Our beliefs about "right" and "wrong" determine the social conventions and are not determined by the social conventions.
Such as our belief that "slavery" is wrong. This belief is not produced by social convention, but rather the social convention is produced from the belief.
For evidence that morality evolves and that religion is an (often deleterious) overlay, consider the Bible positions on any number of moral questions -- that today would be primitive and beneath even D. J. Trump:
> there are no passages on slavery that condemn the practice; just the opposite, there are verses giving the faithful the right to chattel slavery, to pass the slaves down to future generations, and to beat the living hell out of them
> death penalties for sassy teenage boys, for brides who can't demonstrate their virginity, for people working on the sabbath, for promoting a different god, for carrying on a Rudy Guiliani-style affair on one's spouse, for being gay, for touching or looking into a holy wooden box, for bitching about your monotonous diet....(catching my breath)
> genocide is portrayed as a heroic endeavor (see the entire book of Joshua), which makes bible god the most racist of deities (or maybe just hitting the standard of most tribal gods -- wouldn't want to overstate)
> rape of female war captives -- it's your right; do it
> eternal suffering (as the prince o' peace puts it, the wailing and gnashing of teeth) for anyone who didn't catch the correct dogma within a microsecond of expiring -- note the eternal, which means this moral teaching prescribes torment with no possible redeeming or transformative value...
I just realized that my final example is actually not considered primitive by most Christians today -- it's the norm. That's one that will have to evolve, although, because it's imaginary, it will be pointless in the end. People reject it when they conclude that deities are imaginary (although of course it did have real-world consequences when tribunals of the Dark Ages were torturing and executing heretics with the pretense of sparing them the hellfire.)
"morality evolves"?
You mean that it improves? that it gets better? What does that mean? What's better about it today, 2000 AD, than 50,000 years ago?
"religion is an (often deleterious) overlay"?
What's that? "deleterious"? something bad? How do you decide what is "deleterious"? Can you prove that it's "deleterious" to someone who has different feelings than yours?
. . . consider the Bible positions on any number of moral questions -- that today would be primitive and beneath even D. J. Trump:
Is it bad or wrong to be "primitive"? or "beneath" Trump? Is it right to be above and wrong to be "beneath"?
> there are no passages on slavery that condemn the practice; just the opposite, there are verses giving the faithful the right to chattel slavery, to pass the slaves down to future generations, and to beat the living hell out of them
Is it wrong that there are no such passages condemning it? Should it be condemned? Why? Is there something "wrong" or "evil" about slavery? How do you know? Are you just parroting back what you were programmed to parrot?
> death penalties for sassy teenage boys, for brides who can't demonstrate their virginity, for people working on the sabbath, for promoting a different god, for carrying on a Rudy Guiliani-style affair on one's spouse, for being gay, for touching or looking into a holy wooden box, for bitching about your monotonous diet....(catching my breath)
> genocide is portrayed as a heroic endeavor (see the entire book of Joshua), which makes bible god the most racist of deities (or maybe just hitting the standard of most tribal gods -- wouldn't want to overstate)
> rape of female war captives -- it's your right; do it
Are you saying it's NOT your right? or was not? How do you decide what is your right? Are you making moral judgments about the above items in your list? condemning those practices? saying there's something wrong about murder, racism, and rape? How have you decided these are wrong or bad?
> eternal suffering (as the prince o' peace puts it, the wailing and gnashing of teeth) for anyone who didn't catch the correct dogma within a microsecond of expiring -- note the eternal, which means this moral teaching prescribes torment with no possible redeeming or transformative value...
What do you mean by "redeeming or transformative value"? Is that something good? How do you know? Why do you think it's good? If someone said those are bad rather than good, would they be wrong?
I just realized that my final example is actually not considered primitive by most Christians today -- it's the norm. That's one that will have to evolve, although, because it's imaginary, it will be pointless in the end. People reject it when they conclude that deities are imaginary (although of course it did have real-world consequences when tribunals of the Dark Ages were torturing and executing heretics with the pretense of sparing them the hellfire.)
Were those consequences good or bad? Was it wrong for them to torture and execute the heretics?
Is "pretense" wrong?
What is your judgmentalism based on? Is there a standard or rule for good and bad behavior which entitles you to condemn the above and pass judgment on those who think or feel differently than you and thus do (or did) these things you're condemning here?
