is basically nothing more than an epistemic play on words.

Vaulk

No, it's not abuse.  

If you remove Religion from the equation and instead rely solely on a naturalistic explanation of life then you ultimately arrive at the conclusion that there is no such thing as "Right" or "Wrong".  Right and wrong become purely subjective which means they're essentially "I like" and "I don't like".  Right and wrong being subjective means that there's really no definitive answer on whether or not something is abusive because the ultimate answer on whether or not it is would rely on opinion...and evidence suggests that opinion generally varies from person to person.  In this case I suppose you'd have to rely on a majority vote as to whether or not it's abuse and that could end up pretty bad for whoever the alleged victim is.

If you DO rely on Religion as the source of objective morality then you could say with definitive certainty that something is or isn't wrong/abusive.  Kind of a catch 22.

MayCaesar

@Vaulk

Just because "right" and "wrong" are subjective terms, does not mean they are meaningless. Yes, there might not be "right" or "wrong" in the objective sense, but there is still "right" or "wrong" as viewed through the lens of a given individual's world view. And you do not have to rely on a majority vote; you can rely on your own conscientiousness. You can make an argument in support of your position and in condemnation of the actions you deem "wrong", and if the actions seem so wrong to you that they demand an immediate response, then you might want to provide such a response, violent if needed.

You could say that I just justified any possible violence. Well, in some sense, perhaps I did. But whether something is justified or not is a rhetorical question, since, again, it is a purely subjective category. What matters in practical terms is, "Am I willing to tolerate it?" This is what it ultimately comes down to.

Introducing religion into the equation does not change this in any way, since, by the same token, nobody can say that religious morality is the "right" morality, since, again, "right" and "wrong" are subjective categories. And just because someone believes that they follow objective morality, does not make it so. So I would not say that it is a catch 22. Rather, it is some people taking something for what it is not - and also taking something else for nothing, which it is not.

Happy_Killbot

@Vaulk I agree with @MayCaesar on this, and will add that even though I agree that there is no objective "right" or "wrong" there is such a thing as abuse that we can define both for pragmatic purpose and study from an empirical and scientific way.

It can be detected though:

• behavioral changes such as loss of appetite or sudden violence
• restructuring of the brain as detected by an MRI
• physically such as scars or bruises
• emotional withdraw
• social withdraw

Abuse is a real thing, and one method someone might use to abuse someone that is not physical is psychologically and/or emotionally.

In the context of religion, since a great deal of it (especially Abrahamic religions) is fear based, we can determine that it is a type of psychological/emotional manipulation.
"Do this or else" is text-book page 1 manipulation by fear.
 So my question that we are trying to get to the bottom of here, is if it is also abuse when this is done to children who may lack the faculties to see the ridiculousness of it.

TKDB

@smoothie

"Is teaching religion to kids abuse?"

Show me where Child Protective Services, are working to ban Religion in your state, over fears of child abuse, via any childs parents? 

TKDB

@Happy_Killbot

"Is teaching religion to kids abuse?"

Show me where Child Protective Services, are working to ban Religion in your state, over fears of child abuse, via any childs parents? 

TKDB

@ZeusAres42

"Is teaching religion to kids abuse?"

Show me where Child Protective Services in the United Kingdom, are working to ban Religion, over fears of child abuse, via any child's parents?

TKDB

@대왕광개토

"Is teaching religion to kids abuse?"

Show me where Child Protective Services in your country, are working to ban Religion, over fears of child abuse, via any child's parents? 

Please have a fair and equal response other than a thumbs down, or irrelevant?

Because some are trying to condemn religion with child abuse?

Why not just condemn the parents for being bad parents?

Why chastise any Religion for those parents, for choosing to be cruel, or inhumane to their own kids?

대왕광개토

@TKDB Is that all you've got to say after I refuted your bull$hit "Show me any courtroom evidence?" argument?

TKDB

@대왕광개토

Look at that fresh mouth of yours?

"@TKDB Is that all you've got to say after I refuted your bull$hit "Show me any courtroom evidence?" argument?"

Just say you can't answer the below questions?

Show me where Child Protective Services in your country, are working to ban Religion, over fears of child abuse, via any child's parents? 

Please have a fair and equal response other than a thumbs down, or irrelevant?

Because some are trying to condemn religion with child abuse?

Why not just condemn the parents for being bad parents?

Why chastise any Religion for those parents, for choosing to be cruel, or inhumane to their own kids? 

It's OK, you have your Atheist perceptions, and you're just educating the internet, on how you manage your individual perceptions.

You'll be here tomorrow saying the same thing, and just saying things a different way, right?

It's cool

I respect your passion. 

Vaulk

MayCaesar said:

@Vaulk

Just because "right" and "wrong" are subjective terms, does not mean they are meaningless. Yes, there might not be "right" or "wrong" in the objective sense, but there is still "right" or "wrong" as viewed through the lens of a given individual's world view. And you do not have to rely on a majority vote; you can rely on your own conscientiousness. You can make an argument in support of your position and in condemnation of the actions you deem "wrong", and if the actions seem so wrong to you that they demand an immediate response, then you might want to provide such a response, violent if needed.

You could say that I just justified any possible violence. Well, in some sense, perhaps I did. But whether something is justified or not is a rhetorical question, since, again, it is a purely subjective category. What matters in practical terms is, "Am I willing to tolerate it?" This is what it ultimately comes down to.

Introducing religion into the equation does not change this in any way, since, by the same token, nobody can say that religious morality is the "right" morality, since, again, "right" and "wrong" are subjective categories. And just because someone believes that they follow objective morality, does not make it so. So I would not say that it is a catch 22. Rather, it is some people taking something for what it is not - and also taking something else for nothing, which it is not.

Allow me to explain this in a simpler fashion.

John believes that his morality is based upon an objective truth that's established by a supernatural entity.  This truth is summarized as "All Men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights".  Now John can't prove that this is true, instead he's operating on his belief which means the beginning of any moral quandry he has will ultimately begin with his objective truth, that all Men are created equal.  The fact that John has no proof or evidence for his truth does not change the fact that his modus operandi will always be based off of this immovable ideology and anyone who contests his conclusions will have to contend with this fundamental principle.

James however, believes that morality is purely subjective and therefor always changing.  James, like John, cannot prove that his conclusions are based upon what is right or wrong but also has no fundamental principle to rely upon because his principles are subject to change.  Additionally in a world where morality is subjective...James cannot ever develop an expectation for others to adhere to his moral stance because everyone would be entitled to their own sense of morality.  Essentially, James has no basis for his moral stance other than "It's what I think" or "It's what I like" and because everyone has different opinions on right and wrong and everyone has different preferences...it's unlikely that James would find much common ground among other people in regards to morality.  James would also have to contend with the world around him having to respect other countries and nations for their stance on slavery, child sex trafficking, ritual sacrifice...the list of things that one could never say "That's wrong" about would expand exponentially.  Additionally, since morality would be subjective, anything that was previously decided as "Wrong" could eventually become "Right" again.  We could eventually move back into a slavery society within the United States.

Now don't get me wrong, I understand that logical error of claiming "Objective" morality.  It's not truly "Objective" in the sense that it cannot be questioned or challenged, it's objective in that so long as you accept it as a principle...you can successfully begin your moral decisions from a common starting point. Without an immovable starting point...you're always stuck with having to explain the entire basis of morality and therefor nothing is truly right or wrong.

Happy_Killbot

@Vaulk I think your claims about subjective morality are kind of silly, because if everyone has their own view of morality then what is to stop someone from imposing their version of morality onto others, if they believe that is a moral thing to do?

Or put less abstractly, if you see someone being abused and decide it is against your personal views of morality, then it would be right for you to step in and do something about it, because from your personal perspective it isn't alright.

Personally, I believe that morality is subjective, however I can boil it down to just two words:

Informed consent.

Something is moral when all parties involved know what is going on and decide that it is what they want. When anyone is being taken advantage of, this is always the common missing factor in the interaction. This is one reason I think that teaching kids about religion, especially through fear is morally dubious, because a child might not know or will be unable to comprehend that they may be being taken advantage of, lacking all the information to tell them otherwise.

You might argue that if someone is being raped or abused, or any other immoral act is taking place where one or multiple parties did not give consent, then I should not be allowed to do anything about it because presumably the person doing the rape or abuse would not consent to my stopping them. I would say this isn't right, because you could place a value on how informed the consent is, and when someone is not consenting it gets a negative value, so stopping that action will maximize informed consent overall.

ZeusAres42

MayCaesar said:

ZeusAres42 said:

So yeah, it depends on what is being taught basically. If for example a child is being taught that female genital mutilation is okay because it's the religion that would come under abuse, also by law in several modern countries including the United States. Furthermore, the right to religious freedom does not entail you the right to do as you please with other human beings, and fortunately, our legal systems now acknowledge this. 

