Peter Singer is connected to the University of Melbourne as follows:

Laureate Professor at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne. He specialises in applied ethics and approaches ethical issues from a secular, preference utilitarian perspective.

So... he is one of a number who's idea's about applied ethics we might find we are landed with by the time his students become Academics and Politicians and Public Servants.

One aspect of Singer's philosophy is found in a review of a book "Heavy Petting" which in turn is found in Wikipedia under the sub heading "Zoophilia"

I ask the OLO community, in your opinion, is this the kind of 'ethics' which should be taught at a major university in a faculty specializing in applied ethics ?

Secondly, no matter how we feel about the practice of zoophilia, does it not follow logically from acceptance of Darwinian evolutionary thinking, as just one of a number of possible behaviors? and Further, if we accept Darwinian evolution, who are we to make value judgements on the practice?

Is "Preference Utilitarianism" a sound approach to ethics?

Thoughts ?

"... no matter how we feel about the practice of zoophilia, does it not follow logically from acceptance of Darwinian evolutionary thinking, as just one of a number of possible behaviors?"

Evolutionary theory, of itself, is not a system of ethics, any more than the theory of gravitation is. Evolutionary theory of itself is 'wertfrei'. It can say something about how ethics came to be. But it doesn't of itself provide us with ethics.

"Further, if we accept Darwinian evolution, who are we to make value judgements on the practice?"

However it is true that, starting from an acceptance of evolutionary theory, we are not in a position to judge any particular behaviour one way or another from an ethical standpoint. But that doesn't mean that we can't have ethics, and it is doesn't mean a theistic ethic is presumptively superior.

I don't think it's legitimate to start with the conclusion that you don't like what you think evolutionary theory might be tending to, and work backwards from there to not "accept" the theory of evolution.

Evolutionary theory is about how species originate. It needs to be dealt with on its own merits. (See for example Darwin's essay on the origin of the various races of pigeons in the chapter on Variation Under Domestication in Origin of Species - in reference to your query elsewhere about the origin of the human races.)

Sorry, Boaz, but I really can't take this topic seriously. You're just looking for another opportunity to say - "see, you atheists just make it up as you go".

Well I for one am not going to bite.

But I do have a story for you.

It was an ordinary day in Llaregyb magistrates court. A man was being tried for fornicating with a sheep, and the key witness was an old chap who was walking along the highway by the farm where the sheep was raised.

'Well, I was walkin' along, and saw this sheep just minding her own business like, when this feller walks up behind the sheep, real quiet. He unbuckles his belt, and pulls the sheep close. Well, they sorta shook for a couple of minutes. Then when they'd finished the sheep turned around... an' licked him!'

Just then one of the members of the jury leaned over to the jury member next to him and said, 'You know .. a good sheep'll do that.'

Pip pip.

Hi Peter..welcome to the discussion.

You say:

Evolutionary theory, of itself, is not a system of ethics.

I quite agree. I was not suggesting it is. I am beginning with Darwinian evolution as a dot point..and then moving toward how we can arrive at ethics which are viable.

Singer has seen it clearly.. if we begin with an evolutionary natural selection foundation, then it follows quite logically that 'any' system of ethics built upon such a foundation is neither better or worse than any other, and conceivably, we could have many competing ethics systems.

Singer simply shows 'where' such thinking ends up. "Bestiality" is the more appropriate term, and he is also known for such ideas as culling the severely disabled, hence the intensity of protests BY the disabled at many of his lectures.

So... as to the relative value of Theistic ethics to secular Darwinian/evolution based ethics....well that is something for the individual.

But what Singer does not verbalize, is this.. 'Darwinian' natural selection had a hidden dark side.

IF..... the human race has developed by natural selection...and there are very noticable differences between 'races'....then it is entirely consistent with the theory to claim "Some are more developed than others".. which of course leads to the sub title of his book "Origin of the Species"...which our kiddies are defintely NOT taught at school

i.e. "Or the Survival of PREFERRED races in the struggle of life"

So... all I'm saying is that this leads to the 'open slather' idea of racism and eugenics. But with theistic ethics (all equal because of one ancestor) racism is not possible. So..I will argue that Theistic ethics are indeed superior to non theistic.

I think I've hit a nerve with poor old Perilous.. I'm guessing he is a 'Singeresque' Ethicist :) Happy new Year P

"So... all I'm saying is that this leads to the 'open slather' idea of racism and eugenics."

No it doesn't, because facts don't supply values. Even if some human races were better at some things than others as a matter of fact, it wouldn't follow from that, that we are justified in aggressing against others as a matter of ethics.

It is true that evolutionary theory, of itself, does not provide us with an ethics. It provides us with a theory of the facts on which ethics take place.

But it is not true that therefore one ethic is as good as another. For Singer to maintain that argument he would have to maintain that him being tortured and murdered is neither better nor worse than him not being – and that unethical behaviour is no better or worse than ethical behaviour, which is not much of a theory of ethics. And I don’t think Singer is making that argument.

"But with theistic ethics (all equal because of one ancestor) racism is not possible."

As I recall, the justification of Negro slavery in theistic ethics was that Noah had three sons, Shem, Ham and Japeth. And, to cut a long story short, these were the progenitors of the main races, including the one destined to be 'hewers of wood and drawers of water'. So there is nothing about theistic ethics that excludes the possibility of racism, and plenty about it that facilitates it.

Rather, the deal is, if man is a product of natural selection, and man is by nature a social animal, and society requires rules, therefore man develops ethics, and the philosophical question is how we are to know good ethics from bad.

I think good ethics need to be:
a) consistent with the nature of man which is discoverable by reason, and
b) internally consistent.

Singer's ethics don't qualify as good because they are illogical (and he's a fascist creep).

I can read you like a book, Boaz.

Pericles: "You're just looking for another opportunity to say - 'see, you atheists just make it up as you go'".

Boaz: "Singer simply shows 'where' such thinking ends up. "Bestiality" is the more appropriate term... all I'm saying is that this leads to the 'open slather' idea of racism and eugenics."

It doesn't improve with re-reading, either.

In 1996, Robery Ardrey succinctly stated how we developed our concepts of ethics and morality when he wrote,
"And finally we must know that the territorial imperative - just, one it is true of the evolutionary forces playing upon our lives – is the biological law on which we have founded our edifices of human morality. Our capacities for sacrifice, for altruism, for sympathy, for trust, for responsibilities to other than self-interest, for honesty, for charity, for friendship and love, for social amity and mutual interdependence have evolved just as surely as the flatness of our feet, the muscularity of our buttocks, and the enlargement of our brain; out of the encounter on ancient African savannahs between the primate potential and the hominid circumstance."

Al at least you are transparent. I am quite happy making a judgement about zoophilia and find the idea abhorrent especially in view of animal rights - another prominent issue in Singer's repertoire.

However introduction of this topic on a course in Ethics or Philosophy is surely most appropriate. Singer is not "teaching" this behaviour, he is setting up discussions around zoophilia and bestiality which surely fits under an Ethics/Morality discipline.

Human beings have always defined morality within their own social and cultural constructs including using a belief in the supernatural and the evolution of religion.

Currently in Australia we have multiple ethical systems as many as there are cultures. We are a Multicultural society with different world views. For instance, when is a foetus human? Should we euthanize the unproductive?

In a democratic society everyone is free to hold different views and not be proselytized or indoctrinated by one view promoted by the State. The third Reich was a system of evolutionary indoctrination that one society was more advanced than another, which should be eradicated.

The current teaching of ethics in schools would promote one view on how to live in a secular society [without God]. Ethics outlines views of law on how to live it does not deal with guilt, failure etc.

Christianity should teach how to overcome personal sin, find forgiveness and self awareness and revalued in community. There is a definitive difference between laws of man defining guilt and the Grace of God. Ethics in society is as old as community or village - it just depends on whose ethics. Shari'ah laws are equally ethics as is the Hammurabi or Mosaic laws. Justice in some societies is an "eye for an eye". A equal justice imposition which is what in many societies is the reason for wars.
.

Pelly Philo and Peter.. thanx for joining.

Dear foyle.. I'm not quite sure what your point was.. mind clarifying ?

Peter first.

Just want to focus a bit longer Peter on the 'facts' of natural selection and race. Don't get me wrong... I don't for a moment support or accept the idea of any racial superiority/inferiority... but you probably realize I operate from a theistic perspective.

You say:
As I recall, the justification of Negro slavery in theistic ethics was that Noah had three sons, Shem, Ham and Japeth.

Yes indeed that verse(s) have been used just for that purpose. The problem though is linking Ham with the Negro races. It can't be done.
Looking at the Biblical record we find the sons of Ham are:

The sons of Ham:
Cush, Egypt, Put and Canaan.

It should be noted, that the curse applied to CANAAN...not to the other sons of Ham, which included Cush and Put who are regarded as the fathers of the African races. Egypt is named also. So...if anything, it is the palestinians who should be slaves of the Israelis if one wanted to place a hermeneutical straightjacket on the text. Bottom line it isn't the Negroid races.

IMPORTANT QUESTION
So.. Jewish and 'Christian' traditions aside.. and back to 'natural selection'... Peter..and others, can you accept that on the basis of normal reason (if this theory be accepted)... it is more probable that the various branches of humanity have developed at different rates and advancement both physically and intellectually?

