Original Sin and...

[_subgenius]

Keep propping up strawmen sub. One day someone may buy into your schtick if you repeat yourself enough.

the quote is accurate and your deflection is off-target.

[_SteelHead]

Sub,
Wasn't slavery just fine by the god of the old testament? Where is your universal moral?

[_Bazooka]

Sub,
Wasn't slavery just fine by the god of the old testament? Where is your universal moral?

Slavery was also fine by the Utah Legislature...

Slavery in Utah had the weight of law behind it. In 1852, the Utah territorial legislature passed legislation that allowed ownership of human being. Called, "An Act in Relation to Service," it detailed the rights and obligations of "master or mistress" to "servants of the African race."

[_SteelHead]

God, it seems, is a moral relativist.

[_Themis]

Just so we are all clear...are you confirming that:
1. Something viewed as good in the past which is today viewed as bad can never be viewed as good again
or
2.Something viewed as good in the past which is today viewed as bad can be viewed as good again

Obviously 2. People can change their minds as can groups. If they can change their minds then moral codes can change as well. Morals are not some universal law like gravity.

"Some things that were considered good in the past no longer are. Slavery is a good example." - Themis
viewtopic.php?p=708496#p708496
interesting this almost sounds as if you mean to say that slavery is now "universally" bad...which of course we know you do not believe.

Sorry but you have to be very stupid to get that from what I said.

"Change to moral codes are done when a group may see that something should now be considered bad or good. Again slavery is a great example." - Themis
viewtopic.php?p=708575#p708575

So, by your own argument, is it possible for slavery to be viewed, in the future, as being good...even though today it is being viewed as bad?

It as possible as it is for people to change their minds. I hope people would not, but I cannot say they won't in any absolute way.

[_Themis]

Steelhead (not Bazooka or Drifting) got his hat handed to him on this claim, let us see if you are willing to lose the same way.

You know it's the mentality of a ten year old to claim victory like you do.

You say the claim that "survival is the ultimate moral"....prove it...without that moral being transcendent nor universal...after all, that is your position is it not?

Anything I say you will just dismiss and then like the ten year old just assert you win. What I mean by ultimate moral just means that survival is generally the most important instinct we have. This does not mean we don't have people who commit suicide or that sacrifice themselves for the group. If someone does sacrifice themselves for the group it is also related to the survival of the group. That some do commit suicide is just another fact that there is no universal law regarding morality.

survival cannot be an ultimate moral at all...according to you it might be a moral that one group decides "works" today...but they may well have considered it "bad" years ago.

Ultimate is only being used to describe importance. It is not to be confused with your incorrect idea of universal, eternal, absolute. If a group were to consider it bad then I doubt they will survive very long.

[_Themis]

For example, you know it is bad...you can argue otherwise but your knowledge of it being bad remains.
So, another person who practices slavery merely chooses otherwise...they know it is bad, but they choose to participate anyway....and there could be many reasons to justify their behavior...but the behavior is intrinsically bad.

You have not established that another person knows it is wrong. Maybe you should start with proving this. A person who grows up having slaves in his family is going to be taught it is good.

History and tradition has supported this notion as well...the record of slavery has always reflected its practice as being bad...even when the captor endorsed it, the captive did not.

Prove that captors have always viewed it is bad.

The preponderance of evidence, historical records, common sense, anecdotes, and logic all favor the conclusion of slavery being intrinsically bad.
Your position is unlikely, absurd, and improbable.

You haven't provided any evidence. Again prove this. Even the Bible doesn't support you.

[_Themis]

The unfortunate thing about slavery is that groups have used it to provide a lot of prosperity for themselves.

[_Bazooka]

The unfortunate thing about slavery is that groups have used it to provide a lot of prosperity for themselves.

Slavery is still happening today:

On the 150th anniversary of when President Lincoln issued the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, which set the date for the freedom of more than 3 million enslaved Americans, President Obama called for the end of modern day slavery. The president’s historical speech delivered at the Clinton Global Initiative, called for major policy changes, at home and abroad, to combat the enslavement of millions of women, men and children.
Many of the slaves today are girls. Born in America. Hidden in plain view.
They are the lost girls, standing around bus stops, hanging out by runaway youth shelters, or advertised online. At the Motel 8 or the Marriott, at McDonalds or the clubs.
According to the FBI, there are currently an estimated 293,000 American children at risk of being exploited and trafficked for sex. Forty percent of all human trafficking cases opened for investigation between January 2008 and June 2010 were for the sexual trafficking of a child. And while the term trafficking may conjure images of desperate illegal immigrants being forced into prostitution by human smugglers, 83 percent of victims in confirmed sex trafficking cases in this country were American citizens.
The majority of these children being sold for sex are girls between the ages of 12 and 14. They are girls abducted or lured by traffickers and then routinely raped, beaten into submission, and sometimes even branded. When the girls try to run away, their traffickers torture and or gang rape them.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/10 ... ?mobile=nc

It is clear that some people still find slavery as "good" in that it provides them with an income even though it is harmful to others.
Other people, also find it to be "good" because they buy the services these modern day slaves are offered for.

[_subgenius]

It is clear that some people still find slavery as "good" in that it provides them with an income even though it is harmful to others.
Other people, also find it to be "good" because they buy the services these modern day slaves are offered for.

actually it is not clear, and your conclusion contradicts your own philosophy.
First
your conclusion here assumes that people will only behave in a manner that they perceive as being "good" - correct?
I would counter your assumption with the notion that people are capable of, and do, behave in a manner that they perceive, or even know, as "bad".
what say you?

Second
your philosophy on this matter seems to echo the notion that morality is whatever you make of it..that good and bad are merely "flavors" for any particular group or individual...at which case the idea that slavery is good or bad is irrelevant...it is rather like you presenting an argument over the taste of chocolate.
Eventually your argument relies on violence for resolution...one can say, if you do not like the taste of chocolate then do not buy it...but what if someone insists that you buy it? that you eat it?....are you "right" in resisting? are they "bad" for imposing upon you?...if ultimately you are justified by believing whatever you want as being good then behaving however you "like" must be acceptable.
But what if the "majority" disagrees with you?......what if the majority insists that you eat the chocolate, that you savor the flavor, of which you truly despise?
Like i stated before, that position has no cohesive argument for, or against, morality...the honest atheist is amoral.