I do not think this correct. Simply teaching a child that female genital mutilation is okay is in no way abuse; it is just a point of view that, in itself, means little. Teaching a child that illegal things are okay is not illegal; doing those illegal things is, however.

Okay, I had a feeling someone might challenge this bit. Luckily I do have evidence at the ready to support this. Now let's just get one thing straight here. We're not talking about just merely giving a person/child a simple point of view that they think some legal things should not be illegal. We're talking about indoctrinating children that they should cut themselves, and there is legislation that covers this. I know for a fact that if a school teacher in my country did this they would be disciplined, fired, prosecuted and put on a barring list meaning they would never be able to work with children again. This is not that much different than teaching young children that it's okay to have sex with adults.

I would also add that female genital mutilation is okay, as long as it is consensual. Now, it is pretty weird, and I do not see why anyone would possibly want to go through this - but, in the end, it is people's bodies, and it is not up to anyone to tell them what to do with them.

But we're not talking about consensual beings. We're talking about children who are non-consensual whether they think they are or not. I would also add that Adults considering castration seek counseling advice as it's highly likely that they're not of sound mind.

Furthermore, we need to draw the line when it comes to human rights. Human rights are only human rights in so far as they don't conflict with other human rights, and if those rights haven't been revoked because of some illegal action. For example, the right to do as you please with your body does not entail you the right to do so at the expense of others. If we all accept the premise that people should do as they please then we might as well say it's okay for suicidal terrorists to blow themselves, people jump off buildings onto cars, etc. It does seem that from my experience that a lot of people, especially from the western world seem to equivocate rights with privileges and entitlements; that is not what Human Rights is about:

"Human Rights

Basic rights that fundamentally and inherently belong to each individual.

Human rights are freedoms established by custom or international agreement that impose standards of conduct on all nations. Human rights are distinct from civil liberties, which are freedoms established by the law of a particular state and applied by that state in its own jurisdiction.

Specific human rights include the right to personal liberty and Due Process of Law; to freedom of thought, expression, religion, organization, and movement; to freedom from discrimination on the basis of race, religion, age, language, and sex; to basic education; to employment; and to property. Human rights laws have been defined by international conventions, by treaties, and by organizations, particularly the United Nations. These laws prohibit practices such as torture, Slavery, summary execution without trial, and Arbitrary detention or exile."  (https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/human+rights)

Granted, one could make the argument that such views cultivated in a society are likely to lead many people down a misguided path, where they hurt themselves unnecessarily in the name of some abstract cultural or religious ideals. Here we again come to the same discussion as the one we are having with Happy_Killbot in the drug legalisation thread: is the person fully responsible for their choices, or is someone who makes those choices readily available and/or rewarding shares responsibility? This is a complicated question.
I recently watched an interesting documentary about South Korea. They have a pretty oppressive beauty culture, where many young girls go through extensive plastic surgery, simply because looking near-perfect is expected of women there, and one is significantly disadvantaged both on the job market and the social life by having less-than-stellar looks.
A culture in which a similar attitude is cultivated towards female genital mutilation (and there are several such societies in Africa) will push people towards going through that, even if they do not want to, because the downsides of not doing so are too great. At that point, I think, we can talk about the societal abuse - and similarly, I suppose, if parents do not explicitly force their female kid to go through this process, but threaten ostracizion for not doing so, could be considered an act of abuse. But that is a very edge case scenario, not something that happens a lot even in the most authoritarian families.

This bit I agree with up to an extent. I mean I can't comment on the bit I highlighted as I do not know most authoritarian families and what's going on there.

Regardless, punishing people for simply peacefully instilling values in their children is going well over the board. It would be a different case entirely if they actually forced their children to act on those values. Society should not put its nose in the business of individual families, unless absolutely clear abuse is taking place - and simply having controversial conversations with one's kids cannot be considered such.

Again, we're not talking about families instilling values into children. As for controversial discussion with children that depend on many different variables such as the content of the conversation, the age of the child, the context of the discussion and more. What we're talking about here is the harmful indoctrination of minors that lead to psychological, physical, sexual abuse, or any combination of the whole three forms of these kinds of abuse. 

References and Further Reading:

What Is the U.S. Government’s View on FGM/C?

The U.S. Government opposes FGM/C, no matter the type, degree, or severity, and no matter what the motivation for performing it.  The U.S. Government understands that FGM/C may be carried out in accordance with traditional beliefs and as part of adulthood initiation rites.  Nevertheless, the U.S. Government considers FGM/C to be a serious human rights abuse, and a form of gender-based violence and child abuse.
https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/visa-information-resources/fact-sheet-on-female-genital-mutilation-or-cutting.html

Headlines

FGM is a criminal offence. It is a form of violence against women and girls, and in the latter case it is child abuse.All CPS decisions - whether to charge or to advise no further action (NFA) - must be approved by a Director of Legal Services and all cases notified to the DLS Team upon receipt from the police.The Government’s commitment to ending FGM is embedded in the cross-Government Ending Violence against Women and Girls (VAWG) Strategy: 2016 to 2020. The strategy is underpinned by effective partnership working at both a local and national level. The UK Government has signed and ratified the United Nations call to all states to prevent and respond to violence against women: The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW).Prosecutors may find it useful to refer to:  The College of Policing's FGM Authorised Professional PracticeThe CPS Guidance on prosecuting cases of non-sexual child abuseMulti-agency statutory guidance on FGM
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/female-genital-mutilation-prosecution-guidance

The AMA Position:

1. The AMA condemns the practice of any form of female genital mutilation.2. Female genital mutilation is a direct violation of the human rights of any person who is subjected to it, including; the Right to Equality, Freedom from Discrimination, Right to Life and Personal Security, and, Freedom from Torture and Degrading Treatment.23. FGM legislation exists in every Australian jurisdiction. These laws should be continuously monitored to assess effectiveness in preventing FGM.4. Any medical practitioner who engages in the practice of any form of female genital mutilation is guilty of professional and criminal misconduct.5. The AMA recognises the need for increased training and education for doctors in identifying and treating women and girls who have undergone FGM, and recommends the inclusion of FGM training in tertiary medical curricula.6. Programs intended to eliminate the practice of female genital mutilation should be based on engagement with those cultural or ethnic groups who practise it, as well as the education of health professionals and the general community.7. It is a criminal offence to remove a child from Australia, or to assist, whether overtly or tacitly, in such a removal for the purpose of submitting her to any form of female genital mutilation overseas. It is important that the process through which these laws are enforced must be sensitive to the needs of the child affected.8. All possible medical care and support should be offered to victims of female genital mutilation and their families, whilst respecting the privacy and autonomy of individual patients.9. International medical bodies, legislators, judiciary and police should co-operate in eradicating the practice of female genital mutilation world-wide.10. Legislators should work together with medical practitioners to clarify the legal status of female genital cosmetic procedures within the context of the Australian FGM legislative framework.https://ama.com.au/position-statement/female-genital-mutilation-2017

FGM was added to Canada’s Criminal Code in 1997 under Section 268 in the form of “aggravated assault.” Anyone involved in FGM can be charged — parents who willingly participate in or plan for the practice, for example. It is also illegal to take children out of the country to have the practice performed, a concept known as “vacation cutting.”

The Criminal Code indicates that any person who commits aggravated assault could face imprisonment for up to 14 years.https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/fgm-in-canada-2/

In January 1996 the Government made the practice of FGM illegal under an amendment to The Crimes Act (section 204A) 1961. The Act states that it is illegal law to perform “any medical or surgical procedure or mutilation of the vagina or clitoris of any person” for reasons of “culture, religion, custom or practice”.
This means it is against the law to:

circumcise a woman, girl or female babyremove or cut out any part of the female genital areastitch up the female genital areacut the clitoris or part of the clitorisdamage the female genital area in other ways It is against the law to perform FGM even if the woman or girl wants it to be done. What happens if someone performs FGM? If someone performs FGM, they are breaking the law and may be imprisoned for up to seven years. The punishment occurs whether the person performs the procedure, helps, or gets someone else to perform FGM.https://fgm.co.nz/fgm-nz-law/

TKDB

@Happy_Killbot

@ZeusAres42


Atheism, the Epicurus Effect.

Epicurus and his attitude:

"For Epicurus, the purpose of philosophy was to help people attain a happy, tranquil life characterized by ataraxia (peace and freedom from fear) and aponia (the absence of pain). He advocated that people were best able to pursue philosophy by living a self-sufficient life surrounded by friends. He taught that the root of all human neurosis is death denial and the tendency for human beings to assume that death will be horrific and painful, which he claimed causes unnecessary anxiety, selfish self-protective behaviors, and hypocrisy. According to Epicurus, death is the end of both the body and the soul and therefore should not be feared. Epicurus taught that although the gods exist, they have no involvement in human affairs. He taught that people should behave ethically not because the gods punish or reward people for their actions, but because amoral behavior will burden them with guilt and prevent them from attaining ataraxia."

