Cod Zilla

@ReedHawk2 @Filibustre @AliceBright_ But morality is not persuadable like scientific truths are. If you believe the earth is flat I can correct you because there is evidence to the contrary. If I believe my god ordains slavery, and you believe your god does not there is no way to prove me wrong or you right.

@CodZill90263085 @Filibustre @AliceBright_ Persuasion is the means in both views. The question is the end. If morality is objective, persuasion aims at truth or correction. If morality is subjective, persuasion aims only at changing preferences. Those aren’t the same thing.

This comic confuses meta ethics with ordinary moral judgement. "Morality is subjective" doesn't mean "I can't judge you". Like, even though everyone agrees humor is subjective, this comic is still unfunny.

@ReedHawk2 @Filibustre @AliceBright_ Moral criticism is and always has been a matter of persuasion. Every major moral movement; the emancipation of slaves, women's suffrage, civil rights, was won on the backs of persuading entrenched agents who believed they were behaving within moral standards.

@Filibustre @CodZill90263085 @AliceBright_ Fair enough. But then moral criticism reduces to persuasion rather than correction. You’re not discovering moral truths—you’re attempting to change preferences. I’d argue that doesn’t capture what we ordinarily mean when we say someone ought not torture children.

@CapreolusPygar @ReedHawk2 @AliceBright_ Exodus prescribes a model of slavery for Christians, so no, it is not a full throated condemnation of slavery by God. He even recommends for the purchasing of daughters and to take them as concubines.

@CodZill90263085 @ReedHawk2 @AliceBright_ but actually hold on, there is actually, in the Letter to Philemon as i already told you, And in Exodus, that i know of, like what?

@CapreolusPygar @ReedHawk2 @AliceBright_ In Exodus, punishment of slave owners who beat their slaves to death is demanded, but if the slave survives there is no punishment as they are "property". What justifies this as being anti slave that would satisfy any reasonable person?

@CodZill90263085 @ReedHawk2 @AliceBright_ So you just don't like the answers, that's fine, agree to disagree.

@CapreolusPygar @ReedHawk2 @AliceBright_ Maybe he is opposed, in some unknowable and mysterious way. But you've suggested he views all men and women as equal. Clearly not in regards to their ability to be owned and sold as property, so perhaps his definition of "equal" is also unknowable and mysterious.

@CapreolusPygar @ReedHawk2 @AliceBright_ Under the pretense that if the Christian god was opposed to slavery you would expect to see some sort of evidence that he felt strongly about it in his big book. Instead he blesses his followers with slaves, condones their mistreatment and beating, and asks that slaves be servile

@CapreolusPygar @ReedHawk2 @AliceBright_ I'm aware of Cliffe's answers on this and they are every bit as bad as yours. If he is the standard you are doing fine, but its silly to look at those passages and suggest that slavery was explicitly morally frowned upon by the god described in the bible.

@CodZill90263085 @ReedHawk2 @AliceBright_ youtube.com/shorts/EYThbxM…

@CapreolusPygar @ReedHawk2 @AliceBright_ No, he is not just talking to people of different faiths. He is prescribing slavery practices for Christians. No violent conflict to upend slavery, okay, but why would he not at the very least tell his own followers not to partake if he felt strongly about it?

@CodZill90263085 @ReedHawk2 @AliceBright_ The Followers of Christ, in Various Letters, understood that you can't force your faith before the Established law of the land without an Armed, vicious and bloody conflict, at the time it would not even be a battle, just a Genocide, and not one that saw the slaves winning

@CapreolusPygar @ReedHawk2 @AliceBright_ So then God is agnostic to the proposition of slavery as a moral practice? Neither good nor bad, just morally neutral. You'll forgive my incredulity on your claim this is actually a hard nosed stance for emancipation. Here slaves are treated as blessings from god.