Please note..I'm speaking ONLY of the idea of natural selection as an explanation of human origins...After all.. Darwin noted the various qualities of various flora and fauna within species did he not ?

We can come back to ethics soon :)

Boaz,

What’s all this talk about theistic ethics versus “Darwinian/evolution based ethics”? I suspect that just as many people have based their ethics on evolution as they have on gravity - none.

There have been, however, those who have adulterated and misinterpreted evolution (through an inability to distinguish between natural selection and artificial selection/selective breeding), to justify their ideology, whether it be eugenics or the free market.

This is one of the reasons creationism is so dangerous. The wilful spreading of misinformation and confusion about what exactly evolution is, makes it easier for lunatics to use it as a justification for their own gain.

[Note to fellow atheists: I realise that last claim is a long stretch of the bow, but I’m simply turning the creationist’s asinine claim, that evolution is dangerous, back on them. It actually makes more sense though, doesn’t it.]

<<'Darwinian' natural selection had a hidden dark side.>>

No, it doesn’t. This is simply a line pedalled by desperate and dishonest creationists as a way of appealing to emotions by instilling a sense of disgust in, and fear of, evolution in the minds of the naive.

<<IF..... the human race has developed by natural selection...and there are very noticable differences between 'races'....then it is entirely consistent with the theory to claim "Some are more developed than others"...>>

More developed for what?

(Let’s forget for a moment that the fact that we have arrived at this point through natural selection is a demonstrable fact and not an “if”.)

Evolution isn’t a ladder to be climbed, nor does it have any goal in mind. So no, it is not “consistent” at all and this is why the ignorance perpetuated by dishonest creationists can be so dangerous.

Besides which, the differences may be noticeable, but biologically we are all one race.

<<...which of course leads to the sub title of his book "Origin of the Species"...which our kiddies are defintely NOT taught at school i.e. "Or the Survival of PREFERRED races in the struggle of life">>

Yeah, that’s because Darwin wasn’t referring to eugenics like you are.

Continued...

...Continued

By “races”, he simply meant “variations”. “The Origin of Species” barely even mentions humans, but you didn’t know that, did you? No, you’d just prefer to parrot the total crap spread around in batsheet crazy, fundamentalist circles.

<<So... all I'm saying is that this leads to the 'open slather' idea of racism and eugenics.>>

Really? So given the distinction I’ve made between ‘natural selection’ and ‘selective breeding’, how do you justify this claim? And considering natural selection is very much about that which is biologically advantageous, what justification could one - who actually understood natural selection - possibly have for narrowing the gene pool?

<<But with theistic ethics (all equal because of one ancestor) racism is not possible.>>

And yet racism is rampant throughout Christianity and Islam; arguably more so too. In fact there often appears to be a correlation between the racism in societies and their religiosity.

<<So..I will argue that Theistic ethics are indeed superior to non theistic.>>

And you would be wrong.

Secular ethics (I’ll switch from “Darwinian ethics” to “secular ethics” now since I have demonstrated why your “Darwinian ethics” is based on total ignorance) are superior to religious ethics in every way except one - religious ethics are simplistic. Secular ethics require thought and effort, whereas religious ethics are for the lazy and the thoughtless; those who would be duped into thinking that something becomes ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ simply because of an edict attributed to some other being.

Secular ethics come from an understanding of reality, not a baseless assertion of authority, and for that reason alone, they are superior.

In my earlier post I was making the point that out moral and ethical constructions are far older than any of our religions or religious texts and were derived from the pressures of the successive changes in our environments.

If anyone believes the Old Testament is a successful guide for the development of morality they need to read and understand it. I suggest they begin by analyse Deuteronomy 13;v6-11. That section is a perfect example of a power hungry politician invoking a claimed 'word in his ear' from a supernatural being to control the citizenry. Some morality and ethics!
Or give some thought to Lot, his wife and his two daughters. God reputedly murdered Lot's wife for looking back yet took no action when Lot sacrificed his daughter to rape by a mob in substitution for a male guest. Then his daughters involved him in incestuous behaviour after getting him intoxicated.

Singer's "How are we to live" is a better guide to ethical behaviour than any ancient tome.

As for ethics discussions of open ended questions in classrooms, how many posting comments are aware that such a practice will improve each student's IQ and improve classroom and school-yard behaviour?

Evolution is

Definitely dangerous

It "created" us

Al, I suggest that if you want to discuss the ethical implications of Darwin's work to humans, you should cast The Origin of Species aside and look instead at The Descent of Man. Darwin was quite timid with his first publication, and cautious to avoid explicitly discussing the evolution of humans. His later work cast caution aside and led a full-fledged assault on the 'separate' origins of humankind.

He also addresses the ethical aspects of human evolution, including altruism. In The Origin of Species, he focused primarily on the individualistic nature of evolution - animals do what they need to do to survive. This problematised the tendency of humans to behave in an altruistic manner - after all, if we're all in it for ourselves, why help our rivals?

He addressed this directly: 'each man would soon learn that if he aided his fellow-men, he would commonly receive aid in return' (Darwin cited in Ruse 1999: 247). The general implication is that it is beneficial for species such as humankind to assist each other and work communally for the greater good, as we all gain from it.

As for your emphasis of the word 'preferred' ('favoured' in my edition) in the subtitle, this is either an attempt at deception or a confession of ignorance. If you have read beyond the title page, you'll know that there is no ethical 'favouring' here - instead, there is a sense that those 'favoured' by circumstance tend to survive longer than those who are not favoured. If you apply this to humans, the implication is that all races who have survived are 'favoured'. The fact that Europeans decimated populations in the new world is not deemed ethical or unethical - it simply indicates that those who died were not 'favoured' - they were too weak, susceptible to disease, etc. Those who are still alive after 200, 500 or more years of colonisation have adapted and demonstrated that they are favoured or preferred. It's not really a justification of racism when seen in that light.

A healthy and functioning society operates within boundaries not set by laws designed by lawyers: but created principles of divine character to be devotedly admired of the pure, whole and perfect and care and self sacrificial love for our fellow humans including enemies. Established within the character of the first man and highlighted by Jesus in his teachings and the way he lived.

God established family and community and intended it function harmoniously on the principles of love. He never intended that the unborn be surgically aborted as a form of birth control, or the aged be euthanized.

Hi Folks... this is a very juicy discussion and is jusssst getting started :) I confidently predict that the outcome will no less than global salvation and renewal :)

Ok.. another SLAP.. serious now.

AJ.. you make an interesting point:

I suspect that just as many people have based their ethics on evolution as they have on gravity - none.

Nope..I have to disagree (respectfully).. if you *begin* with the foundation of natural selection and an evolving range of organisms, you have no other choice than to respond in a naturalistic manner to your existence. ie.. you are limiting your world view to "we are" not "We were created".

Please note..this is not discussion specifically on "Did/did not... God Create" We all know that discussion is a very long and usually fruitless one.

I'm simply focusing on the logical ramifications of Human beings as the result of 'Natural selection/evolution' in ethical terms.

You asked.. "more developed for what" to which I respond.. "for anything".. I'm just saying that 'logically'.... if humanity is a product of natural selection..the axioms below apply

1/ Modern man arose from a pool of *various* stages of humanoid development. (as opposed to a single ancestor)
2/ Thus, it follows that the level of development is also different between races. That development (to use just one possibility) could be 'intellectual capacity'.

Now..remember.. I don't advocate this or assert it.. I'm only saying it follows 'reasonably' from the foundational ideas of "Evolution/Natural selection"

In fact.. it might even be called an "argumentum a fortiori"

ie.. the acceptance of one truth, strongly implies another.

It so turns out that Darwin was a monogenesist, but that was for political/family reasons :) not philosophical.

We can return to ethics soon... let's focus on the 2 axioms and thrash them to death/life first :)

Dear OTO... yes..I'm aware of DOM... we can introduce that later if ok ?

//Darwin applies evolutionary theory to human evolution, and details his theory of sexual selection. The book discusses many related issues, including evolutionary psychology, evolutionary ethics, differences between human races, differences between sexes, the SUPERIORITY OF MEN TO WOMEN , and the relevance of the evolutionary theory to society.//

Oto.. ur female are you not ? :)

One more from DOM.

//At some future point, not distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated.//

*interesting*

It is quite pointless

To discuss evolution

With "creationists"

Shintaro.

"It is quite pointless

To discuss evolution

With "creationists"

Yes its is, when the world according to their book of fact, it started with Adam and Eve, and then Cane and Abel continued to populate the entire human race.

And some people have a problem with the GAY community.......:)

The ethical behavior of religious cults can never be justified, considering the blood that saturates every page of a man made belief. Its no doubt that Darwin will go down as the bringer of truth.......and will be honored for all time.

BLUE

When Adolf Hitler adopted evolution it logically followed he saw ethical reasons why lesser humans should be eradicated from his superior Arian society and ultimately the earth.

Principle {1} in ethics how does one sees man and their place in the world. All ethics hinges on that principle, as ethics is about the behaviour of man.