"Though popular, Epicurean teachings were controversial from the beginning. Epicureanism reached the height of its popularity during the late years of the Roman Republic. It died out in late antiquity, subject to hostility from early Christianity. Throughout the Middle Ages Epicurus was popularly, thougodiinaccurately, remembered as a patron of drunkards, and gluttons. His teachings gradually became more widely known in the fifteenth century with the rediscovery of important texts, but his ideas did not become acceptable until the seventeenth century, when the French Catholic priest Pierre Gassendi revived a modified version of them, which was promoted by other writers, including Walter Charleton and Robert Boyle. His influence grew considerably during and after the Enlightenment, profoundly impacting the ideas of major thinkers, including John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, Jeremy Bentham, and Karl Marx."

It would appear that Epicurus, took up an issue with "God's" because it somehow ran against the grain of his individually thought up concepts of "Ataraxia and Aponia?"

Its funny even Epicurus, who wasn't religious, developed an attitude over something that HAD ZERO influences over the way this guy LIVED his life?

So if no God's, were telling HIM how to live his Greek life?

And he's living his life, as he chose to do so, then he didn't have anything to complain about when it came to any God's, now did he?

Vaulk

Happy_Killbot said:

@Vaulk I think your claims about subjective morality are kind of silly, because if everyone has their own view of morality then what is to stop someone from imposing their version of morality onto others, if they believe that is a moral thing to do?

Or put less abstractly, if you see someone being abused and decide it is against your personal views of morality, then it would be right for you to step in and do something about it, because from your personal perspective it isn't alright.

Personally, I believe that morality is subjective, however I can boil it down to just two words:

Informed consent.

Something is moral when all parties involved know what is going on and decide that it is what they want. When anyone is being taken advantage of, this is always the common missing factor in the interaction. This is one reason I think that teaching kids about religion, especially through fear is morally dubious, because a child might not know or will be unable to comprehend that they may be being taken advantage of, lacking all the information to tell them otherwise.

You might argue that if someone is being raped or abused, or any other immoral act is taking place where one or multiple parties did not give consent, then I should not be allowed to do anything about it because presumably the person doing the rape or abuse would not consent to my stopping them. I would say this isn't right, because you could place a value on how informed the consent is, and when someone is not consenting it gets a negative value, so stopping that action will maximize informed consent overall.

So let's use your version of morality then put it into effect for a scenario.

You believe that morality is subjective and that informed consent is the standard by which morality should ultimately be determined.  The issue here is that, because morality must be subjective to each individual, you cannot take part in what the standard for other people's morality should be.  Essentially, I respect the fact that you think that the morality of an action that affects someone else should be determined by taking into account the informed consent of person's involved however, since you're not part of the equation then your subjective morality cannot be applied...are you seeing the dilemma?  

Morality only functions when we have fundamental moral principles that are immovable such as "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".  These fundamental morals serve as the basis for almost all moral issues within the United States and all moral quandries can be addressed starting first with these moral fundamentals.  Below is an example.

Objective Morality
A. Killing another citizen when not under circumstances of self-defense is wrong.
Q. Why is it wrong?
A. Because killing another person when not in self-defense is a violation of that person's right to life.
Q. Why do they have a right to life?
A. Because God established it as an objective moral fact.
Q. Why do we follow what God has said?
A. Because it's what our Nation is built upon.

Subjective Morality
A. Killing another citizen when not under circumstances of self-defense is wrong.
Q. Why is it wrong?
A. Because I think it is.
Q. If I disagree with you, does that make me wrong and you right or you wrong and me right?
A. For you it makes you right, for me it makes me right, so neither of us would be morally incorrect.
Q. Where does that leave the person who did the killing?
A. If they decided it was morally right then they'd be right.
Q. What if I think it's wrong?
A. You weren't involved and therefor your subjective morality cannot be imposed on someone else.

Subjective morality would create a circular problem in which we'd never truly have an answer for moral issues because not everyone will agree one way or another.  With objective morality we have a basis to begin from, something as simple as "Everyone has the right to life" is a fundamental basis of morality...where does it come from?  The answer is in the Declaration of Independence.

Happy_Killbot

@Vaulk Let's forget about objective this, subjective that and just focus on this one rule as a quantum of morality:

Informed consent.

Q: Why is killing wrong?
A: Because the person getting killed doesn't want to be killed and hasn't consented to it.
Q: suppose the person getting killed wants to die, and the other wants to kill them.
A:  Is everyone they know, family, friends, co-workers, insurance provider, etc. okay with this person dying? If, not it is immoral.
Q: If everyone is okay with this person getting killed, then is it okay?
A: yes, then it is, and no one will stop it from happening.

It's cut and dry, no room for error. It's short, simple, and dare I say elegant?

back to morality objective/subjective debate.

The mistake you make when thinking about subjective morality is that you forget to account for other people in your definition of subjective morality. Conversely, we can make the same mistake with regards to objective morality. 

Consider:

A: slavery is acceptable.
Q:  Why isn't it wrong?
A. Because some people are born to be slaves, and others masters.
Q. Why do they not have a right to liberty?
A. Because God established it as an objective moral fact.
Q. Why do we follow what God has said?
A. Because it's what our Nation is built upon.

A similar logic was applied in the US south to justify slavery. If people are not okay with it, then we can't just say it is right to do something because an ancient text told us to.

The US was not really founded on religious values, it was founded on secular humanist values more so than religious ones. Consider we have separation of church and state. Not state-sponsored religion, not state-atheism, secularism. You can have whatever beliefs you want, we won't give you any hassle nor aid, but no fighting other groups.

I understand what you are saying about morality having to be objective, but I still think this is a and dangerous position to hold, because if morality is objective then who defines what it is? The problem is, there is no morality unless humans make it. As far as the universe is concerned, humans are just here. At any time and without warning, a quasar or supernova from across the universe could annihilate us without reason or purpose. So much for our objective morality.

That is why I replace it with "informed consent", because subjective views of morality form an objective conclusion, If two people want something and everyone is okay with it, it is morally sound, even if each person has their own view of what is and isn't moral. The problem you propose for subjective morality vanishes instantly.

In the situation with religious abuse, we see that it can be considered immoral to subdue children through fear, because children will not be informed about what they are being told, so they will have to assume it is true. Thus, scaring kids with stories about hell for bad behavior is immoral.

Vaulk

Happy_Killbot said:

@Vaulk Let's forget about objective this, subjective that and just focus on this one rule as a quantum of morality:

Informed consent.

Q: Why is killing wrong?
A: Because the person getting killed doesn't want to be killed and hasn't consented to it.
Q: suppose the person getting killed wants to die, and the other wants to kill them.
A:  Is everyone they know, family, friends, co-workers, insurance provider, etc. okay with this person dying? If, not it is immoral.
Q: If everyone is okay with this person getting killed, then is it okay?
A: yes, then it is, and no one will stop it from happening.

It's cut and dry, no room for error. It's short, simple, and dare I say elegant?

back to morality objective/subjective debate.

The mistake you make when thinking about subjective morality is that you forget to account for other people in your definition of subjective morality. Conversely, we can make the same mistake with regards to objective morality. 

Consider:

A: slavery is acceptable.
Q:  Why isn't it wrong?
A. Because some people are born to be slaves, and others masters.
Q. Why do they not have a right to liberty?
A. Because God established it as an objective moral fact.
Q. Why do we follow what God has said?
A. Because it's what our Nation is built upon.

A similar logic was applied in the US south to justify slavery. If people are not okay with it, then we can't just say it is right to do something because an ancient text told us to.

The US was not really founded on religious values, it was founded on secular humanist values more so than religious ones. Consider we have separation of church and state. Not state-sponsored religion, not state-atheism, secularism. You can have whatever beliefs you want, we won't give you any hassle nor aid, but no fighting other groups.

I understand what you are saying about morality having to be objective, but I still think this is a and dangerous position to hold, because if morality is objective then who defines what it is? The problem is, there is no morality unless humans make it. As far as the universe is concerned, humans are just here. At any time and without warning, a quasar or supernova from across the universe could annihilate us without reason or purpose. So much for our objective morality.

That is why I replace it with "informed consent", because subjective views of morality form an objective conclusion, If two people want something and everyone is okay with it, it is morally sound, even if each person has their own view of what is and isn't moral. The problem you propose for subjective morality vanishes instantly.

In the situation with religious abuse, we see that it can be considered immoral to subdue children through fear, because children will not be informed about what they are being told, so they will have to assume it is true. Thus, scaring kids with stories about hell for bad behavior is immoral.