I know you think you are asking clever questions that point out the flaws in ideologyhunter's argument;
Then why don't you be clever and answer the questions. What is "deleterious" about religion? Is this judgmental? Does it mean something bad? Is this judgmentalism based on subjective values which ideologyhunter inherited from his culture and which are thus arbitrary?
. . . but you are really not.
But you ARE being clever by telling me I'm not supposed to ask him what he meant?
I'm only asking what he meant by saying something was "deleterious." It's wrong to ask that question? Are you trying to shelter ideologyhunter from being confronted with this question? You think he can't handle it? or shouldn't have to? Like a younger child can't handle an older child teasing him for believing in Santa Claus?
Morality is determined by culture.
Meaning we have no control over what we think is "moral" or "good" or "evil" or "deleterious" etc.? because any statement we make about it was programmed into us without our having made the choice to adopt the morality?
So in other words you're saying ideologyhunter can't be expected to explain what "deleterious" means because this is determined by his "culture," and he is only programmed by his culture to use this word without knowing what it means or being able to explain why something is "deleterious"? But rather, he just burps this out like a spontaneous chemical reaction he has no control over? because no one can explain why they make any judgments about anything, as these are nothing but outbursts from us which are automatic and without any explanation other than the programming over which we have no control?
How do you explain the misfits who reject the moralistic judgments of someone in their culture and disagree that something is "evil" or "good" or "deleterious"? If they're within the same culture, how can it be that they don't make the same moral judgments?
There's no objective reason for anyone within the culture to adopt that morality or practice it if they don't feel like it, is there? And so it's really pointless to ever tell someone their act is "immoral" or "deleterious" because this means nothing to those who don't have the same feeling about it and thus don't care whether you call it this word that means nothing to them but is only a subjective outburst from you.
So then what's the point of telling anyone that something is "wrong" or "evil" or "good" or "deleterious" etc.? If they don't already have the same subjective feeling about it, there's obviously no way to prove them wrong. Are you saying they are wrong because they are REQUIRED to accept the morality dictated by their culture? But who says which morality is the real one dictated by the culture? Do you take a vote, and the majority rules and forces the 49% to adopt the morality that won the popular vote?
It should go without saying that people subscribe to the morality of the culture in which they are raised.
But some do NOT subscribe to it.
And those who do subscribe to it
make the CHOICE to subscribe to it. They make this choice for reasons, AND, they also
reject some of the standard morality, don't they? This acceptance and sometimes rejection is a result of our choosing, and we have reasons for these choices. Which means we INDIVIDUALLY are choosing the morality, and when we accept the morality of the culture, it is an individual choice. And so we must explain why this is "good" and that is "bad" etc., and saying it's a "social norm" is no answer.
Ideologyhunter is not saying that slavery is objectively wrong.
He strongly rejects slavery as objectively wrong, even if he doesn't
say it explicitly. He thinks IT MATTERS whether slavery is practiced, whereas if this was just some arbitrary subjective feeling he had about slavery, he would not think it matters whether slavery is practiced in some places. But he DOES think it matters. He is offended at the Bible writers for not condemning slavery. If he is not offended by it, then why does he even bring it up? If slavery does not matter, then why mention it? What is the point of mentioning something, and foaming at the mouth about it, if it's only something subjective which doesn't matter?
He is saying that we all agree that it is - because we are all a part of a 21st Century developed world culture in which that is one of the tenets.
No, that's NOT why we agree that it's wrong. We agree that slavery is objectively wrong because slavery produces net harm, a reduction of desire gratification, or net deprivation, and a net increase of suffering in the universe to all creatures (i.e., factoring in all creatures, not meaning that all creatures are harmed each time slavery happens). That's why it's objectively wrong.
But if it's only a subjective feeling, then there's no reason for us to "agree" that it's wrong -- i.e., if this judgment comes only from an arbitrary "social convention" and without any importance that can be shown to have an "evil" impact on us or leading to harm which can be demonstrated like empirical facts can be demonstrated.
So "we all agree" that its "wrong" just as we make judgments about disease and famine or climate disasters as something causing harm and needing to be responded to and/or prevented where possible, i.e., objectively harmful, not because our culture arbitrarily puts these feelings into our heads, but because there is pain or suffering, which is recognized as something existing in the world objectively, as empirical fact and requiring some corrective action.