For those that do not believe evolution has influenced ETHICS should read Encyclopedia Britannica on Ethics.

I'll be in Brisbane for a couple of days so will not be posting.

Al
“The sons of Ham:”

You forgot “Aneggs” &#9786;

“Peter..and others, can you accept that … it is more probable that the various branches of humanity have developed at different rates and advancement both physically and intellectually?”

Yes.

I also don’t think it’s unethical to prefer one inherited characteristic over another, as long as one is not *initiating aggression* on the basis of it.

I do kind of base my ethics on evolutionary theory, as follows. I think one has an obligation, in constructing an ethics, to base it on fact as well as one is able to. The original *moral* sins of theists down the ages, such as the persecution of other faiths or even their co-religionists, stem from an original *intellectual* sin, which was embracing propositions that were palpably or probably false. There was some excuse for the wandering goatherds who wrote the early scriptures, who knew nothing of geology, embryology, taxonomy genetics. But that excuse is gone.

I take evolutionary theory to explain the facts of biology, including human origins, better than any supernatural explanation. On that basis, I construct my ethics. For example, I do not accept the sexual proscriptions of the Christian religion. If we look in Genesis to discover their reason, we find there isn’t one – they start and endure as irrational prejudices, that is all. So long as one’s sexuality does not involve initiating aggression, or abuse of a child, I don’t think it is immoral – whereas Christians think pretty much every kind of sexuality is deep and double-damned, except monogamous sex.

I prefer the Taoist ethic which sees sexuality as part of the arts of health, aesthetics and sympathy, than the Christian ethic which attaches so much shame and guilt to sex with so little reason. A more sensible nature-worship ethic should view delightful and life-affirming sex as a kind of sacrament.

Philo
Hitler’s mass murders do not follow logically from evolutionary theory, because it does not provide values justifying such action.

Hi Peter...that was a helpful response (all others noted also)

Now.. you are now at the point I've been trying to establish.

"Assertion....implications"

If we assert "evolution/natural selection" the implication is exactly as you and Hitler understood it. Not connecting you with him of course.

Now... GENETICS.. does that have something to say about all this?

Indeed it does.. and this is where I've been heading

Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosomal Adam. So says the current theory of the human Genome project.

//analysis of variation in the human mitochondrial genome has led to the postulation of a recent common ancestor for all humans on the maternal line of descent.//

Now.. from an ethical point of view, the concept of all humans originating from ONE ancestor is the only scientific foundation for the 'Equality of Man'

I rejoice that science and genetics have finally validated and caught up with :)

"In the beginning, God created" and

Gen 1:26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image"

So, we have a convergence of theology and science (theological position was first of course) which can both be used to establish the fundamental equality of mankind.

There is in fact no other basis for claiming 'Equality'

Next stop... SINGER'S ETHICS

Assuming God created man in His own image, it wouldn't and doesn’t follow from that, that he made man equal. Obviously, however humans originated, they are diverse and individuated, in other words, not equal as a matter of fact.

The question is, how we get from that self-evident proposition of fact, to justifying an ethic in which man can and should be treated as equal.

Evolutionary theory, of itself, does not help because there's no reason why we couldn't all be descended from a common ancestor, and yet not equal. The siblings of common parents are individuated and factually unequal, and so a fortiori for farther-flung members of the human family.

No sir, what we need is an ethic that, starting from the factual *inequality* of man, justifies, and requires *equal rights for all*, based on
a) the nature of man as discoverable by reason
b) internally consistent logic
and that avoids the need to rely on theistic or evolutionary explanations of how man got here.

This has been done by Murray Rothbard in “The Ethics of Liberty”. He has done all the spadework for us. I commend his easy readability and common sense to your readership:
http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/ethics.asp , particularly the Introduction.

It is enough to dismiss Singer outright as a dangerous creep to know that he thinks the United Nations - of all people - should be administering the ethical standards of the world!

Natural Law is a moral theory of jurisprudence, which maintains that law should be based on morality and ethics. Natural Law holds that the law is based on what’s “correct.” Natural Law is “discovered” by humans through the use of reason and choosing between good and evil. Therefore, Natural Law finds its power in discovering certain universal standards in morality and ethics.

An introduction to the problem of evil, the argument that the existence of evil in the world is proof that God does not exist. Preference utilitarianism is one of the most popular forms of utilitarianism in contemporary philosophy.[citation needed] Unlike classical utilitarianism, which defines right actions as those that maximize pleasure and minimize pain, preference utilitarianism promotes actions that fulfill the interests (preferences) of those beings involved. The beings may be rational, that is to say, their interests may be carefully selected based on future projections, but this is not compulsory; here, the definition of "party" extends to all sentient beings, even those living solely in the present. Since what is good and right depends solely on individual preferences, there can be nothing that is in itself good or bad: for preference utilitarians, the source of both morality and ethics in general is subjective preference.[1] Preference utilitarianism therefore can be distinguished by its acknowledgement that every person's experience of satisfaction is unique.

Continued

The theory, as outlined by R. M. Hare in 1981, is controversial, insofar as it presupposes some basis by which a conflict between A's preferences and B's preferences can be resolved (for example, by weighting them mathematically).[2] In a similar vein, Peter Singer, a major proponent of preference utilitarianism and himself influenced by the views of Hare, has been criticised for giving priority to the views of beings capable of holding preferences (being able to actively contemplate the future and its interaction with the present) over those solely concerned with their immediate situation, a group that includes many animals and young children. Hence, in cases of abortion, the views of the parent (however selfish or not, as the case may be) are prioritised over those of the fetus, without recourse to any (perceived) rights (here, the "right to life").[1] There are, he writes in regard to killing in general, times when "the preference of the victim could sometimes be outweighed by the preferences of others". Singer does, however, still place a high value on the life of rational beings, since killing them does not infringe upon just one of their preferences, but "a wide range of the most central and significant preferences a being can have".[3]

Peter....I think everyone has a right to an opinion....I think:)

BLU

AGIR:

You ask whether zoophilia should be taught at a major university?
To the best of my knowledge I don't believe that it is offered as
a separate subject.
If a lecturer was to express an opinion on that subject - I'm sure that it would have been in an appropriate context. Which the students can judge for themsleves - being fully-functional adults, and presumably intelligent ones. However, not knowing what the context was - I don't think think that any of us are in a position to be able to judge accurately.

Is preference utilitarianism a sound approach to ethics? I'm not a student of that subject either - and it is a complicated subject as anyone who's googled it would know. The study of ethics is difficult enough, and there are so many questions within that subject.
We can all disagree as to the very meaning of the principles or the virtue in question. Ethics after all remains a science of living, however it is not in itself a form of moral action or practice.

What is the point of your thread exactly?

"Peter....I think everyone has a right to an opinion....I think:)"

Indubitably. What they don't have is a right to use violence or the threat of it to force others to comply. There is where I am constantly at variance with statists and interventionists of every stripe.

"Since what is good and right depends solely on individual preferences, there can be nothing that is in itself good or bad: for preference utilitarians, the source of both morality and ethics in general is subjective preference."

I can't see how that is not rubbish; how it would licence any abuse; how it would fail to distinguish ethical from unethical behaviour; how it would negate moral behaviour; undermine social co-operation, and make anyone the slave of another based on the other's mere individual preference.

Al is right. It's not merely amoral. It's positively immoral.

And we're being forced to fund this immoral drivel!

First of all, the world is going through a transitional change right now, and its very similar to the gold rush days, when any thing goes. All one can do in these red cordial times, is the wait until mankind carms down a touch.

I ask the OLO community, in your opinion, is this the kind of 'ethics' which should be taught at a major university in a faculty specializing in applied ethics ?

"Secondly, no matter how we feel about the practice of zoophilia, does it not follow logically from acceptance of Darwinian evolutionary thinking, as just one of a number of possible behaviors? and Further, if we accept Darwinian evolution, who are we to make value judgements on the practice?

Is "Preference Utilitarianism" a sound approach to ethics?

Al, I agree with one particular quote......"let them judge for themselves.
I mean very little is as sound as its once was, and what is ethical or moral for that matter, it seems the more you expose it to them, the less venturesome some become. To cap the evolving human-mind in a world where any-thing-goes, is like trying to shut the gates when the horses have bolted. The Internet is one of the main players in this, and its now up to the educators to keep up with this. However, I don't agree with all of Peter Singers thoughts, but I agree hes keeping up with the 21 centuries demands on how fast humans are developing.

AJ Philips

"Secular ethics come from an understanding of reality, not a baseless assertion of authority, and for that reason alone, they are superior."

Foyle

"Singer's "How are we to live" is a better guide to ethical behaviour than any ancient tome."


If you hide the real world away from them, they will simply find a way to see what your hiding. The evolvement of religions programings has already been hard-wired into the brains of modern man, hence its served its purpose.

Continued

Peter...you said

"Indubitably. What they don't have is a right to use violence or the threat of it to force others to comply."

How and who is using violence/threats/force?

The puppeteers have got the world in such a spin, they have got us all running around in circles, so we don't see who's pulling the strings. Its far to late to ask for a time machine and say, lets go back and fix it. Human greed and the money/law makers have set the stage, and this is how we have archived so much so quickly.