The issue with your collective informed consent theory is that if your standard includes that any one person's objection or lack of consent can nullify the morality of the action then inversely any one person's objection to morality can make something that's immoral moral.  Let's use euthanasia as it's closely related to your example:

John's dying of Cancer and it's terminal, the decision to be made is whether or not to allow John to live so that he can continue participating in treatment in hopes of a cure or to euthanize john.  Ten people, including John are involved in the decision, allow to live or euthanize.  John and eight others agree that he should be allowed to live because it's the moral thing to do, one person disagrees and thinks that allowing John to live is immoral because of his terminal status.  Who holds the moral high ground and why?  Remember, any objective standard of a right to life cannot be used here, we must adhere to subjective standards.

Happy_Killbot

@Vaulk In this case the overwhelming majority of people who don't want John to die, including John himself makes it so that he should not be killed, the two others decisions do not overrule his Johns consent to kill himself.

Conversely, if you flip the numbers around and 8 people including John say John should be allowed to die with 2 saying he should live still does not make the decision for John to be euthanized moral.

informed consent still navigates this situation flawlessly, only if everyone including John decide that it is morally right for John to be euthanized makes it morally right. In order to be completely moral, it has to be unanimous.

Dee

@Happy_Killbot

@Vaulk like most Christians will avoid addressing biblical slavery which clearly demonstrates the subjective nature of their morality. Morality as you and I know is ever evolving with society and is influenced directly by that society and it’s moral code, this is clearly demonstrated by societies that fully accept Sharia law as the perfect moral code as it objective in nature as it comes directly from Allah

A lot of what our christian ancestors deemed morally just is now seen as unjust and immoral why? Because morality evolves as does everything under the sun , philosopher Peter Singer makes a very good argument that says ....... things  we find morally acceptable today may be deemed morally reprehensible by future generations say in a 100 years time ......He thinks meat eating will be one such thing something that most laugh at and find ludicrous but his arguments are logically sound ( I’m a fully paid up meat eater)

Happy_Killbot

@Dee You more you analyze morality in terms of historical views of morality, the more it becomes obvious that our sense of morality and what we choose to do in society has more to do with what is mutually beneficial to the people in that society and the society itself.

For example, most ancient cultures oppressed women by expecting them to stay and work in their homes, and raise a family. Not so good if you are a free-thinking woman who wants to have a life of her own, but great for society because uneducated women have more children and at a younger age than educated and employed women, so the effect is that your population grows faster. In modern times where our population is reaching it's carrying capacity, it makes perfect sense to educate women and give them equal rights to men.

No need to invoke morality here, but most people don't like this very scientific argument because of what it implies, that if we had low population problems then educating women would be wrong.

TKDB

@Happy_Killbot

If Religion is such an awful thing, then why harass it with the internet?

Why give it your creative attention, with such a question? 

"Is teaching religion to kids abuse?"

Don't the non Religious, in a sense, globally own the internet, and self legislate through their non religious narratives downplay any Religion as they daily see fit too?

Just like Epicurus did during his heyday?

The most sterile way to beat the snot out of Religion, is through the internet. 

Happy_Killbot

@TKDB If religion wasn't such an terrible thing we wouldn't have to discus it on the internet.

And yes, the internet has significantly hindered religion, having not been evolved to properly handle the free flow of ideas.

If the religious knew what was best for them, they would stay off the internet or stick to strictly moderated sites for Christians.

TKDB

@Happy_Killbot

Does the internet belong to you?

Do you own the patent, or the copyrights for the internet?

"If the religious knew what was best for them, they would stay off the internet or stick to strictly moderated sites for Christians"

So basically debate island belongs to the Atheist movement, that artificially resides within its concept? 

"@TKDB If religion wasn't such an terrible thing we wouldn't have to discus it on the internet."

Please educate the public on the terrible Religious things, that aren't based on some bias Atheist rhetoric? 

Vaulk

Dee said:

@Happy_Killbot

@Vaulk like most Christians will avoid addressing biblical slavery which clearly demonstrates the subjective nature of their morality. Morality as you and I know is ever evolving with society and is influenced directly by that society and it’s moral code, this is clearly demonstrated by societies that fully accept Sharia law as the perfect moral code as it objective in nature as it comes directly from Allah

A lot of what our christian ancestors deemed morally just is now seen as unjust and immoral why? Because morality evolves as does everything under the sun , philosopher Peter Singer makes a very good argument that says ....... things  we find morally acceptable today may be deemed morally reprehensible by future generations say in a 100 years time ......He thinks meat eating will be one such thing something that most laugh at and find ludicrous but his arguments are logically sound ( I’m a fully paid up meat eater)

Any Christian that avoids addressing slavery in the Bible is likely simply too uneducated to speak on it.  It's actually possible to just say "I don't know enough about the topic to form a valid opinion" and leave it at that.

In the case of Slavery in the Bible, it's a matter of translation and cross-referencing that causes that confusion that leads people to believe that God somehow condoned slavery.  This isn't the case.

Example: Depending on which version you're reading you can find several references to Wine in the Bible.  There are cases of people drinking it, it being shared amongst the apostles ect...ect.  There's also reference to something called "Strong drink" and "Fermented Grape Juice".  With cross referencing and careful consideration you can draw the conclusion that everytime there's a mentioning of "Wine" in the Bible...it's not necessarily talking about an alcoholic drink that will mess you up when you drink it.  Something that you must be careful to take note of otherwise you'd be serving a Cabernet at Church on Sunday.

Likewise Slavery deserves careful consideration in the Bible as if you read a simple statement and fail to take into account the context then you can easily shut the book, stand up and announce "God endorses slavery".  You'd be wrong of course but that's what happens when you read without context.  

There are forms of what the Bible refers to as "Slavery" depending on what book you're reading and what chapter.  Slavery in many forms in the Bible was a form of indentured servitude, meaning that you and your wife had no land, no title and no property and would approach a wealthy landholder and enter into a consensual contract to provide him with service.  The servants would live with their benefactor, eat with him, sleep in his lodgings and throughout the day and night would fulfill tasks as provided by him.  Flock tending, mucking, digging, gardening, farming, washing...simple tasks that took little effort or skill would be the traditional work these servants would conduct.  After a period of 10 years or so the benefactor, as agreed upon in their contract, would provide the servants with a plot of land, livestock, building materials and whatever else they needed to start their own life.  In some cases though the servitude was simply a manner of payment for something that was already provided by the benefactor.  Ultimately what I'm explaining is that this wasn't "Slavery" as you and I both know it, indentured servitude was a legitimate bargaining tool for a very long time in the past and in some places is still valid today, but it's not slavery.  There's even scriptures explaining what responsibilities people have to take care of their servants and that if their servants decide to leave...to let them go, that they had no right to hold them against their will but could seek recompense in other ways for the breaking of the servitude contract.

The Bible also talks about Slavery in Egypt.  The Africans at the time were enslaving the Israelites for almost 500 years and THAT was the type of Slavery that you and I both know of.  Africans came in the night and slaughtered the firstborn baby of every household and threw their bodies into the nile to drown and be eaten by crocodiles...THAT's the slavery you're talking about.

Take care when reading the bible not to read 1, 2, 5, or 10 verses and just decide that, because of what you read, something must be true.  The Bible is not a dictionary, you cannot open one page and learn all there is to know in context about any one subject...it's simply not possible.  And if you don't know enough about a subject to explain it to someone else who's never heard of it...then take very special care when speaking about it...else you misinform someone.

Vaulk

Happy_Killbot said:

@Vaulk In this case the overwhelming majority of people who don't want John to die, including John himself makes it so that he should not be killed, the two others decisions do not overrule his Johns consent to kill himself.

Conversely, if you flip the numbers around and 8 people including John say John should be allowed to die with 2 saying he should live still does not make the decision for John to be euthanized moral.

informed consent still navigates this situation flawlessly, only if everyone including John decide that it is morally right for John to be euthanized makes it morally right. In order to be completely moral, it has to be unanimous.

So now we're getting somewhere.  

Unanimous informed consent is the new standard we'll be operating on. 

So in the case of self-defense then.

If John enters James' house to kill him and James refuses to go quietly into the night then he, in turn, kills John in self-defense.

John obviously didn't consent to being killed by James but likewise James didn't consent to John's attempt at his life either.  John is now dead and therefor cannot be consulted with to determine his input on the matter but James also didn't get John's consent prior to his actions so...who's at fault?

John obviously took action against James first, thereby breaking the unanimous informed consent rule first but, by his action did he nullify James' responsibility to obtain unanimous informed consent before acting and if so...is that a uniform rule?