We "agree" and do something about it just like we take corrective action to replace a light bulb or plug a leaky roof -- it's to prevent a harm, or create a benefit, not based on any social convention but on empirical observation and a utilitarian response, determined by us individually, not by culture.
If you had a time machine and travelled back to the 1st Century Middle East, you would find that everyone there would think you were an evil person if you went about freeing other men's slaves.
Probably most would, but not everyone. In many cases it would be a good thing to do, and those who say it's evil would be wrong. But perhaps it would have been wrong, in some or most cases, to free slaves at that time and place. It might have led to harmful consequences. It's difficult to make that calculation. Definitely it would have been right to do it in some cases, and those who thought otherwise would have been wrong.
It is more certain that slavery today is wrong, or would be, than that it was wrong 2000 years ago. But that doesn't mean it wasn't also wrong back then. It's just more complicated. Judging what is "right" or "wrong" is often complicated rather than simple.
But it would have been good to start an emancipation movement back then and try to change the thinking. Probably also to release slaves in some cases, even illegally, but not in all cases.
You would be considered to be stealing their lawful property.
It would have been illegal at that time and place. But even so it would have been right in some cases. Some "property" rules are wrong and should be violated, or at least changed. We always have to calculate the total costs and benefits in each case.
Your objection is based on your failure to believe that people disagree with you.
No, it's based on your (or ideologyhunter's) inability to explain what "deleterious" means without contradicting yourself. Define this word without making reference to the "culture" that programs the values into us. Say what it means without saying "'deleterious' means whatever society programs us to think is 'deleterious'" -- your inability to do this is the problem. I.e., to use a word as if it means something, but then saying, "Oh it means whatever social custom programs us to attach to that word, and it's not fair to ask someone what it means, because it's not their fault that society programmed them to use this word in this way."
This is particularly ironic in this context.
That morality is subjective does NOT imply that people from similar circumstances disagree about it.
It implies that when they do disagree, neither can prove the other wrong. So, you can't prove it's wrong to torture someone, to commit genocide, etc. You can't say the Nazis were wrong to murder Jews, but only that it violated an arbitrary social norm you choose to follow but which others reject, and their reasons for rejecting it are just as logical and legitimate as your reasons for adopting it, and you can give no reason why they should change their thinking and adopt yours instead.
But that morality is OBJECTIVE means
there are reasons why it was wrong to murder or torture, regardless of one's social programming, and thus there are reasons why those who committed such crimes should have changed their thinking and adopted different rules of behavior, even why they should have rejected any "social norms" which drove them to do those acts.
But you disagree and think there was no reason for the murderers and torturers to change their minds and behave differently. And if you could have communicated with them, you would have had nothing to say to them to persuade them to think differently.
You and Ideologyhunter agree on what is moral, because you share a culture.
No, both of us reject some elements in the culture, as you do. It's not true that everyone automatically falls into line and submits to every "social norm" in the culture. We accept much of it because we see there are reasons to accept it and follow it. So we choose to accept what is moral based on reason, conforming to the culture when it appears to be right in its norms.
(This is not to deny that there is also blind acceptance of some norms due to conditioning. But that conditioning can be challenged, and no one can base their decisions/actions on claims that their social conditioning caused them to do it.)
NOT because you both base your morality on some mythical objective set of rules.
So you're saying if we had been born in Nazi Germany we would have eagerly agreed to murdering and torturing Jews because the culture planted that value into our minds and we would not have been capable of questioning that value.
No, your axiom that everyone automatically submits to the cultural norms without any ability to question them is refuted over and over again by endless examples from history.
Yes, because we question it and change it. Usually for the better. Because we have reasons to change it in order to make life better, or improve our world.
That you think this means 'improve' just indicates that your grasp of evolution is as woeful as your grasp of the origins of morality, and your grasp of economics.
Is it "wrong" or "evil" for something to be "woeful"? How do you determine what is "woeful" and what is not? Is "woeful" a mortal sin while "deleterious" is only a venial sin?
Do people who GRASP something differently than you grasp it need to be re-programmed according to the proper social conventions? If they disagree with you about what is "woeful," how are they to be corrected? When other people are wrong, or "woeful" in what they think, is the solution to re-program them rather than give them reasons to change their thinking, which they cannot do because it's all a product of their social programming?