Peter Singer has been described as the newer voice of the brave.

"I can't see how that is not rubbish; how it would licence any abuse;"

All are responsible for their own actions and or, you can do it, but don't get caught. These are the new rules that feed our world today on all levels, and ETC's I could give...well, I don't have the space.

Bestiality......well, just look at the comments here, and personally....I think Al's making a mountain out of a mole hill.

http://tinyurl.com/49ryrcx

Its a brave new world, don't be afraid of it, just have commonsense and all will be fine.

BLU

Fascinating and wonderful... a worthy discussion for sure.

quote:

"It is enough to dismiss Singer outright as a dangerous creep to know that he thinks the United Nations" (Peter Hume)

Pete....I'd happily 'dismiss' him if he was a nobody who cannot effect the tone or content of our education system. UNfortunately..that ain't the case. As I pointed out earlier..he is a high powered, high profile 'world recognized' academic who specializes in "APPLIED" ethics and is on a reference board thingy of Melbourne University..our top uni.

*THAT* is great cause for worry on my side of things.

LEXI.. you ask 'what was the point' of the thread ?

2 points

1/ GET RID OF SINGER.... from Melbourne Uni (and Monash).. (after exposing his tolerant approach to debased immorality.. bestiality and incest) Note..this is a personal opinion and is a 'political statement'.

2/ To attempt to show that an evolutionary foundation for ethics is flawed or inadequate....as it leads to potential racism, slavery and all kinds of stuff.

3/ By contrast.. to show by both Genetics and Theology, that the true equality of man can only be validated if we all come from one ancestor.

Which leads to the need to further discuss Peters point..about obvious 'inequality' as a fact.

Ok.. Peter.. yes.. not all people are intellectually or physically equal.. this is based on individual traits and also race. e.g. Asians are not generally equal to Caucasians in contact sports. Caucasians are probably at a disadvantage in contact sports when playing hulking Islanders. All are at a disadvantage when long distance running is involved compared to say Ethiopians.

But the 'equality' I am speaking of and striving to bring out here....is 'positional or ethical' not physical.

I believe the theological affirmation is more likely to produce this result than the naturalistic.

“How and who is using violence/threats/force?”

Anyone initiating aggression is using violence/threats/force. Government, whether democratic or not, involves a claim of a legal monopoly of the right to initiate aggression. It is in the nature of the state. Policy means police-y. It means what police are to enforce – with tasers, handcuffs, guns and cages. This is the ultimate import of Singer’s “applied ethics”. It means he to pontificate, the legislature to enact, and the police to enforce.

So we need an ethic to distinguish the justified, from the unjustified use of force.

“All are responsible for their own actions…”

However the ethic of the welfare state is the reverse: “You are responsible for everyone but yourself.”

Al
As I have shown, evolutionary theory cannot be blamed for the errors of racists and bigots who illogically believe that such theory supplies their chauvinist values. The fact that the stronger kill the weaker does not mean the stronger should kill the weaker.

“to show by both Genetics and Theology, that the true equality of man can only be validated if we all come from one ancestor.”

I have shown reason why that proposition is not, and in the nature of man, cannot be true. You have not shown any reason to refute my argument or prove yours.

Can’t you prove the ethical equality of man as follows?:

It is self-evident that:
1. Man is a social animal
2. Society requires ethical rules
3. Ethical rules, to be ethical, must be universally and equally applicable, else they are a double standard, a prescription for privilege and exploitation, and not ethical
4. Because of their factual differences, humans cannot be made equal, nor afforded equal opportunity
5. It is not ethical to attempt to force something that is impossible
6. The only universally and equally applicable ethic possible is the ethic if liberty: you have a right to do what you want with your person or property so long as this does not infringe the equal right of others to the same freedom.

4. Because of their factual differences, humans cannot be made equal, nor afforded equal opportunity
5. It is not ethical to attempt to force something that is impossible
6. The only universally and equally applicable ethic possible is the ethic if liberty: you have a right to do what you want with your person or property so long as this does not infringe the equal right of others to the same freedom.

I would argue that Peter Humes' last three points are to a degree self contradictory.

I agree that human beings are not born equal or with equal potential but each society has an obligation to ensure that every child born has the opportunity to have their potential fully developed. Our present education system does not do that mainly as a consequence of John Howard's (and now Julia's) subsidies to well off schools attended by mainly the children of well off parents.

Helping children develop their own ethics by discussion of open ended questions for one hour per week of school time will improve each student's cognitive abilities by 6-7%, improve their behaviour significantly and benefit them, their future partners and their offspring forever.

That is intervention and causing change! And it is for the better of society.

I quoted Ardrey in an earlier comment. I would add another statement by the same author mainly to show that Darwinian evolution is as proven as the theory of gravity. I suggest that the god supporters also read the 24 separate lines of evidence that australopithicus africanus, a forefather of the homo line hunted for a living using tools (arms).
(continued)

"Toward the close of African Genesis I wrote:
Had man been born of a fallen angel, then the contemporary predicament would lie as far beyond solution as it would lie beyond explanation. Our wars and our atrocities, our crimes and our quarrels, our tyrannies and our injustices could be ascribed to nothing other than singular human achievement. And we should be left with a clear-cut portrait of man as a degenerate being endowed at birth with virtue's treasury whose only notable talent had been to squander it. But we were born of risen apes, not fallen angels, and the apes were armed killers besides. And so what shall we wonder at? Our murders and massacres and missiles, and our irreconcilable regiments? Or our treaties whatever they may be worth; our symphonies however seldom they may be played; our peaceful acres however frequently they may be converted into battlefields; our dreams however rarely they may be accomplished? The miracle of man is not how far he has sunk but how magnificently he has risen. We are known among the stars by our poems, not our corpses.
Much has happened in the sciences since I published those lines, for it has been a time of discovery and controversy. Just as in the time of Darwin himself, the evolutionist has been drawn, quartered, boiled in oil, burned at blithe stakes. We are pessimists; we endanger the human future. Yet I can today no more discover pessimism in those lines than I could when I wrote them in 1961.
Man is a marvel—yet not so marvelous as to demand miraculous explanation. Man is a mystery transcending all our arithmetic, and will remain so, I have little doubt, whatever the revelations of our future sciences".
Robert Ardrey, The Hunting Hypoptheseis, 1976, Chpt1, p6, Atheneum edn

FOYLE... interesting point:

//I agree that human beings are not born equal or with equal potential but each society has an obligation to ensure that every child born has the opportunity to have their POTENTIAL fully developed.//

For Peters sake also.. foyle is arguing 2 things there.. I feel.

1/ 'physical/intellectual' equality...(capability)
2/ Equality in 'standing'. (potential)

Peter.. the argument I'm making is that we have equal 'standing' before God. Notice how Foyle points out some apparently self contradictory aspects to your last few points?

In any case.. the viability of such a system of ethics as you've outlined depends primarily on good will.

But well know.. that the real world depends more on brute force/raw power to enforce even the framework in which a given system of ethics operates. Hence your observation "Police-y".

All these systems of ethics, are nice in themselves, but due to the fundamental human drives of: (again :)

1-Self preservation
2-Self propogation
3-Self gratification

We find them impossible to exist in the whole world.

As soon as one family or clan becomes large enough to be a threat to another.. conflict (even pre-emptive) breaks out.

It does come back to resources and the 'pleasure' principle or 3 above. Thinking males who are agressive.. tend to like the idea of a bit of a harem.. (ask Solomon :) and the barrier to that is 'other males' So...'ethics' simply does not enter into it. It's more primal and instinctual.

SOLOMON (Ecclesiasties 1: 12

I, the Teacher, was king over Israel in Jerusalem. 13 I applied my mind to study and to explore by wisdom all that is done under the heavens.

Step 1 2:1 I said to myself, “Come now, I will test you with pleasure to find out what is good.”

... see next post please/

...continued/

This is how Solomon put that pleasure principle into practice:

4 I undertook great projects: I built houses for myself and planted vineyards. 5 I made gardens and parks and planted all kinds of fruit trees in them. 6 I made reservoirs to water groves of flourishing trees. 7 I bought male and female slaves and had other slaves who were born in my house. I also owned more herds and flocks than anyone in Jerusalem before me. 8 I amassed silver and gold for myself, and the treasure of kings and provinces. I acquired male and female singers, and a harem[a] as well—the delights of a man’s heart. 9 I became greater by far than anyone in Jerusalem before me. In all this my wisdom stayed with me.

BUT WAIT....there's more!

10 I denied myself nothing my eyes desired;
I refused my heart no pleasure.
My heart took delight in all my labor,
and this was the reward for all my toil.
11 Yet when I surveyed all that my hands had done
and what I had toiled to achieve,
everything was meaningless, a chasing after the wind;
nothing was gained under the sun

Oops... what a change! (last few verses) *meaningless*

You would need to read the whole of Ecclesiastes to know his conclusions.. but the point I'm making is that 'these' principles are also at work among us... so our 'ethics' is often subject to more carnal intent.

Peter's idea of complete freedom is nice in theory, but who will 'enforce' the 'no harm'idea ?

