Does "RIGHT & WRONG" mean anything, without God or Religion?

[DBT]

''If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.’ If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever.'' (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)

This doesn't condone slavery. It says what the rules are IF you practice slavery.

It doesn't condemn it or condone it. It accepts it as an established fact of the world at that time. And then lays down these rules for those who practice it, mostly imposing some limits or conditions on the slave owner.

It condones slavery. A ruling Power or a powerful governing body does not set rules and conditions for a practice that it deems morally abhorant, without a murmur of protest. The quoted verse and many like it implicitly support the practice of slavery.

 

[bilby]

So you are saying that all we need, in order to reach an undeniable decision on whether something is right or wrong, is to know what harm is caused, and what benefits result?

Yes, but we need to know what the TOTAL harm and benefit would be as a result. And we can't ever have that total information. But we can make a good guess. So we can "know" (sort of) whether it's right or wrong.

But "undeniable" seems to suggest absolute certainty. There's always a small degree of doubt.

In some cases the certainty is just short of 100%, with maybe .01% doubt, so it's "certain" in the same sense that we're certain Julius Caesar was assassinated.

OK.

Well I am very glad to hear you say that, because there was some moron posting here earlier who seemed to think that God and Religion were somehow needed.

I am pleased to hear that we are in agreement that those things are totally irrelevant to the question.

Thank you.

 

[DrZoidberg]

This doesn't condone slavery. It says what the rules are IF you practice slavery.

It doesn't condemn it or condone it. It accepts it as an established fact of the world at that time. And then lays down these rules for those who practice it, mostly imposing some limits or conditions on the slave owner.

It condones slavery. A ruling Power or a powerful governing body does not set rules and conditions for a practice that it deems morally abhorant, without a murmur of protest. The quoted verse and many like it implicitly support the practice of slavery.

The Bible doesn't say what the rules are IF you pick up sticks on the Sabbath. It says that it's punishable by death. No, ifs, ands or butts. DEATH. So this is clearly an entity who feels empowered to outlaw anything he feels morally wrong. DEATH!!!

 

[iolo]

It condones slavery. A ruling Power or a powerful governing body does not set rules and conditions for a practice that it deems morally abhorant, without a murmur of protest. The quoted verse and many like it implicitly support the practice of slavery.

The Bible doesn't say what the rules are IF you pick up sticks on the Sabbath. It says that it's punishable by death. No, ifs, ands or butts. DEATH. So this is clearly an entity who feels empowered to outlaw anything he feels morally wrong. DEATH!!!

The assumption seems to be that what someone 'religious' once wrote is true forever. Can that be so? I suggest that no-one of that kind ever writes anything down - and there's a lot to be said for that plan anyway, come to think of it!

 

[DrZoidberg]

The Bible doesn't say what the rules are IF you pick up sticks on the Sabbath. It says that it's punishable by death. No, ifs, ands or butts. DEATH. So this is clearly an entity who feels empowered to outlaw anything he feels morally wrong. DEATH!!!

The assumption seems to be that what someone 'religious' once wrote is true forever. Can that be so? I suggest that no-one of that kind ever writes anything down - and there's a lot to be said for that plan anyway, come to think of it!

Not someone religious, God. I also like that an omniscient and omnipotent being needs to go through a proxy. God has the power to create the universe and kill almost the entire humanity in a flood. But when it comes to someone who's a tad bit too energetic on the day of rests... can't do it. Must politely ask humans to stone the bugger and passive aggressively threaten, for good measure.

To me this comes across as a (possibly subconscious) admittance that it's all bullshit.

 

[iolo]

The assumption seems to be that what someone 'religious' once wrote is true forever. Can that be so? I suggest that no-one of that kind ever writes anything down - and there's a lot to be said for that plan anyway, come to think of it!

Not someone religious, God. I also like that an omniscient and omnipotent being needs to go through a proxy. God has the power to create the universe and kill almost the entire humanity in a flood. But when it comes to someone who's a tad bit too energetic on the day of rests... can't do it. Must politely ask humans to stone the bugger and passive aggressively threaten, for good measure.

To me this comes across as a (possibly subconscious) admittance that it's all bullshit.

You don't believe in God, do you? I know I don't - and even if I did, I'd know 'God' normally required a secretary: He wasn't into writing things down, except on Siniai, and those tablets got broken. In fact, all religions move beyond tribal guff quite soon, and I doubt anyone seriously believes this nonsense now.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Not someone religious, God. I also like that an omniscient and omnipotent being needs to go through a proxy. God has the power to create the universe and kill almost the entire humanity in a flood. But when it comes to someone who's a tad bit too energetic on the day of rests... can't do it. Must politely ask humans to stone the bugger and passive aggressively threaten, for good measure.

To me this comes across as a (possibly subconscious) admittance that it's all bullshit.