@CodZill90263085 @ReedHawk2 @AliceBright_ All of these are the same vein, Telling slave believers to not be wrathful or vengeful and to respect their masters, and that despite their position they do good, it is commendable before God, but none of these say Slavery is Good

@CapreolusPygar @ReedHawk2 @AliceBright_ So you would have me believe that the god that creates your objective standards for morality would not demand among his followers the freedom of slaves because he respected laws created by man?

@CodZill90263085 @ReedHawk2 @AliceBright_ This is because they still had to Obey the Law, as unjust as it was, and they were still their property

@CapreolusPygar @ReedHawk2 @AliceBright_ This is silly apologetics. If it was a high moral wrong emancipation would be demanded not suggested. This sentiment is repeated often in the bible. Slaves are meant to behave and to treat their masters with reverence.

@CodZill90263085 @ReedHawk2 @AliceBright_ Ephesians is a Letter from Paul, what he is saying is not that Slavery is Good, but saying to Christians Do not Follow Spartacus and cause a Rebelion in the Roman Empire, but instead respect your master but understand that freedom is Best, this is backed by the Letter of Philemon

@CapreolusPygar @ReedHawk2 @AliceBright_

@CodZill90263085 @ReedHawk2 @AliceBright_ No, "Created Equal in the image of god" is pretty clear.

@CapreolusPygar @ReedHawk2 @AliceBright_ If slavery was viewed as a moral blight by the Christian god, surely he would not offer instruction for how to keep slaves that did not end in "release them".

@CodZill90263085 @ReedHawk2 @AliceBright_ There actually isn't one, i already heard this before, the few passages that don't directly contradict Slavery simply speak of not treating slaves badly

@CapreolusPygar @ReedHawk2 @AliceBright_ Slavery is condoned explicitly by the bible. Furthermore, what was the process by which we "got it"? How was the record set straight? Did god write another book to course correct? No, it was people arguing moral preferences and convincing others.

@CodZill90263085 @ReedHawk2 @AliceBright_ No, the fact is the Book didn't get changed, people simply Ignored, omitted or shunned parts out of convenience, greed or misinterpretation, cus people are not perfect. Slavery was always wrong by the bible, but being a most lucrative and old practice it took a while to get it

@ReedHawk2 @AliceBright_ Your point was that objective morals are in place to justify moral values and bind others to them. Yet they operate, by your admission now, in the same way that subjectivists suggest they do. The difference between your moral beliefs and someone of another faith's is preference.

@CodZill90263085 @AliceBright_ People can disagree about what objective morality is, but that doesn’t make it an incoherent concept. People have disputes about science yet we don’t declare there is no objective truth.

@CapreolusPygar @ReedHawk2 @AliceBright_ If your objective morals are subject to interpretation and debate they at the very least do not operate as objective, or, more likely, are not objective at all. They are as the subjectivists believe, sociological.

@CapreolusPygar @ReedHawk2 @AliceBright_ In what way have we "proved" the objective standard that,by example, God did not want us to own slaves? This was an argument that happened on theocratic grounds as well as legal ones. There were clear biblical justifications for owning slaves.

@ReedHawk2 @AliceBright_ The catholic church that orchestrated the inquisition and the modern catholic church that condemns it had the same source for their "objective" moral standard. On what basis was the inquisition wrong if the institution and moral instruction were the same?

@CodZill90263085 @AliceBright_ Having a rationale isn’t the same as having a justification that binds others. If someone rejects your foundational values, on what basis are they mistaken rather than merely disagreeing?

@ReedHawk2 @AliceBright_ Subjective morals still, often, have rationale. You can keep asking "and why does that matter?" to a certain level of granularity but you still arrive at something that is no more or less thought out than "IDK, god said it was bad".

@AliceBright_ Sure, a subjectivist can say “you’re a bad person.” The question isn’t whether they can make the judgment—it’s what justifies it. If morality is only subjective, why is someone with different moral preferences wrong instead of merely different?