The following website may be of interest to those who wish to know more about the subject. It gives an extensive bibliography at the end of the article:

http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1985----.htm
Ethics by Peter Singer
In Encyclopedia Britannica. Chicago. 1985, pp.627-648

Hi Lexi

I looked it up and found this:

//A modern theist might say that since God is good, he could not possibly approve of torturing children nor disapprove of helping neighbours. In saying this, however, the theist would have tacitly admitted that there is a standard of goodness that is independent of God.//

He is right.. MIGHT but a thinking Theist knows that "good" is defined BY God...not man..and thus there is no separate standard of right or wrong.

So...that's why we don't say it :)

What we DO say is....

1/ Love God with all our heart (according to his self revelation)
2/ Love/do for your neighbour as you would have them do for you.

That pretty much covers all ethical behavior.

Foyle
You have not shown that any of my points are in any degree self-contradictory - only that you don’t agree with them. But your own argument is impossible, illogical and unethical for the following reasons.

It is common ground that man is factually unequal and cannot be made equal.

Some say we should strive for equal opportunity. However this is no less impossible. People inherit and receive greater opportunity from their families. Equal opportunity would require abolition of the family.

But even that would not suffice. One has a greater inherited mathematical ability than another. There is no reason why someone with a naturally and permanently low aptitude at mathematics should receive a forcibly confiscated unequal allocation of resources to try to get him to the same level.

And even with all the tuition in the world, it will still *not be possible* to provide equal opportunity. It could not be provided without equal incomes but that also cannot be achieved either voluntarily or by force without destroying human economy and society.

But even if equal *money* income could be achieved – which it can’t - people could still not enjoy *real* equal opportunity. You - where you are - do not and cannot have equal opportunity to enjoy the sight of the Ganges river, compared to the Indian now there; nor he your view. And so on for *all* the variegations of planet Earth and individual characteristics.

One person can have his potential “fully developed” only at the expense of another – as you yourself assume. But there is *no such thing* as the ethical right to someone else’s efforts taken by coercion – it is ethically indistinguishable from slavery.

Nor have you even begun to show why, ethically speaking, society should not meet the obligation your assert by *voluntary* instead of *coercive* means.

Thus your proposal:
1. requires treating people unequally as to inputs – how *the state* (not “society”) get the money
2. requires treating people unequally as to outputs – actively exploiting some and privileging others
3. requires aggressive violence to realize it...

4. …cannot possibly be successful even in its own terms
5. relies on a double standard – “I’m allowed to hit you but you’re not allowed to hit me”
…and all this to try to achieve greater equality!

It is therefore illogical, impossible, unethical, and self-contradictory.

AGIR
Solomon, and the inherently conflicting interests of man, show that ethics is needed, not that it’s not.

“Peter's idea of complete freedom is nice in theory, but who will 'enforce' the 'no harm' idea ?”

The job of a theory of ethics is to show how we should judge right from wrong. The job of a theory of practice is to say how to make it happen.

As to the ethics, even if we knew beforehand that robbery and rape could not be eliminated in practice, that would not be any refutation of our ethical reasons for condemning them, nor provide any ethical vindication of these abuses.

As to practice, the main thing each of us can do is to *stop believing and propagating unethical beliefs*: stop advocating the sacrifice of virgins to increase crop fertility, and stop advocating socialism and unprovoked aggression of any kind – legal or not - as a means to get what we want.

The faith in the state to do ethical or economical good is rationally indefensible. It is always – repeat always – built on demonstrable ethical, factual or logical falsehoods, as I have shown with Foyle.

We need to recognize that the belief that forced confiscations and forced redistributions
a) are morally superior, or
b) make society economical better off
are completely and totally FALSE.

It is true that in practice, man will try to get what he wants by plunder if he can get away with it safely. The state is just a machine for making it safe, and even worse, prestigious, that is all. But that is not an ethical justification of it.

Peter Hume, I certainly do disagree with you. I cannot find the full quote or the author but I recall part and it stated ".. there is nothing more contemptible than the smug acceptance of the inevitable shortcomings of society."
J K Galbraith did say, "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof."
I can add a comment from my own experience. For several years, through a community service group, I have assisted a now legally blind mother, forty years my juniour, who has been diagnosed with Wolfram syndrome, a serious health problem resulting from a recessive gene fault inherited from both parents. Her children are not afflicted but may carry the defective gene. Her health problem is not her fault and, in the age before genome analysis, no one else's!
Should not society attempt to help those children reach their full potential and overcome the learning difficulties and other disadvantages they suffer as the result of their mothers serious health problems. Blindness is only one but the most obvious symptom; but others are diabetes and bipolar.
The children have plenty of potential but the mother who is quite bright cannot even check if they have done the school work required or help with set work in text books. The children need free home supervision and tutoring after school.
You called Singer a fascist in an earlier comment. Dear me, what is it about glass houses.

AGIR:

You are merely expressing your opinion. To which you are entitled. But not your facts. Go back and re-read the context in which the quote was made.

You know.....Lexi.....I think the whole world should take that advice.

BLUE

Foyle
“Should not society attempt to help those children reach their full potential and overcome the learning difficulties and other disadvantages they suffer as the result of their mothers serious health problems.”

Yes but that’s not what you’re arguing. You’re arguing that *the state* should.

You just *assume* both, but do not *prove* either:
1. that as a matter of ethics you are justified in initiating aggression to get what you want
2. that trying to solve the problem by way of coercion produces better results in practice than by way of voluntary relations, all things considered.

Thus you have not even begun to establish your own argument, nor done anything to refute mine. And adding personal disparagement does nothing to improve it either.

Fascists are against personal liberty, I’m in favour of it.

You're too nice to him, Lexi.

>>You are merely expressing your opinion. To which you are entitled. But not your facts. Go back and re-read the context in which the quote was made<<

A quick look at the remainder of the paragraph reveals:

"A modern theist might say that since God is good, he could not possibly approve of torturing children nor disapprove of helping neighbours. In saying this, however, the theist would have tacitly admitted that there is a standard of goodness that is independent of God. Without an independent standard, it would be pointless to say that God is good; this could only mean that God is approved of by God. It seems therefore that, even for those who believe in the existence of God, it is impossible to give a satisfactory account of the origin of morality in terms of a divine creation."

Boaz's cop-out line is instructive:

>>1/ Love God with all our heart (according to his self revelation)
2/ Love/do for your neighbour as you would have them do for you.
That pretty much covers all ethical behavior.<<

No-one objects to 2/. It does indeed encapsulate a great deal of ethical behaviours - not all, of course, but much.

However, in doing so, it renders 1/ completely redundant.

A concept which is also neatly encapsulated in Singer's paragraph. The suggestion being that since God both establishes and approves the ethical standard, all arguments on the validity of those standards will be circular. Ultimately, it is up to us to determine the ethics we should insist upon from our society.

Pericles:

Thank You.

There's an interesting chapter in the book, "The God Delusion," by Richard Dawkins entitled, "The roots of morality: why are we good?"
in which Dawkins says, "Many religious people find it hard to imagine how, without religion, one can be good, or would even want to be good.
But the doubts go further, and drive some religious people to paroxysms of hatred against those who don't share their faith. This is important, because moral considerations lie hidden behind religious attitudes to other topics that have no real link with morality. A great deal of the opposition to the teaching of evolution has no connection with evolution itself, or with anything scientific, but is spurred on by moral outrage. This ranges from the naive, "If you teach children that they evolved from monkeys, then they will act like monkeys" to the more sophisticated underlying motivation for the whole "wedge" strategy of "intelligent design"; as it is mercilessly laid bare by Barbara Forrest abd Paul Gross in "Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design." I receive a large number of letters from readers of my books, most of them enthusiastically friendly, some of them helpfully critical, a few nasty or even vicious. And the nastiest of all, I am sorry to report, are almost invariably motivated by religion. Such unchristian abuse is commonly experienced by those who are perceived as enemies of Christianity..."

Obviously, AGIR is a man on a "mission." Hence his thread.

I'll leave Peter and Foyle to fight that one out.. you are doing a good job on it.

Pericles and Lexi... The rest of the paragraph?

I did read it..but disagree with it. Now..you ask for 'facts' hmmmm

Well....when it comes to ethics we are pretty much always speaking about opinions. But this idea of an independant standard of 'good' ?

That's rather my central point. Except that I disagree that there is a standard independant of God which is valid.

The Canaanites used to feed their children into the fire to satisfy Moloch their god. I guess if you asked them 'what is good'..they would say "Obey Moloch..and feed your offspring into a firey death"

So.. it must come back to an independant standard..yes..but not independant of God. If there was a 'standard' outside of God it would 'be' God.

Humanity left to itself will go anywhere... and in many cases to different ethical places.

I think you 2 are more applying our current ideas retrospectively than thinking objectively.

Pericles.. took a while :) but finally you are in.. *smile*

Peter Hhume
<<Yes but that’s not what you’re arguing. You’re arguing that *the state* should>>.
I used the word society. What better agent of society is there than the state? At least the selfish, if they haven’t managed to avoid tax, then pay their fair share or would you have a return to the age of the workhouse and parish distribution of alms?