Secondly, since you've added the "Unanimous" requirement in order for something to be completely moral, how does this still comply with morality being subjective?  If unanimous decision is required in order for something to be moral then what happens to each person's individual subjective stance on morality?  Is it irrelevant?

Happy_Killbot

@Vaulk I think you are confusing morality with justice. Justice is not necessarily moral, and it doesn't have to be, it is about retribution for past issues and maintaining order in society.

Informed consent doesn't apply to the past, it only applies to the present and immediate future inside the time frame when the decision is made. You can not apply it to the past because you would have to know everything that lead to a persons consent or non consent to a decision and that is essentially impossible to do for yourself, let alone others.

It is just for James to kill John, but it is not moral. In fact, the second John enters James's home, morality has been violated and can be ignored. At this point, the only thing that matters is power, and who has more of it.

Consider in the context of informed consent, even at the trial there may not be a unanimous decision that James killed in self defense, or if John had killed James John may not consent to going to jail. No matter what morality has been violated and is not relevant. At this point, justice and power reign supreme.

It is self evident that morality is subjective, because no two people believe in the same things as being moral. Some people think eating meat is wrong. Some people will willingly have their genitals mutilated. Others think that killing all people of a particular race is acceptable. What is moral ultimately comes down to what everyone involved decides is morally right and the most moral actions are the ones where everyone is informed and consents to the action.

Objective morality has always seemed like a piece out of authoritarianism, where what is moral and what is just are inseparable, and what is just is defined by the state. So if the state says owning a gun is morally wrong, it is wrong because they say so. In order for morality to be objective, someone needs to set the standard for what is and is not moral, and that will be based on subjective opinion of whoever holds the power. With informed consent as the quantum of morality, this problem evaporates.

An objective conclusion can be reached through subjective opinions. Everyone wins.

Vaulk

@Happy_Killbot

I have no confusion between justice and morality, Morality is simply the principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong and justice is simply behavior or treatment that is aligned with what is morally right and fair.

What I'm seeing here is that you're mistakenly of the opinion that the two (Justice and Morality) have nothing to do with one another or that you can have one without the other as I'm seeing here:

Happy_Killbot said:

@Vaulk I think you are confusing morality with justice. Justice is not necessarily moral, and it doesn't have to be, it is about retribution for past issues and maintaining order in society.

This is where you're wrong.  I'm not sure if this is a simple misunderstanding of what Justice means or if you've concluded that Justice can mean what you want it to mean so long as certain context is applied but never-the-less it has a defined meaning that very much includes moral and fair treatment.  One could try to argue that this is semantics in an attempt to imply that this line of reasoning is petty or irrelevant but semantics being a linguistic and philosophical logic involving language is anything but petty.  We have here an impasse where we cannot move forward until we both agree on what Justice and Morality are.

Happy_Killbot said:

It is just for James to kill John, but it is not moral. In fact, the second John enters James's home, morality has been violated and can be ignored. At this point, the only thing that matters is power, and who has more of it.

Again, we'll have to agree to disagree on when Morality can be ignored.  This would imply that the minute that John enters James' home, James could overpower John, subdue him and then keep him locked up in his basement indefinitely to torture whenever he feels so inclined.  Morality does not dissolve nor can it be ignored simply because someone violated it at some point and attempted to harm you.  This is a excellent demonstration of why subjective morality doesn't work, under it we would give James carte blanche to do whatever he pleases to John for the simple fact that John, at some point, violated Morality against James.  This defies logic and reasoning and further defies Morality as it currently stands.

Happy_Killbot said:

@Vaulk

Objective morality has always seemed like a piece out of authoritarianism, where what is moral and what is just are inseparable, and what is just is defined by the state. So if the state says owning a gun is morally wrong, it is wrong because they say so. In order for morality to be objective, someone needs to set the standard for what is and is not moral, and that will be based on subjective opinion of whoever holds the power. With informed consent as the quantum of morality, this problem evaporates.

The reason it seems like authoritarianism is because it is.  Religion, particularly Christianity, is authoritarianistic in nature.   What is moral and what is just are inseparable under our current system in the United States where we have objective morality.  Your confusion comes from conflating "Law" with what is "Just", which are NOT one and the same.  You're also correct that someone would need to set the standard for what is and is not moral, what you're wrong about is the idea that it can based on the opinion of whoever holds the power.  In the U.S. objective morality is seated with God and documented as such by our Founding Fathers and it just so happens that it was documented at the exact same time that they became "Founders", so it happened at the Founding of our Country.  

Morality and Justice are ideologies, they exist as metaphysical entities and have no physical properties.  Where the rubber meets the road is how we take action in regards to these ideas and that itself may not always be in keeping with the idea itself.  Many horrible things in our world were the result of an incredible idea...that was poorly executed, further enforcing the idea that Morality, Justice and Law are not all the same thing and should not be confused for one another.  Just because a Judge determines that someone should be put to death, that does not mean that Justice is being done, it is instead an action that is intended to serve as justice but still may not be.  This is why objective morality is so important, without it then we wouldn't ever know for sure whether or not something was wrong.  At best we would just "Think" it was wrong.

Dee

@Vaulk

****Any Christian that avoids addressing slavery in the Bible is likely simply too uneducated to speak on it.  It's actually possible to just say "I don't know enough about the topic to form a valid opinion" and leave it at that.

I agree , 

*****In the case of Slavery in the Bible, it's a matter of translation and cross-referencing that causes that confusion that leads people to believe that God somehow condoned slavery.  

It’s actually not , the Bible clearly states one may purchase another human as property and specifically tells how one may  purchase , treat and indeed beat a slave , slavery was a fact of life in biblical times do you reject such? 

Jesus was a man of his times and totally supported slavery and never once spoke out against it 

Where does it say in the Bible that passages and verses must be cross referenced? 

How are the many verses on slavery mistranslated?

****Example: Depending on which version you're reading you can find several references to Wine in the Bible.  There are cases of people drinking it, it being shared amongst the apostles ect...ect.  There's also reference to something called "Strong drink" and "Fermented Grape Juice".  With cross referencing and careful consideration you can draw the conclusion that everytime there's a mentioning of "Wine" in the Bible...it's not necessarily talking about an alcoholic drink that will mess you up when you drink it.  Something that you must be careful to take note of otherwise you'd be serving a Cabernet at Church on Sunday.

Why would your version and interpretation be accepted over others , ax a former Catholic we drank wine as in the blood of Christ wine drinking was accepted in the time of Jesus , theres no harm with taking a drink why do you think it messes you up? 

****Likewise Slavery deserves careful consideration in the Bible as if you read a simple statement and fail to take into account the context 

What is the good context for owning people as property?

****then you can easily shut the book, stand up and announce "God endorses slavery".  

He does as written in the Bible 

****You'd be wrong of course but that's what happens when you read without context.  

It’s the most lame  argument a Christian can make as in you’re out of context , devout Christians of the past used the very verses I’m using to support slavery as you well know , they were taking  the Bible as written people began to see that the owning of people as property was immoral and that’s why christians today rely on the out of context argument as they realise how immoral such is, but yet attempt to defend the gross immorality of their god as written 

****There are forms of what the Bible refers to as "Slavery" depending on what book you're reading and what chapter.  

Yes a Hebrew slave got preferential treatment and the others didn’t 

****Slavery in many forms in the Bible was a form of indentured servitude, 

It certainly wasn’t in the majority of cases , also show me verses where it’s written about indentured servitude?

****meaning that you and your wife had no land, no title and no property and would approach a wealthy landholder and enter into a consensual contract to provide him with service.  The servants would live with their benefactor, eat with him, sleep in his lodgings and throughout the day and night would fulfill tasks as provided by him.  Flock tending, mucking, digging, gardening, farming, washing...simple tasks that took little effort or skill would be the traditional work these servants would conduct.  After a period of 10 years or so the benefactor, as agreed upon in their contract, would provide the servants with a plot of land, livestock, building materials and whatever else they needed to start their own life.  In some cases though the servitude was simply a manner of payment for something that was already provided by the benefactor.  Ultimately what I'm explaining is that this wasn't "Slavery" as you and I both know it, indentured servitude was a legitimate bargaining tool for a very long time in the past and in some places is still valid today, but it's not slavery.  

Again I’m not talking about such and can you point me to the verses that verify the above. Also you’re special pleading and trying to excuse the inexcusable by claiming this was the only type of slavery in the Bible 

****There's even scriptures explaining what responsibilities people have to take care of their servants and that if their servants decide to leave...to let them go, that they had no right to hold them against their will but could seek recompense in other ways for the breaking of the servitude contract.

There are verses also telling that slaves are your property , how one may sell ones daughter and how hard one may beat a slave,you know this right?