Definition of
EVOLVE https://www.google.com/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=cgYoWIylGpHW8gegp6rIDw&gws_rd=cr&fg=1#q=evolve+definition :
develop gradually, especially from a simple to a more complex form.
"the company has evolved into a major chemical manufacturer"
synonyms: develop, progress, advance;
This says "evolve" is mostly about improvement. It leaves open a negative meaning, but the more common usages imply improvement. Nothing in the definition implies going to a worse condition.
So why is it "woeful" to take "evolve" to mean improvement?
Why is it "woeful" to consider the later life forms -- the more complex ones like mammals -- as an "improvement" over the microbes and insects, and these primitive forms as unequal and of lesser value than primates?
Is it "woeful" to want to save humans from diseases and to protect them by killing bacteria which threaten them? or protect their houses by killing thousands or millions of termites? Is it "woeful" to kill a million termites in order to protect the houses of a dozen humans? Isn't this done because the humans have more value or are an "improvement" over the termites and for whose interest it is worth sacrificing a few million termites?
In all of these areas you demonstrate a disinclination to accept the existence of complexity, . . .
I was wrong if I said somewhere that complexity doesn't exist. Explaining how "slavery" has been an "evil" in human history, overall, and yet also was "necessary" in some earlier civilizations, is very complex and requires studying the many forms of "slavery" throughout the ancient world and asking, e.g., how they could have produced enough food to feed millions without the use of forced labor.
. . . and a tendency to build long-winded but repetitive arguments. A good argument recognises that reality is rarely simple; but a good argument is nevertheless brief.
No, quickie sloganistic jingles like "'good' is whatever the culture says 'good' is" or "Make America great again!" or "slavery is 'bad' if your culture says it's 'bad' but 'good' if your culture says it's 'good'" or "Deutschland ueber alles" or "people before profit" and so on are not "good" arguments.
It's better to take the trouble to ask the questions and look at the ambiguous cases and figure out what the goal is or what is best for the greater number of those who will be affected, even if it requires a few extra sentences in order to account for the ambiguities. A "good argument" is not about dismissing the issue with a mindless slogan in order to please a mindless mob while whining that the other guy's rhetoric isn't short and snappy enough.
(You waste space here whining about how many words are used. I use extra words in order to respond to EVERY point in your post. Are you telling me most of your points are not worth responding to?
Now that I've told you where you're wasting space, giving you a specific example you should have edited out, why don't you do the same and quote a specific sentence of mine which was irrelevant to the topic and thus a waste of space.)
Your arguments are the exact reverse of this principle.
I agree that my effort to explain how slavery is "evil" and yet was also necessary (or seemingly necessary) or expedient in some periods of history is difficult to do briefly in one or two snappy slogans, while your cliché that "good" is whatever the culture dictates is much easier for a demagogue to present to a screaming mob.
It was common to kill enemy war prisoners. Doesn't it seem that offering them slavery as an option was reasonable, and not as harsh as killing them?
Do we know that no one ever spoke out against slavery in the ancient world? Even if no quotes from the written record can be found, does that really prove no one ever had negative thoughts about it or questioned the practice?
When slavery was abolished in high-profile cases, Russia and the U.S. in the 1860s, it surely resulted in economic disaster in both cases, over several decades following. But there's plenty of reason to believe the long-term result was a net benefit to the vast majority, though it's difficult to prove with empirical data. Abolishing it in 200 or 300 BC would probably have been even worse for the economy at that time, over many generations.
Obviously you could publish a lengthy book on the pros and cons of slavery in the ancient world and what philosophers and others thought about it. Ideas about merit and being rewarded for good work did exist and must have caused some doubts about the arbitrary slave raids and damage this inflicted. We are capable of judging whether slavery really was necessary, or only a temporary expedient, and even people living back then were capable of raising the questions, or of being confronted with the questions and reconsidering the justice of it.
But you're right -- it's more pleasing to the mob and saves time and effort to just dismiss it all with your simplistic slogans about one's "culture" being the only source for any values or beliefs about "good" and "evil" etc.
So I can't fault you for congratulating yourself on your superior talent for snappy simplistic slogans. If your audience is a mindless mob you want to whip up, that could explain your preference for sloganism and snappiness.