With your view of liberty, which appears to be more ultra-conservative than liberal, we would still be without sewerage, water would be from the village pump, there would be no state funded basic research and the education system would be driving us back to the dark ages through indoctrination and the influence of authoritarians. It took an act of parliament before degrees could be obtained from Oxford and Cambridge unless the candidate was acceptable to the established church.

Let me this time quote the economist professor Paul Samuelson, “The organiser of industry who thinks he has “made” himself and his business has found a whole social system ready to his hand in skilled workers, machinery, a market, peace and order – a vast apparatus and a pervasive atmosphere, the joint creation of millions of men and scores of generations. Take away the whole social factor and we have not Robinson Crusoe, with his salvage from the wreck and his acquired knowledge, but the naked savage living on roots, berries and vermin.”

The taxation system and redistribution is no more than the common weal claiming a fair share of current wealth and output as a return on contribution of past generations as the state seeks to ensure that future generations have a similar “whole social system” as the present generations do.

Dear Al,

"Humanity left to itself will go anywhere...."
Well, yes. These "God given" ethics are still translated according to the desires of whichever society is implementing them.
Hence, modern society has a much lessened awareness of the natural harmony between itself and the world. Whereas once it was Christian outlook to see humanity as part of God's earthly creation and to experience God through the world, modern Western/Christian practice is to excise man from his earthly connection and responsibility as steward in favour of the questionable morality of plundering her fruits while despoiling her with nary a second glance.
This happens with the tacit approval of the Church in the West.
What are seen by some as "God given ethics" are construed and adapted according to the whims of the times, and are, therefore, totally at the mercy of man's vagaries.

Which part did you disagree with, Boaz?

>>Pericles and Lexi... The rest of the paragraph? I did read it..but disagree with it.<<

It seems perfectly straightforward to me, describing as it does the circular logic required to believe that God has actually established some ethical standards.

You kinda prove the point yourself, by going on to say:

>> I disagree that there is a standard independant of God which is valid. The Canaanites used to feed their children into the fire to satisfy Moloch their god. I guess if you asked them 'what is good'..they would say "Obey Moloch..and feed your offspring into a firey death"<<

http://blog.aurorahistoryboutique.com/moloch-worship-in-ancient-canaan/

What, I wonder, were the instructions of your own God, around the same time? Much along the lines, I suspect, of all those instructions in Deuteronomy 13 6-10

"If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die"

The stated ethical standard here would appear to be "It is permissible - no, it is mandatory - to kill anyone who does not share your religious views".

Using your own phraseology:

"I guess if you asked them 'what is good'..they would say "Obey God, and stone anyone in your family who doesn't worship him"

Nice.

AGIR:

As I understand it from your last post - and as Dawkins also observed: " it seems that in the absence of God, people would commit robbery, rape, and murder..." in that case you reveal yourself as an immoral person, and all of us would be well advised to steer a wide-course around you. If on the other hand, you admit that you would continue to be a good person even not under divine surveillance, you've fatally undermined your claim that God is necessary for us to be good." Dawkins told us, "I suspect that quite a lot of religious people do think religion is what motivates them to be good, especially if they belong to one of those faiths that systematically exploits personal guilt. It seems to me to require quite a low self-regard to think that, should belief in God suddenly vanish from the world, we would all become callous and selfish hedonists, with no kindness, no charity, no generousity, nothing that would deserve the name of goodness..."

The cynic H.L. Menchen might have got it right when he tartly observed: "People say we need religion when what they really mean is we need police."

Posted by Lexi:>> As I understand it from your last post - and as Dawkins also observed: " it seems that in the absence of God, people would commit robbery, rape, and murder..." in that case you reveal yourself as an immoral person, and all of us would be well advised to steer a wide-course around you.<<

Lexi we are all fallible and immoral.

If we gauge morality as the willful act of "conforming ones actions" to standards that attempt to stop us preying on each other, then we by historic example are overwhelmingly immoral. I cannot think of one society that has existed throughout our history that has not employed a civil force to detain wrong doers and administer punishment. It seems that we are on the whole immoral.

Since the demise of Christianity in the first world the percentage of citizen in jail has grown remarkably. Here in Australia in the 1980 the incarceration rate was 89.9 per 100,000; by 2000 this had climbed to 149.2 per 100,000, and at present we have more people locked up than ever before, and you have to consider that the courts are immensely more lenient now than previously, it is hard to get locked up, they have no room.

Lexi you may not fear a creator and modify your behavior but adherence to a religious teaching and the threat of eternal retribution keeps some in line, so it is a positive to the non believer as well given that society as a whole is safer.

Foyle
You first assume without proof that the state *is* society, and when called on that error, you assume without proof that the state *represents* society.

But it is not enough for you to assume it - you need to *prove* what you are arguing.

One fact alone in Australia disproves that entire argument – voting is compulsory. You can’t build any theory of consent on that.

For a complete demolition of your *assumption* that the state represents society, see: http://economics.org.au/2010/08/unrepresentative-government/#comments

Even if the political system provided a way to know that a majority are *in fact* in favour of a particular governmental action – which it doesn’t – still, if the majority vote for slavery, or robbery, or murder, that doesn’t prove:
a) that they represent society, nor
b) that what they vote for is ethically okay or
c) that they represent people better than the people represent themselves.

If Smith the fruiterer seller uses violence to drive all his competition out of the neighbourhood, that will not prove that the use of violence was *necessary* or *desirable* to supply the neighbourhood with fruit, will it?

How is your argument about the state in any better position?

You have not explained how, if someone commits a crime, it’s ethically bad, but if the state commits the same crime, it’s positively good.

Furthermore the fact that the state provides valuable services does not prove that only the state can provide them, nor that it does so better than could be provided otherwise.

For a more complete refutation of your assumption of the moral superiority of state action, see Rothbard “The Nature of the State http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/twentytwo.asp in the Ethics of Liberty.

Thus you:
1. have not done anything other than *assume* without proving that the state represents society;
2. have not established that violent expropriation and redistribution based on demagoguery is morally or practically superior to voluntary production and exchange .

It’s not enough for you to *disagree* with my arguments, you need to *refute* them.

Pericles discrediting Christianity with an edict written for a society that is so alien to modern Western society is simplistic and obvious.

The Torah, the Bible, and the Koran carry a set of words from God that are not open to interpretation, or that were relevant to the times they were written but hopelessly archaic now. In fact these words should encompass the entire contents of all scriptures, nothing else just these words, the only ones delivered to mankind in the presence of God.

1.You shall have no other gods before me.
2.You shall not make for yourself any carved image,
3.You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
4.Remember the Sabbath day, on it you shall do no work.
5.Honor your father and your mother, .
6.You shall not murder.
7.You shall not commit adultery.
8.You shall not steal.
9.You shall not bear false witness..
10.You shall not covet your neighbor’s house.

It is an amazingly concise set of rules for humanity of whatever era. The first three make sure we do not make up our own set of rules. The fourth stops us from being exploited seven days a week. While the last five are a blueprint for love and a peaceful world.

SOG....I could not have put it better myself.. (your last post)

I think the true profundity of the 10 commandments is lost on modern "flexi" man.

Perilous... I quite agree about the circular nature of the argument. I'll leave it to the Holy Spirit to speak in that soft quiet voice into your heart about whether it's also the 'right' way.

Which of course is the issue at stake. At that point, faith is needed.

Gen 15:16
"Abraham believed God.. (History) or..if you like "Abraham believed what he believed was God communicating to him"

Then it says "And God credited that to him as righteousness"

Now.. the only person who's word we have for this is presumably Moses,(The author of Genesis) as the comment is like a reflection on a past event.

The entire context of God's interaction with Abram should be carefully studies before simply dismissing this as some kind of strange psychological experience. (beginning from Gen 11:27)

That simple phrase "credited as righteousness" is the foundation of Pauls argument "Justified by faith" and of Luthers enlightenment from the Catholic mental/intellectual/spiritual prison which asserted 'Obedience' to the Church more than faith was the source of salvation. Heck..if Max Weber is to be believed, it is also responsible for the Protestant work ethic, the success of Capitalism and Western prosperity..I'll not go so far as to blame Global Warming in it though :)..though Bob Brown might given his recent outbursts

SOG:

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
William Shakespeare/Hamlet. Act 1. Scene V.

See you on another thread.

Not me, sonofgloin. Wrong target entirely.

>>Pericles discrediting Christianity with an edict written for a society that is so alien to modern Western society is simplistic and obvious. The Torah, the Bible, and the Koran carry a set of words from God that are not open to interpretation, or that were relevant to the times they were written but hopelessly archaic now.<<

That was simply an illustration of the fallacy in Boaz' argument, in which "Canaanites used to feed their children into the fire to satisfy Moloch their god".

As you quite rightly point out, examples relevant only to their time. Tell Boaz that, when you next see him, so that he doesn't make the same mistake again.

On the topic of the ten commandments, though, it is worth pointing out a couple of sticky points - namely, commandments one through four, which have nothing whatsoever to do with ethical principals at all.

In fact, when you think about them in terms of their ethical content, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that they have been the triggers for more inter-faith bloodshed than any other factor.

How did they prevent the centuries of bloodshed in Northern Ireland, for example, where two sets of Christians claimed the right to blow each other to smithereens, in the name of the same God?