****The Bible also talks about Slavery in Egypt.  The Africans at the time were enslaving the Israelites for almost 500 years and THAT was the type of Slavery that you and I both know of.  Africans came in the night and slaughtered the firstborn baby of every household and threw their bodies into the nile to drown and be eaten by crocodiles...THAT's the slavery you're talking about.

I’m actually not

****Take care when reading the bible not to read 1, 2, 5, or 10 verses and just decide that, because of what you read, something must be true.  

You mean without spin

****The Bible is not a dictionary, you cannot open one page and learn all there is to know in context about any one subject...it's simply not possible.  And if you don't know enough about a subject to explain it to someone else who's never heard of it...then take very special care when speaking about it...else you misinform someone.

It’s incredible you totally ignore what’s uncomfortable to you but in fairness understandable , how can you ignore what’s clearly written in Bible?

Rational Wiki 

The Bible identifies different categories of slaves including female Hebrew slaves, male Hebrew slaves, non-Hebrew and hereditary slaves. These were subject to different regulations.

Female Hebrews could be sold by their fathers and enslaved for life (Exodus 21:7-11), but there were some limits to this.

Male Hebrews could sell themselves into slavery for a six-year period to eliminate their debts, after which they might go free. However, if the male slave had been given a wife and had had children with her, they would remain his master's property. They could only stay with their family by becoming permanent slaves (Exodus 21:2-5). Evangelical Christians, especially those who subscribe to Biblical inerrancy, will commonly emphasize this debt bondage and try to minimize the other forms of race-based chattel slavery when attempting to excuse the Bible for endorsing slavery.[citation needed]

Non-Hebrews, on the other hand, could (according to Leviticus 25:44) be subjected to slavery in exactly the way that it is usually understood. The slaves could be bought, sold and (when their owner died) inherited. This, by any standard, is race- or ethnicity-based, and Leviticus 25:44-46 explicitly allows slaves to be bought from foreign nations or foreigners living in Israel. It does say that simply kidnapping Hebrews to enslave them is a crime punishable by death (Deuteronomy 24:7), but no such prohibition exists regarding foreigners. War captives could be made slaves, assuming they had refused to make peace (this applied to women and children — men were simply killed), along with the seizure of all their property (Deuteronomy 20:10-15).

Hereditary slaves were born into slavery and there is no apparent way by which they could obtain their freedom.

So the Bible endorses various types of slavery, see below — though Biblical literalists only want to talk about one version and claim that it wasn't really so bad.

Types of slavery

As previously stated, the Old Testament endorses different types or grades of slavery.

Female Hebrew slaves

There are ambiguous passages concerning whether female Hebrew slaves were to be treated differently from males. Parents could sell their daughters into slavery. (Exodus 21:7-11 NASB)

Happy_Killbot

@Vaulk I think I can prove that justice doesn't have to be moral with a single hypothetical to expose a possible contradiction, which makes this as an assumption invalid.

Assume that justice is always morally right.

Suppose there is a war criminal who carried out a genocide on his own citizens in his own country, where there was a strong national hatred for a particular group. At his trial which is carried out by individuals from the persecuted group, instead of pleading he was just following orders, the man pleads that he had to kill them all in self defense.

If they sentence him to death, then his plea of killing in self defense would have been justified, however if they don't sentence him to death then his plea was not justified. Thus, in order for justice to be served morality must be violated, and in order for morality to be upheld, justice must be violated.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The founding fathers did not set authoritarian rule, they set libertarian rule where everyone is free to do what they please. Rather than set exact laws, they just set principals for freedom and fairness, only removing the rights of others to violate the rights of others. If everyone is 100% free, then some people will inevitably take advantage of others and people end up less free. So what the founding fathers recognized, is that everyone should be treated with the same respect, and we should uphold only punish that which violates the sanctity of others rights. In other words, whenever informed consent has been violated.

On top of this, the founding fathers were secular and followed humanist values more so than strictly Christian ones. God is not a source of objective morality, god is a source of tribalism and close mindedness. This is why there is negative correlation between religiosity and violent crime, areas that are more religious are less moral it would seem.

Authoritarians are the only types of people I can never forgive, anyone who is authoritarian is my mortal enemy, because wherever authoritarianism exists, so does pain and suffering.

Vaulk

@Dee

Dee said:

@Vaulk ;

It’s actually not , the Bible clearly states one may purchase another human as property and specifically tells how one may  purchase , treat and indeed beat a slave , slavery was a fact of life in biblical times do you reject such? 

That's quite a post so I'll try my best to answer and respond to these sequentially.

What you're talking about here is from Leviticus.  The instructions here are not speaking about what you and I consider Slavery and I've made this argument already.  Leviticus is the 3rd book of the Old Testament but in the 2nd Book, Exodus, a specific commandment is made that "Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death".  This should clarify any and all references made in the Old Testament regarding slavery as, under God's law, it was punishable by death to force anyone into slavery.  Now does that mean that no one was forced into slavery?  Of course not, I'm sure it happened all the time but the distinction here is that "According to the Bible" it was not condoned.  Slavery in this sense was of a voluntary nature and was not allowed to be done ruthlessly.  In regards to beating your servants, it's not surprising to see that it was allowed so long as it did not result in any permanent damage that could not be recovered from in a day or two.  This isn't much different that what people were allowed to do with their children at the time and along with the requirement that they couldn't be treated "Ruthlessly".  With all of that said this was also the Old Testament which has since then been abolished, followers of the Bible are called "Christians" because they are in an attempt to behave "Christ like" and Christ was responsible for "The New Testament" with the exception of the Jewish faith and I don't know enough about them to tell you much of the Religion.
 
Essentially, it was a different time and a different land under the rule of Monarchs and even considering the allowance for what you're calling "Slavery" it was never condoned to be done so under forced conditions.  The Bible condoned servitude under voluntary conditions and in some cases the servants were permanent, meaning that they voluntarily entered into an entire life of servitude to whomever purchased their contract whether it be because they owed a debt to someone else or because they simply knew they would never have the ability to be independently prosperous.  There was no United States back then and the world was a very unfair place and had little to no tolerance for unfortunate people with unfortunate circumstances, some people's best option was to willingly enter into a life of servitude to a wealthy land owner and to devote their entire family to it.  

Further for this is the book of Deuteronomy which states “You shall not give up to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. He shall dwell with you, in your midst, in the place that he shall choose within one of your towns, wherever it suits him. You shall not wrong him.”  This is carte blanche for any "Slave" to break contract with his Master and simply leave service.  Exodus states clearly: "But if the slave plainly says,[5] ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children: I will not go out free,’ then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or doorpost. And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall be his slave forever".  This can easily account for why servitude could be indefinite.

The following is from Deuteronomy and in this case, deals specifically with debt slaves, something separate from what I was discussing above.  "If your brother, a Hebrew man or a Hebrew woman, sells himself to you, he shall serve you six years, and in the seventh year you shall let him go free from you. And when you let him go free from you, you shall not let him go empty-handed. You shall furnish him liberally out of your flock, out of your threshing floor, and out of your winepress. As the LORD your God has blessed you, you shall give to him". The Israelite slave was not expected to start over from scratch after he was released from service. Rather, his now former master, who had benefitted from his labor, was to provide him with “liberal” amounts of livestock, grain, and wine, in order to get him back on his feet, as part of Israel’s legal provision for the poor.

Now for Women, “If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master’s and he shall go out alone” (Exod 21:3–4).  This might seem misogynistic in nature but the simple fact is that just because a servant finishes his six year contract with his Master that doesn't give him the right to break another servant's contract simply because he's married to her.  


From your arguments it's clear that you're emotionally driven against slavery as it's written in the Bible.  You've take opportunity to label my arguments as "Lame" and suggested that "Spin" is being used to justify the unjustifiable.  Look I'm not here to tell you what to do, but I might suggest that if you're going to debate with anyone about anything that you approach the debate table with an open mind and mutual respect for the other person you're debating with.  If you enter a debate with the mindset of "I'm going to win" then you've lost already.  The purpose of debate is edification, not beating other people at arguing.  

Dee

@Vaulk

***** .  This is why objective morality is so important, without it then we wouldn't ever know for sure whether or not something was wrong.  At best we would just "Think" it was wrong.

The existence of God is assumed in defining something that already exists (morality); therefore it is a circular argument attempting to show the existence of God in this manner

Also why should anyone accept gods morality is better than an atheists or Satans or another god? You’re special pleading 

Vaulk

Dee said:

@Vaulk

***** .  This is why objective morality is so important, without it then we wouldn't ever know for sure whether or not something was wrong.  At best we would just "Think" it was wrong.

The existence of God is assumed in defining something that already exists (morality); therefore it is a circular argument attempting to show the existence of God in this manner

Also why should anyone accept gods morality is better than an atheists or Satans or another god? You’re special pleading 

The answer to your question is: Because they already do, they just don't realize it or want to realize it.