You don't believe in God, do you? I know I don't - and even if I did, I'd know 'God' normally required a secretary: He wasn't into writing things down, except on Siniai, and those tablets got broken. In fact, all religions move beyond tribal guff quite soon, and I doubt anyone seriously believes this nonsense now.

But the admittance that these aren't eternal truths and that religions evolve over time, is also IMHO, an admittance that it's all bullshit.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Observation - the Bible includes extensive rules on how to properly treat (and exactly how much one may lawfully beat) slaves.

No, it gives no rules on how much one may beat slaves.

Wow.
You really should read the Books some time, Lumpy.
I realize that so many, many Christains don't know what is actually in it, but if you're going to make sweeping statements like this, you need to know just hwo wrong you really are.

 

[Jarhyn]

As best as I can tell, the most consistent definition of 'right' and 'wrong' is the adherence or violation, respectively, of the most effective set of scalable strategies for improving average individual survival given consistent adherence among a group and open group membership.

 

[DBT]

It condones slavery. A ruling Power or a powerful governing body does not set rules and conditions for a practice that it deems morally abhorant, without a murmur of protest. The quoted verse and many like it implicitly support the practice of slavery.

The Bible doesn't say what the rules are IF you pick up sticks on the Sabbath. It says that it's punishable by death. No, ifs, ands or butts. DEATH. So this is clearly an entity who feels empowered to outlaw anything he feels morally wrong. DEATH!!!

Exactly. If slavery was unacceptable to this Deity, the penalty for transgression would be severe. But of course, everything in both the OT and the NT reflect the values of the people during their time and not anything that relates to a God.

 

[bilby]

I think C S Lewis was clearly right - Lunatic, Liar, Lord. In that order.

Of course, he was wrong about a Lord being a desirable thing to have.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Setting aside the "Other Minds" problem, we can MEASURE someone else's sensation, e.g., pain.

It's both. It's "subjective" sensation/experience, but is also objectively measurable.

Sensation is not measurable. It is only reportable. The subject can describe what they feel. This cannot be measured.

It can be measured at least by the one who experiences the sensation. You might make an argument that no one else can directly measure that person's sensation, e.g., pain.

However, it can be reported to another, and that other one can express the magnitude of it, based on what is reported. Just as can be done in reporting anything witnessed directly by only one person but then reported to others.

But you could argue that no one really knows if anyone else suffers pain, or has consciousness, etc.

For example, you don't know that others who post on this message board have consciousness or any experiences. Or that other humans than yourself have consciousness.

However, we assume all the others do have consciousness and experiences.

As long as you grant that one assumption (that others also have consciousness and experiences -- you're not the only conscious entity), then it is possible to MEASURE other people's experiences, such as pain. It may be difficult in many cases, but we can recognize that one person is having severe pain compared to another who experiences a minor irritation that's barely noticeable. Comparing one with another = measurement.

Anecdote: I once saw (heard!) a turkey get butchered, and I know that that turkey felt more pain (for 3-4 seconds) than another turkey that only got kicked. Anyone present would know it, without any doubt. (The turkey "reported" it loud and clear.)

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Cost vs. Benefit. Add up the total pleasures and pains.

In the end, it's all about adding up the pleasures & pains, to everyone, all creatures in the universe.

Why?

Why would that be an important issue?

What could be more important than reducing the total pain, or increasing the total pleasure of all sentient beings?

What's an example of a decision someone made, which they thought was "good" or "right" or moral or ethical, which did not either reduce the total pain or increase the total pleasure, assuming it succeeded in accomplishing what was intended?

Living creatures must eat other living creatures to survive. Suffering is built into the operation of the universe.

But it's possible to reduce the suffering while still promoting survival. Less suffering is always better, even if it can't be totally eliminated. It's "good" to reduce it.

If there's a creator god, this is his/her/their handiwork, this is the plan.

But reducing the suffering and increasing the pleasure is also part of the plan. If it's possible to do it, then it's part of the plan.

If suffering is evil, then the universe is evil.

Not totally. It can be made less evil. It's also good. Partly good and partly evil. Increasing the pleasure and reducing the pain makes it more good and is the "right" thing to do.

Even if pleasure could be measured and shown to outweigh the suffering, that's not a justification to include evil in the process.

It's never justified to add evil or include it or increase it.

It's always justified to try to reduce the total pain and increase the total pleasure.

It's like saying that we must rape 28% of all Freshmen in order for the college system to work, but as long as 82% of the Freshmen graduate to become Sophomores, it's not evil.

It's always "right" or "good" to increase the good part and reduce the evil part. Less evil is always an improvement.

Balance or benefit does not make the evil any less evil.

Always try to minimize the cost and maximize the benefit. It's better if the desired goal can be reached at lower cost or sacrifice or suffering. Or if the benefit can be increased relative to the cost/sacrifice.