Incidentally, how many of them do you keep?

Fair enough, we are all "sinners" after all.

But do you really think that your tally is necessarily any greater than mine?

It would help, if you suggest that we are wildly different in our ethics, to justify that supposition with some evidence. Otherwise, my ethical standards are at least the equal of yours.

And - given you keep one through four, and I don't - far more compassionate.

In A Darwinian Left,[32] Singer outlines a plan for the political left to adapt to the lessons of evolutionary biology. He says that evolutionary psychology suggests that humans naturally tend to be self-interested. He further argues that the evidence that selfish tendencies are natural must not be taken as evidence that selfishness is right. He concludes that game theory (the mathematical study of strategy) and experiments in psychology offer hope that self-interested people will make short-term sacrifices for the good of others, if society provides the right conditions. Essentially Singer claims that although humans possess selfish, competitive tendencies naturally, they have a substantial capacity for cooperation that has also been selected for during human evolution. Singer's writing in Greater Good magazine, published by the Greater Good Science Center of the University of California, Berkeley, includes the interpretation of scientific research into the roots of compassion, altruism, and peaceful human relationships.

Nonetheless, he is not anti-capitalist. In an interview with New Left Project[33] in 2010, he says the following:

Capitalism is very far from a perfect system, but so far we have yet to find anything that clearly does a better job of meeting human needs than a regulated capitalist economy coupled with a welfare and health care system that meets the basic needs of those who do not thrive in the capitalist economy.

He then adds that "If we ever do find a better system, I'll be happy to call myself an anti-capitalist."

Hey Al....this is one of my favourite pieces:) With the bestiality you mentioned, all you were trying to do, was to show that your cult apposes it more than other religions.

BLUE

SoG,

You’re really stretching a long bow there.

<<Since the demise of Christianity in the first world the percentage of citizen in jail has grown remarkably.>>

There are many factors that could contribute to that. We live in much more populated and complex societies than we did decades ago. To be fair, do you have the stats for the last couple of hundred years?

Let’s not forget that statics tend to show that prison populations are overwhelmingly religious. How did the fear of a presumed creator modify their behaviour?

<<Lexi you may not fear a creator and modify your behavior but adherence to a religious teaching and the threat of eternal retribution keeps some in line, so it is a positive to the non believer as well given that society as a whole is safer.>>

Well that depends on how these immoral people - who actually need the threat of eternal damnation just to behave - want to interpret their vague and contradictory holy books. This adherence to religious teachings that you think atheists should view as a positive can well be a negative as well by giving bad people divine reasoning for their evil actions.

Let’s not forget too, how much of an immoral system Christianity is to begin with.

First, it sets up unrealistic, irrational and immoral criteria by which to live, and then it creates a loophole so that you don’t ever have to be responsible for those actions. Christianity is an immoral system because it specifically says that there aren’t necessarily consequences that you’re going to have to pay because of this loophole.

It has nothing to do with how good a person you are, just whether or not you’re willing to be a sycophant to an idea. And if you are, then there is now an exception for which you no longer have to suffer a penalty.

So you don’t get to sit there and imply that atheism is more inclined to make people feel as though they can get off scot-free when that is a TENET of Christianity.

Hi Blue

my 'bestiality' thing was to show how DANGEROUS it is to have people like Singer on our top universities reference committe for applied ethics.

PERICLES.. *dumb look*.. sorry I just don't get what you were trying to argue with your reference to the moloch stuff....care to elaborate a tad ?

The first 4 commandments have everything to do with Ethics... they form the 'relationship' between man and the Creator which gives validity to the next 6. If not for the first 4, the next 6 are just wishful thinking.

Remember.. the Israelites were exiled and punished as a people for straying from those commandments. If you compare the content of the 10 commandments with the message of the prophets like Isaiah, Jeremiah and others.. it was just 'come back to your roots' ethically, but those prophets primarily attributed the selfish green and narcissism of the Israelites to their flagrant 'up yours' attitude toward the first 4.

If you compare the condition of surrounding nations.. 'child sacrifice' etc.. to that of the Israelites in obedience.. "ritual sacrifice of animals only" then the importance of the first 4 becomes clearer.

BLUE...sorry.. late thoughts..

Further to that last post mentioning you.

The point I'm trying to make re Singer is that using his ethics as a guide... seriously.. we are looking at

-Incest (you'd love his story about the young brother and sister in an audo lecture at Monash)

-Polyandry

-Bestiality

-Homosexuality

you name it... it's a goer.

The reason I hammer away over these things is this.. IN ENGLAND.. I could be hurled into the slammer for 7 yrs for my last 'point'. When law becomes soooo pernicious and oppressive that you can't even EXPRESS a contrary point of view.. we have arrived in 1984.

Poor Old Al.....getting desperate mate? Word of advice......The planet first and fairy sky gods second:).....and here's some reading for you.

Enjoy:)

http://tinyurl.com/4hm5gc4

http://tinyurl.com/kr5pwg

http://tinyurl.com/4og7xr2

http://tinyurl.com/4lcft7o

BLUE

Sorry....that last post was posted befour you posted yours. See I fully agree with your points and who wouldn't. All and even you sometimes say things one regrets later, and I can vouch for that myself:), however, to have a philosophical discussion does not constitute belief......If he's individuality is loosing the plot, which does happen at the time of old age, when one might have to question whether or not its time to step aside.

Many people in this world have very strange thoughts.....and some are in-deed in very high places.

Scary....isn't it.

BLUE

Posted by Pericles:>> Not me, sonofgloin. Wrong target entirely.<<

My apologies.

Posted by Pericles:>> commandments one through four, which have nothing whatsoever to do with ethical principals at all.<<

The Jews Christians and Muslims acknowledge the same God and an enlightened thinker should consider the God of other cultures to be the same god, all the rest is made up by the particular brand of faith, manmade rules and rituals.

Posted by Pericles:>> How did they prevent the centuries of bloodshed in Northern Ireland, for example, where two sets of Christians claimed the right to blow each other to smithereens, in the name of the same God?<<

Pericles all conflicts have at their base inequality or perceived inequality. The Catholics were the working class and the Protestants prospered because of their ties to the Church of England. It was about inequality but identified through the two religions.

Posted by Pericles:>> Incidentally, how many of them do you keep?
But do you really think that your tally is necessarily any greater than mine?<<

Pericles I do not think in those terms

Posted by Pericles:>> Otherwise, my ethical standards are at least the equal of yours.<<

Could be even better, I hope so for your sake as my track record has some grand selfish stuff up's.

When I joined OLO I told AL that my belief system was my own and I do not push it upon others but I do defend the right of believers to believe and not have the core of the religion judged by the acts of the miserable sods that practice it.

Just on Catholics and Protestants in England, Louise Renée de Penancoët de Kérouaille the Duchess of Portsmouth was a Catholic mistress of Charles II of England as was local girl Nell Gwynne, and when Nelly was mistaken for Louise by a group of pissed off Englishmen she emerged from her carriage and said, "Pray good people be civil, I am the Protestant whore not the Catholic whore. With this a cheer and laughter erupted and she was allowed to proceed on her way.

Posted by AJ Philips:>> We live in much more populated and complex societies than we did decades ago.<<

AJ the single factor contributed to the rise in the prison population is drugs. Without going into the reasons behind the uptake of illegal narcotics I will simply say that Christians are not usually going down to the local pub to score. They "attempt" to live to a standard.

>> Statics tend to show prison populations are overwhelmingly religious.<<

When you hit rock bottom and society has ostracized and imprisoned you there is always God, we are taught he will forgive no matter what, so that is where we look. Given the recidivist rate most drop it as soon as they are out.

>> these immoral people - who actually need the threat of eternal damnation just to behave - want to interpret their vague and contradictory holy books.<<

You are correct and I cannot defend the zealot, but the more religious believers the less crime. As for me the Ten Commandments are the alpha and omega, the rest I will sort out with God as an individual with the free will and consciousness that was endowed to us and no other life forms on this earth. So IMO following the last 5 commandments is practicing the religion.

>> Christianity is an immoral system
It has nothing to do with how good a person you are, just whether or not you’re willing to be a sycophant to an idea.<<

Forget about what "religion's" expectations and caveats to immortality are, only God's are important. He gave you free will and he gave you a consciousness and a logical expectation that we will be judged on our interactions with each other. Not whether you think he is there or not, none of us know, some hope, and some deny, but none of us know.

sonofgloin
>>Not whether you think he is there or not, none of us know, some hope, and some deny, but none of us know<<

Those of us who don’t believe have looked in the real world for evidence of anything supernatural and found nothing to support belief or faith.

>> You are correct and I cannot defend the zealot, but the more religious believers the less crime<<
Sorry but examination of the USA figures, state by state, shows that the more religious the state the higher the crime rate. The Scandinavian countries are regarded as much less religious that the USA and the crime rates are much lower in the European states.

I suggest you make yourself aware of the misery visited on young Americans by the restriction of sex education funding to abstinence only education.

I am very much in favour of teaching young student how to reason and think. Philosophical discussion of open ended questions for one hour per week will achieve an excellent outcome. Read the report on a trail in Scotland available at;
http://onlineopinion.com.au/documents/articles/Clackmannan.doc

Peter Hume
I read the economics.org site recommended and concluded that no sensible society or state could function on such a basis.