Happy_Killbot

@Vaulk ""Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death". "

You are actually misrepresenting the bible here a little, what it actually means is that you can't enslave your neighbor, meaning your fellow citizen or someone from your own tribe. It doesn't condemn enslaving someone from another tribe or social group.

Vaulk

Happy_Killbot said:

@Vaulk ""Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death". "

You are actually misrepresenting the bible here a little, what it actually means is that you can't enslave your neighbor, meaning your fellow citizen or someone from your own tribe. It doesn't condemn enslaving someone from another tribe or social group.

You're going to have to provide some context for that, as I've read the texts and it is a list of things that you must not do.  They are in no particular order and I'm not finding anything that limits the rule-set to exclusively include other Israelites or your fellow citizens.  "Anyone who kidnaps "Someone" is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper's possession".  There's going to have to be a reference to "Rules for Israelites" in the context there.

Dee

@Vaulk

****From your arguments it's clear that you're emotionally driven against slavery as it's written in the Bible.  

Emotionally? I don’t know where you get that from but there you go. 

I’m merely pointing out using the Bible that God totally approved of slavery as did Jesus 

****You've take opportunity to label my arguments as "Lame" and suggested that "Spin" is being used to justify the unjustifiable.  

I do think “The out of context defence “ is lame my intention is not to insult you I pointed out where Christians supporters of slavery used these very verses to justify slavery yet you’ve no response why’s that?

Also it’s totally accurate to state you’re using spin as you’ve attempted to justify all biblical slavery under the convenient banner of “ indentured servitude “ so how is my comment unfair? 

****Look I'm not here to tell you what to do, but I might suggest that if you're going to debate with anyone about anything that you approach the debate table with an open mind and mutual respect for the other person you're debating with.  

I actually do have respect for you and am happy you at least are willing to engage in this topic most Christians flee from. My mind is actually quiet open regarding this topic as I used to use the very same reasoning as you when I was a believer but could no longer support it due to so many apparent flaws in the position

****If you enter a debate with the mindset of "I'm going to win" then you've lost already.  

I agree , I care not about winning most opponents tell me gladly that they’ve won and I care not , if you see a flaw in my arguments and prove such I will gladly accept it and acknowledge such 

****The purpose of debate is edification, not beating other people at arguing.  

Again I agree , I have never beaten anyone I enjoy robust debate I make my points after giving them some thought if you want to say you beat me I’m fine with that  

I read your piece and I have just one question , how is it ever moral to own another human as property?

Leviticus 25:44-46 New International Version (NIV)

44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

Happy_Killbot

@Vaulk It's implied in the context of Exodus 21,

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+21&version=NIV

and as a necessity due to considerations from Leviticus 25:44

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+25&version=NIV

Vaulk

@Happy_Killbot

I can get behind the distinction between Irsraelite slaves and slaves of another Nation and there were indeed specific considerations for Israelite slaves but the fact still remains that Exodus 21 starts a list of personal injury rule-sets that include:

Whoever strikes and kills a man must surely be put to death.
But if a man schemes and acts willfully against his neighbor to kill him, you must take him away from My altar to be put to death.
He who strikes his father or mother must surely be put to death.
Whoever kidnaps another man must be put to death, whether he sells him or the man is found in his possession.
Anyone who curses his father or mother must surely be put to death.

The issue with attempting to apply the "Only towards other Israelites" rule here is that you'd have to apply them across the board to foreigners who entered the land and say that the same rules don't apply to them.  Example: A Canan Man enters Israelite territory and kills a Man, the law wouldn't apply to him as he's not an Israelite.

I don't think there's enough evidence to suggest in the least that this rule only applies to Israelites towards other Israelites.

Vaulk

Dee said:

@Vaulk

****From your arguments it's clear that you're emotionally driven against slavery as it's written in the Bible.  

Emotionally? I don’t know where you get that from but there you go. 

I’m merely pointing out using the Bible that God totally approved of slavery as did Jesus 

****You've take opportunity to label my arguments as "Lame" and suggested that "Spin" is being used to justify the unjustifiable.  

I do think “The out of context defence “ is lame my intention is not to insult you I pointed out where Christians supporters of slavery used these very verses to justify slavery yet you’ve no response why’s that?

Also it’s totally accurate to state you’re using spin as you’ve attempted to justify all biblical slavery under the convenient banner of “ indentured servitude “ so how is my comment unfair? 

****Look I'm not here to tell you what to do, but I might suggest that if you're going to debate with anyone about anything that you approach the debate table with an open mind and mutual respect for the other person you're debating with.  

I actually do have respect for you and am happy you at least are willing to engage in this topic most Christians flee from. My mind is actually quiet open regarding this topic as I used to use the very same reasoning as you when I was a believer but could no longer support it due to so many apparent flaws in the position

****If you enter a debate with the mindset of "I'm going to win" then you've lost already.  

I agree , I care not about winning most opponents tell me gladly that they’ve won and I care not , if you see a flaw in my arguments and prove such I will gladly accept it and acknowledge such 

****The purpose of debate is edification, not beating other people at arguing.  

Again I agree , I have never beaten anyone I enjoy robust debate I make my points after giving them some thought if you want to say you beat me I’m fine with that  

I read your piece and I have just one question , how is it ever moral to own another human as property?

Leviticus 25:44-46 New International Version (NIV)

44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

The answer to your question, "How is it ever moral to own another human as property"? is this:

The morality of owning another Human as property depends entirely on whether or not that Human has entered into property status willingly or unwillingly.  If you fell on hard times and decided conscientiously that selling yourself as a servant to an owner who would own you entirely was something that you were willing to do, then who could say that it's wrong?  And if someone DID say it was wrong, who would be wrong in the action?  The person who willingly engaged in the act of selling themselves or the person who willingly purchased?

It seems like you're attempting to put your own moralistic view from 2020 onto a nation of people from B.C., thousands of years ago.  From my perspective, entering willingly into a servitude contract with another person when you always have the option of leaving without retribution is no more morally questionable than a BDSM contract.  The pivotal key is whether or not it's done with consent.

Happy_Killbot

@Vaulk ;Vaulk said:

Dee said:

@Vaulk ;

The answer to your question, "How is it ever moral to own another human as property"? is this:

The morality of owning another Human as property depends entirely on whether or not that Human has entered into property status willingly or unwillingly.  If you fell on hard times and decided conscientiously that selling yourself as a servant to an owner who would own you entirely was something that you were willing to do, then who could say that it's wrong?  And if someone DID say it was wrong, who would be wrong in the action?  The person who willingly engaged in the act of selling themselves or the person who willingly purchased?

It seems like you're attempting to put your own moralistic view from 2020 onto a nation of people from B.C., thousands of years ago.  From my perspective, entering willingly into a servitude contract with another person when you always have the option of leaving without retribution is no more morally questionable than a BDSM contract.  The pivotal key is whether or not it's done with consent.

Kind of sounds like "informed consent" is starting to grow on you isn't it?

This whole discussion about the nature of morality, while well and good has gone pretty far off into the weeds. We are supposed to be talking about if scaring kids through religion is abuse or not.

Vaulk

@Happy_Killbot

The informed consent rule is not a blanket answer for morality but it does apply in this specific case as servitude isn't inherently immoral.  The question was "How is it ever moral to own another human" and in this case the answer is "When it's consensual".  This however isn't based on subjective morality but instead is based on the presumption of "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" which is an objective moral standard established by the DOI in the United States as a fundamental moral principle.

Additionally, the discussion is still about whether or not religious indoctrination is child abuse, we're merely on a specific subject of Religion and whether or not that particular case could qualify as being the reason you shouldn't teach religion to kids.  The specific argument was "Slavery is incompatible with Morals and therefor Religion shouldn't be taught to kids".

Happy_Killbot

@Vaulk There is a contradiction in your premise. If something has to be consensual to be moral, but there is such a thing as objective morality, then consent shouldn't matter.

In other words, something can be moral without consent, and I just don't see this as ever being the case.

What you do and do not consent to is subjective, not everyone will consent to the same things, likewise everyone will have their own view of what is and is not moral, but only when there is agreement on moral dilemmas can anyone say that right thing is being done.

Religion is ironically, the best example of this in practice. Even within a particular religion there are so many sects and denominations, each of which has their own unique interpretation of what is right and wrong, despite all being based on the same book. I think the argument: "Slavery is incompatible with Morals and therefor Religion shouldn't be taught to kids". is not a good one, a better argument would be: "The bible had been used to justify slavery in the US south, a position most Christians no longer agree with. Therefore the Christians treat morality as subjective, so teaching the bible to kids can not be a solid moral framework"

I don't think I should have to point out that most people go to the religion that most fits with their own moral values, and this usually coincides with the religion they were raised with. However when people convert to a different religion, they typically choose one that makes them feel a certain way. I can't see anyone who isn't incredibly hateful and bigoted becoming a Westbouro Baptist. Speaking of which, would you ever defend them as being morally sound? This is very strong evidence that morality is subjective, religion isn't always moral, and raising kids in this kind of environment is abuse.