But still, this is my impression vs. your impression.

No, minimizing the cost and maximizing the benefit is EVERYONE's impression of what's good.

You've yet to show any reason to accept this as an objective standard for good vs. evil.

It's already accepted, in practice. It's only in theory that utilitarianism or cost vs. benefit is rejected as the standard for good vs. evil.

Isn't it accepted that rescue workers are to risk their lives and are paid for this? This is a cost, and it's done in return for the benefits -- lives saved etc. -- which are supposed to outweigh that cost.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The Bible doesn't say what the rules are IF you pick up sticks on the Sabbath. It says that it's punishable by death. No, ifs, ands or butts. DEATH. So this is clearly an entity who feels empowered to outlaw anything he feels morally wrong. DEATH!!!

Exactly. If slavery was unacceptable to this Deity, the penalty for transgression would be severe. But of course, everything in both the OT and the NT reflect the values of the people during their time and not anything that relates to a God.

Or perhaps a commandment to the slaves to stone their masters to the death? That would fit the general theme.

- - - Updated - - -

I think C S Lewis was clearly right - Lunatic, Liar, Lord. In that order.

Of course, he was wrong about a Lord being a desirable thing to have.

There's another one. Jesus could have just been plain wrong. There's actually a fifth, which is even more likely, non-existent. Which is what I'd put my money on.

 

[fromderinside]

OK. But does good and bad right or wrong have any real meaning without religion? My take is that religion provides moralistic cover and ready rationalization for those who feel ashamed. No different from those who don't believe who need cover for their behavior who aren't devoted to some faerie though.

I don't think good or bad has any meaning with religion.

Authority-based moral systems are inherently arbitrary and the most extreme form of moral relativism imaginable. In an authority-based moral system, it doesn't matter what you decide, it only matters if you are obedient. It doesn't matter what you do, it only matters who you obey.

It really doesn't matter whether religions are based on faeries , earth, personal authority or some other token. What matters is the belief taps in to one's feelings. When they do they are not rational rather they are based on do's and don'ts attached by affect to feelings. Good and bad can be only this affect attached to behavior and, in my view, this forms the basis of religious adherence and belief.

You are a sinner, bad, and you feel this depressed state. Bad really isn't connected to anything one would put in a syllogism.

With respect to what others point out putting stuff on stone tablets isn't the same as making an argument.

 

[DBT]

Sensation is not measurable. It is only reportable. The subject can describe what they feel. This cannot be measured.

It can be measured at least by the one who experiences the sensation.

That's not an objective measurement. It's a subjective experience of pain in comparison to past experience with pain. It is an assessment, a guess, not a measurement (memory not being perfect). Certainly not an objective measurement. The brain does not possess an objective, calibrated pain meter.

 

[Bomb#20]

Conclusion - The Bible says that it is proper to keep slaves, as long as you do it by the book.

No, it never says it's proper to keep slaves. It just doesn't explicitly prohibit keeping slaves. There's no ancient literature which condemns slavery explicitly.

Observation - Bible fans in an age where slavery is no longer acceptable will deny the plain text of their book until they are blue in the face, . . .

No, "Bible fans" know the Bible doesn't explicitly condemn slavery. It also does not condone it or sanction it.

. . . before they ever admit that it describes a morality that is no longer acceptable.

But it never condones it. Never says it was acceptable. It just remains silent on that.

The sounds of silence:

42 For they are my servants, whom I brought out of the land of Egypt; they shall not be sold as slaves. 43 You shall not rule over him ruthlessly but shall fear your God. 44 As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. 45 You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. 46 You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly.
...
55 For it is to me that the people of Israel are servants. They are my servants whom I brought out of the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.​

- Leviticus 25

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

It can be measured at least by the one who experiences the sensation.

That's not an objective measurement. It's a subjective experience of pain in comparison to past experience with pain. It is an assessment, a guess, not a measurement (memory not being perfect). Certainly not an objective measurement. The brain does not possess an objective, calibrated pain meter.

Then by your standard, there is no measurement of anything. ALL measurement is a guess and is subjective.

 

[bigfield]

That's not an objective measurement. It's a subjective experience of pain in comparison to past experience with pain. It is an assessment, a guess, not a measurement (memory not being perfect). Certainly not an objective measurement. The brain does not possess an objective, calibrated pain meter.

Then by your standard, there is no measurement of anything. ALL measurement is a guess and is subjective.

Most measurements don't aren't based on feelings reported by a person, therefore you cannot make generalisations about measurement based on the method in which we measure pain.

 

[Tigers!]

I think C S Lewis was clearly right - Lunatic, Liar, Lord. In that order.

Of course, he was wrong about a Lord being a desirable thing to have.

Not even being Lord Vader?