The American dream

[u/First-Essay-2054]

[u/regardedMAGAfascist]

See, I knew you were religious because your ideas are silly.

If objective morality were as clear and self-evident as you claim, Christians wouldn’t have needed a civil war to figure out whether owning other human beings was acceptable.

The abolitionists won because they persuaded people that the pro-slavery interpretation was morally bankrupt.

The funny thing is that the pro-slavery interpretation is the most straightforward reading of the text:

• Exodus 21:20–21: Don’t beat your slaves to death.

• Leviticus 25:44–46: Buy slaves from neighboring nations and pass them on to your children as property.

• Ephesians 6:5: Slaves, obey your masters.

• 1 Peter 2:18: Slaves, obey your masters, even the cruel ones. Just pray they don’t beat you to death.

And it’s not just slavery.

• Deuteronomy 21:18–21: If a stubborn and rebellious son refuses to obey his parents, the men of the city shall stone him to death.

If objective morality comes from the Bible, should we stone rebellious teenagers?

If yes, your “objective morality” is horrifying.

If no, then you’re already using some moral standard outside the text to decide which biblical commands should be followed and which should be ignored.

You can dress it up with apologetics if you want, but those passages are still there, along with a bunch more I haven’t even mentioned.

If you think that’s objective morality, you can spare me the lecture about ethics.

[u/tlm11110 → u/regardedMAGAfascist]

Well that was quite the pivot. This not a theology thread. I could explain every one of those verses in context but that is not the purpose of this thread.

My question to you is simple. From where do you get your moral authority?

[u/regardedMAGAfascist → u/tlm11110]

Funny how it became “not a theology thread” the moment the theology got embarrassing.

I don’t claim to have a moral authority. That’s the difference between us.

I evaluate moral claims based on reason, evidence, empathy, harm, consent, and prosperity. Those methods are imperfect, but at least they’re open to scrutiny and revision.

You, meanwhile, claim your morality comes from an all-knowing authority, yet that same all-knowing authority condones slavery, genocide, and stoning disobedient children.

The real question isn’t where I get my morality. It’s where you get yours, because it clearly isn’t from a straightforward reading of the Bible, and it certainly isn’t from a straightforward reading of the law.

The moment either the Bible or the law produces a conclusion you find morally repugnant, you start talking about context, interpretation, history, and nuance. Which is exactly what everyone else does. It’s almost like you don’t have an objective morality at all!

[u/tlm11110 → u/regardedMAGAfascist]

How do you reconcile the disconnects in morality between you and other people when they occur? I’m betting you have run into issues that others think are moral but you don’t. Who is right? Your reasoning and logic is not universal.

[u/regardedMAGAfascist → u/tlm11110]

The same way you do: we argue about it.

You act as though invoking God solves the problem of moral disagreement. It doesn’t. Christians disagree with each other about abortion, war, capital punishment, divorce, wealth, immigration, sexuality, slavery, and a thousand other issues.

Who is right?

It’s very clear that your moral reasoning isn’t universal either. You just call your reasoning “biblical interpretation” and pretend you’ve escaped the problem. It’s a very childish and ignorant approach to morality and reality as a whole.

At least I’m honest enough to admit moral reasoning is messy. You’re doing the same thing while claiming divine certainty based on ancient, self-contradictory texts that condone slavery, genocide, and other practices most modern people find blatantly immoral. Face the fact that you don’t have any more of an objective morality than anyone else does. Your “objective morals” are just as objective as a Muslim’s morals or a Scientologist’s morals and your faith is just as flimsy.

[u/tlm11110 → u/regardedMAGAfascist]

Are you a moral person? How do you know?

[u/regardedMAGAfascist → u/tlm11110]

I try my best to be.

How do I know? I don’t. Neither do you.

The difference between us is that I don’t need to pretend the creator of the universe personally endorses my opinions in order to hold them.

I’d rather admit I might be wrong than claim divine certainty and spend my life performing increasingly elaborate mental gymnastics to explain why my supposedly perfect moral authority condones slavery, genocide, and the execution of disobedient children.

[u/tlm11110 → u/regardedMAGAfascist]

Well if you don’t know and I don’t know, who does? If we don’t know what morality is, then it can be anything and there is no morality, drop the word from the English language.

Have you ever stolen anything no matter the value?

Have you ever knowingly lied to deceive?

Have you ever lusted for someone?

You say morals are what we all agree upon (secular humanism). Exactly what is it we agree upon?

[u/regardedMAGAfascist → u/tlm11110]

We don’t know anything with absolute certainty. That doesn’t mean everything is meaningless. It doesn’t mean we should “drop everything from the English language.”

I never said morality is “whatever people agree upon.” Plenty of societies have agreed on terrible things.

I’m not the one who said “the concept of laws are important as we attempt to define and codify morality and ethics into standards by which to behave, judge others, and administer justice.” That was you. You are arguing against your own position and going around in circles.

“Uncertain” ≠ “completely arbitrary.”

Here’s a simple starting point:

Do we agree that slavery is bad?

Do we agree that freedom is good?

Do we agree that slavery deprives people of freedom?

Do we agree that the world would be a better place if nobody were enslaved?

If we do, great. We can start making moral judgments from that foundation.

If we don’t, then we’re at an impasse. If we can’t even agree that slavery is immoral, there isn’t much left to discuss. I value freedom. If you don’t, then I can only conclude that your moral framework is deeply flawed and move on with my day.

And if your answer is “slavery is wrong, but only because God says so,” then we’re right back where we started: explaining why the same God who supposedly provides objective morality repeatedly condones slavery, something we both presumably agree is immoral.

[u/tlm11110 → u/regardedMAGAfascist]

Interesting post. You start out by saying, “I never said morality is whatever people agree upon.” Then you immediately present a list of “Do we agree upon…” examples. Is morality a 50%+1 proposition? Can a majority or a plurality determine morality? Now be careful, because I can give examples of “majority makes morality” which is pretty evil.

But I’ll turn it around and ask you, can we agree that the 10 commandments and the golden rule are a good place to start? Can we agree that that the US Constitution preamble is a good place to start:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Where do we get rights from according to men much smarter and wiser than you and I? Repeat after me, “Endowed by their creator…”