Dee

@Vaulk

I asked ........ Also why should anyone accept gods morality is better than an atheists or Satans or another god? You’re special pleading 


*****The answer to your question is: Because they already do, they just don't realize it or want to realize it.

Right so again you introduce yet another circular argument in an attempt to justify a circular argument

Dee

@Vaulk

Leviticus 25:44-46 New International Version (NIV)

44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

*****The answer to your question, "How is it ever moral to own another human as property"? is this:

The morality of owning another Human as property depends entirely on whether or not that Human has entered into property status willingly or unwillingly. 

Right , so how are people purchased and sold as slaves to be inherited by family “entering into property status willingly”?

**** If you fell on hard times and decided conscientiously that selling yourself as a servant to an owner who would own you entirely was something that you were willing to do, then who could say that it's wrong?

Well I put it to you this way I personally would refuse to own a fellow human as property, why not give them employment?

  ****And if someone DID say it was wrong, who would be wrong in the action?  

Well if I gave them employment instead of bondage as a slave I’m saying it’s wrong

****The person who willingly engaged in the act of selling themselves or the person who willingly purchased?

Such a person is in a state of desperation to agree to enslave them is to take advantage of them , it’s quiet startling to hear a Christian defend slavery 

****It seems like you're attempting to put your own moralistic view from 2020 onto a nation of people from B.C., thousands of years ago. 

 

You’re changing your line of attack now and you’re now by implication at last admitting biblical slavery was a thing by this statement above , reputable historians agree slavery in all its savagery existed in biblical times. I’m addressing the thrust of one of your main arguments regarding objective morality and you claiming your god is the source of such , your god totally approved of slavery the supporting bible verses prove this is indeed the case and your ancestors as in American Christians used these very verses to justify such something you failed to address , what your basically saying is god changed his mind regarding slavery right? 

So slavery is right if god says it’s right if he says it’s wrong now how is that objective morality?

***** From my perspective, entering willingly into a servitude contract with another person when you always have the option of leaving without retribution is no more morally questionable than a BDSM contract.  The pivotal key is whether or not it's done with consent.

Right so according to the Bible verse below this is an example of women “willingly entering servitude”?

It’s remarkable you’re using the very same reasoning as Christian plantation owners did in the Deep South and the tragedy is you know it but won’t admit it why’s that?


When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are.  If she

does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again.  But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her.  And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter.  If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife.  If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

Dee

@Happy_Killbot

*** "Slavery is incompatible with Morals and therefor Religion shouldn't be taught to kids". is not a good one, a better argument would be: "The bible had been used to justify slavery in the US south, a position most Christians no longer agree with. Therefore the Christians treat morality as subjective, so teaching the bible to kids can not be a solid moral framework"

Yes , it’s not the main argument but it’s important , a book that clearly states owning people as property is immoral and is a mortal blow to the Christians view of objective morality as in if god says it’s ok to enslave others that right and moral as Christian plantation owners acknowledged,  if god says it’s wrong it’s wrong hows that objective morality? 

***I can't see anyone who isn't incredibly hateful and bigoted becoming a Westbouro Baptist

I’m reading a book about them at the moment and my contention is that they are model Christians as in they are doing and acting in the exact way the Bible commands as are ISIS regards the Quran actually both are adhering rigidly to what their sacred books instruct 

Vaulk

Happy_Killbot said:

@Vaulk There is a contradiction in your premise. If something has to be consensual to be moral, but there is such a thing as objective morality, then consent shouldn't matter.

In other words, something can be moral without consent, and I just don't see this as ever being the case.

What you do and do not consent to is subjective, not everyone will consent to the same things, likewise everyone will have their own view of what is and is not moral, but only when there is agreement on moral dilemmas can anyone say that right thing is being done.

Religion is ironically, the best example of this in practice. Even within a particular religion there are so many sects and denominations, each of which has their own unique interpretation of what is right and wrong, despite all being based on the same book. I think the argument: "Slavery is incompatible with Morals and therefor Religion shouldn't be taught to kids". is not a good one, a better argument would be: "The bible had been used to justify slavery in the US south, a position most Christians no longer agree with. Therefore the Christians treat morality as subjective, so teaching the bible to kids can not be a solid moral framework"

I don't think I should have to point out that most people go to the religion that most fits with their own moral values, and this usually coincides with the religion they were raised with. However when people convert to a different religion, they typically choose one that makes them feel a certain way. I can't see anyone who isn't incredibly hateful and bigoted becoming a Westbouro Baptist. Speaking of which, would you ever defend them as being morally sound? This is very strong evidence that morality is subjective, religion isn't always moral, and raising kids in this kind of environment is abuse.

No, in the particular case of "Slavery" as mentioned in the Bible, consent is the ruling factor because the Bible says it's the ruling factor...not because consent equals morality.  The Bible states clearly that "Anyone" who takes another person and keeps them against their will shall be put to death.  This is the Bible itself establishing the difference between objective morality and objective immorality.

I disagree that only when there is an agreement on moral dilemmas can anyone say that right is being done.  If you rely on objective morality, the basis (Not code) for the United States' legal framework, then you do not need agreement between all parties to settle a moral dilemma.  Disagreement does not equate immorality and I can site literally hundreds of scenarios where a person refusing to agree could not possible make something immoral.

You and I have common ground in the understanding that there are literally thousands of sects or denominations to be more specific of Christianity and that people generally choose which one to follow based on their personal moral framework.  This does usually coincide with what they were raised with and convertine generally does happen because of another Religion's closer alignment with their own personal feelings.  No I wouldn't defend Westbouro Baptists just on the little I know of them.  

To clarify some of this, being a Christian doesn't make you perfect.  The argument "Well he's a Christian and he killed 30 people so Christians are Evil" is flawed in that it assumes that being a Christian is alleged to make you a perfect person.  No one is perfect, no one can be perfect, the objective of being a Christian isn't to be perfect, flawless or without error.  The objective of a Christian is to make a valid effort to be better.  Does that mean that Christians won't do bad things?  Of course not, there are just as many if not more bad Christians in the World as there are good ones.  There's also no end to the list of people who have taken the Bible and used it as an excuse or justification to do horrible things, the Bible is a very powerful source of influence and just like the Quran, the Torrah, Tripitakas, Veda, Guru Granth Sahib...it can be used to influence others to do Good or Evil.  

But take that into consideration, if someone reads the Bible, even if they read it from cover to cover, and they determine that their best course of action is to justify their bloodlust to kill innocent people...does that mean the Bible is Evil or immoral?  Simply put, no.  How you use information is on you.  Christians are bound to follow the New Testament and there's nothing in the New Testament that will lead you to do something immoral.  Is it possible to misinterpret anything?  Yes.  That applies to the Bible too.

YeshuaBought

I disagree with you, and know that religious parents have the right to raise their children in accordance with their faith. My father was an anti-theist and had no respect for my rights. he caught me reading the Bible one time, and yelled at me. i was 12 years old. i do love him, but I have the right to seek god.

Happy_Killbot

@Vaulk I feel like I have already had this conversation with you about slavery and the bible, but I can't remember if it was with someone else or not.

Anyways, long story short the bible doesn't forbid slavery and the passages about putting people to death for taking a slave only pertains to other Israelites, meaning slaves can only be from other tribes/cities. 

Christianity is not the basis of the US legal framework, arguably humanist values had a larger influence, and at any rate objective moral principals derived from the bible violates separation of church and state so it is therefore unconstitutional. This is of course deliberate, because objective morality is incompatible with democracy. Why is fairly easy to see when you recognize all the fighting among Christian groups in the early colonial US. If a government has to be based on objective moral principals, then we have to decide which set of morals to use. If in time changes in culture and/or technology make said principals outdated or obsolete, then change is not possible, thus no progress can ever be made, which puts you at a disadvantage to countries that have subjective principals and can adapt and change. This is why so many highly religious countries are so underdeveloped.

I agree the argument "Well he's a Christian and he killed 30 people so Christians are Evil" is an over generalization, but this would not excuse statistically true phenomena, if 10% of Christians did that, then treating Christians with caution is probably a good idea, and if they do that because a holy book that they believe embodies objective truth told them to, that would be a problem, even if the other 90% interpreted it to mean something benign.

If reading the bible can not make you a good moral person because it could be used to justify evil behavior then the point of these points that got brought up is that the argument "Teaching religion to kids gives them a moral framework" is invalid, because it would then rely on the kid already being moral in order to make them moral... not a very good argument.