The hierarchical tendencies of primates leads to the need for some regulating body and so far representative democracy has been shown to work reasonably well, and better than other systems tried in the past, from monarchy and feudal systems to dictatorships.

It would probably work better if the selfish and/or wealthy did not have the ear of our representatives as easily as they do.

As for compulsory voting, people don’t have to actually cast a vote. The framers of our constitution, as reasonable people, decided that everyone needed to register and turn up to show that they had attended a polling place every few years. That is no great imposition considering the benefits we all derive from the communities efforts, through their governments, on such matters as such as the law, defence, education, health and social services.

Without some oversight by representative government who would ensure, for example, that artificial coal mining bodies (companies) do not ruin valuable farming land and subterranean water sources that are assets belonging to the people as a whole (and to future generations?).

I note that you did not dispute that the common weal is entitled to a return on the input of past generations into current economic operations as per my quote from Samuelson.

Instead you ask for proof on matters that most people accept as obvious and fundamental

Always pleased to help, Boaz.

>>PERICLES.. *dumb look*.. sorry I just don't get what you were trying to argue with your reference to the moloch stuff....care to elaborate a tad ?<<

Your observation that:

"Canaanites used to feed their children into the fire to satisfy Moloch their god"

...led you to conclude that:

"I guess if you asked them 'what is good'..they would say 'Obey Moloch..and feed your offspring into a firey death'"

I simply pointed out that:

"And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die"

- which was a reasonably contemporary instruction from the Bible - can equally lead you to conclude that:

"I guess if you asked them 'what is good'..they would say "Obey God, and stone anyone in your family who doesn't worship him"

Is the similarity not striking? I thought so.

>>The first 4 commandments have everything to do with Ethics... they form the 'relationship' between man and the Creator which gives validity to the next 6. If not for the first 4, the next 6 are just wishful thinking.<<

To give you some idea why this cannot possibly be the case, think for a moment what difference it would make if the first four were instructions from the Government. Would that make the "next six" invalid?

Or would they stand on their own two feet as being the sensible, socially harmonious thing to do?

Or indeed, the "ethical" thing?

All that you are saying is that Christians need the authority of their God in order to behave ethically. And some of them don't even do that well following the rules, despite the perceived authority.

Doesn't that put them in the "wishful thinking" category too?

If their God can't get them to toe the line, what hope would anyone else have?

That’s an extremely narrow way of looking at it SoG...

<<AJ the single factor contributed to the rise in the prison population is drugs. Without going into the reasons behind the uptake of illegal narcotics I will simply say that Christians are not usually going down to the local pub to score.>>

So, forgetting for a second how one could actually trust a belief system that threatens people with such an irrational, immoral and unjust punishment to set the standards, let’s get this straight:

Despite the fact that there is a consistent and direct correlation (granted that correlation doesn’t necessitate causation) all around the world with rape, murder, violence, teenage pregnancy, abortion, suicide, crime and the religiosity of a society; despite the fact that Christianity (and now Islam) has needed secular ideals to drag it kicking and screaming out of the dark ages; despite the fact that Christians rely on secular ideals to determine which of parts of their holy book are worth following and which parts are best ignored, we need religion because a tiny percentage of the population might be less inclined to dabble in drugs due to an unfounded belief.

That’s asinine.

In a debate recently, Stephen Fry, with the unwitting help of a Christian, demonstrated the flaw in this argument of yours:

Stephen Fry: ...[The Catholic church], for example, thought that slavery was perfectly fine. Absolutely OK.

Anne Widdecombe: As did all societies of the time!

Stephen Fry: And then they didn't. And what is the point of the Catholic Church, if it says, 'Well, we couldn't know better, because nobody else did'? Then what are you for!
<<They "attempt" to live to a standard.>>

And atheists don’t? What makes a theist’s standards any better; particularly in light of the immorality of the Christian belief system that I pointed out?

Like I said before, secular ethics/morals are superior to theistic ethics/morals because they are based on an understanding of reality, not an assertion of authority.

Secular morals require one to think, and I don’t know of a situation where ‘not thinking’ was the preferable option.

Continued...

...Continued

<<When you hit rock bottom and society has ostracized and imprisoned you there is always God, we are taught he will forgive no matter what, so that is where we look.>>

Well, truth never really did play a big part in why some choose to take up a religious belief now did it.

Interesting point either way, but it’s nullified by your very next sentence...

<<Given the recidivist rate most drop it as soon as they are out.>>

Do they? How do you know that? Or are you just assuming this because, well, they couldn’t POSSIBLY have kept their faith if they offended again?

But assuming this is true; it doesn’t say much for faith as a safe guard against crime if all one has to do is ‘drop it’!

<<...the more religious believers the less crime.>>

And every set of statistics you’ll find, for countries all around the world, disagree with you.

Your prison statistics prove nothing. Not only are they based on one tiny aspect of a much broader problem, but your assertion that the increase of drugs in society is due to the lack of Christians is flimsy at best and completely disregards every other aspect of our increasingly complex and diverse societies.

Again, that’s asinine.

I could just as easily argue that as Christianity declines, so too does racism, homophobia and bigotry in general.

Yes, we are becoming more enlightened as we continue to gain knowledge and learn more through better means of communication. Even if a higher crime rate were a drawback to that, keeping crimes rates low is no justification for wilful ignorance.

Ignorance is dangerous and never preferable.

<<As for me the Ten Commandments are the alpha and omega, the rest I will sort out with God as an individual with the free will and consciousness that was endowed to us and no other life forms on this earth.>>

Forgetting for a second how pathetically inadequate the ten commandments are, if a god exists, then we do not have free will and this is an insurmountable problem for Christians.

Continued...

...Continued

If a god existed then, being all-powerful and all-knowing, they would have full knowledge of what was going to happen in the future. This means that everything we have done, and will do, is already ’set in stone’. If we were able to deviate from what this god foresaw, then this god would no longer be a god.

That’s not free will.

<<Forget about what "religion's" expectations and caveats to immortality are, only God's are important.>>

Ah, the ol’ attempt to divorce the actions of religions from a supposed being who we would have absolutely no knowledge of without the religion. I remember using this one.
The immorality of the Christian belief system that I pointed out is not just the “expectations and caveats” of religion, but specifically that of the Christian god, according to Christian theology.

<<He gave you free will and he gave you a consciousness and a logical expectation that we will be judged on our interactions with each other. Not whether you think he is there or not, none of us know, some hope, and some deny, but none of us know.>>

Until you can demonstrate that my free will comes from this god of yours, this is nothing more than a ball-faced assertion.

But in regards to being judged on our interactions with each other, I suggest you read John 14:6. It is here that Jesus admits that his system is irrational and immoral as it rewards gullibility and sycophancy over good deeds.

Thanx Pericles...I understand now.

There is a rather large difference though.

The punishment for disobedient children or the various acts which incurred death were:

Known to all concerned as a divine punishment/Judgement for specific things done wrong. You do the crime...you do the time.

Those so punished would be of an age where they are responsible.

Contrast this with the Canaanites.. they gave their tiny innocent offspring to burn to death to 'improve harvests' etc...

I know you'd like to find a way of conflating the 2 together but I don't feel it's justified on the facts.

There's no real difference, Boaz.

>>I know you'd like to find a way of conflating the 2 together but I don't feel it's justified on the facts.<<

You choose to describe the Deuteronomy example as a crime.

>>The punishment for disobedient children or the various acts which incurred death were: Known to all concerned as a divine punishment/Judgement for specific things done wrong. You do the crime...you do the time.<<

Broaching the topic of following a different religion with "thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend" is a fairly arbitrary "crime", I would have thought.

Nevertheless, you are quite right, in that consciously flouting the rule incurs a known religious result: death, by stoning.

Similarly, if you are a Canaanite who chooses to follow Moloch, you have also committed yourself to the path that says "I know where this can lead".

In both instances you perform an act for which the outcome is known. Choosing to call one of them a crime does not alter this simple fact.

Posted by AJ Philips:>> forgetting for a second how pathetically inadequate the ten commandments are, if a god exists, then we do not have free will and this is an insurmountable problem for Christians.<<

AJ, what a pain the 350 word limit is, so thanks for your reply. In short you are welcome to your views and you will not get a wide ranging discussion from me on religion, but I will address this comment:

>>Forgetting for a second how pathetically inadequate the ten commandments are, <<

Let us list the last five commandments in an opposite or anti format.

5. STUFF YOUR MUM AND DAD, and look forward to the same from your kids when they become stronger than you.
6. KILL ANYBODY ANYTIME, but wear a flak jacket constantly when in public.
7. SCREW AROUND ON YOUR MRS, and look forward to seeing your mates walking out of your wife’s bedroom in their undies.
8. IF YOU WANT IT TAKE IT, but look forward to staying at home to protect your possessions day and night from the neighbors.
9. LIE TO YOUR HEARTS CONTENT, but be prepared to defend yourself relentlessly from false allegations.
10. SCHEME TO YOUR HEARTS CONTENT ABOUT WHAT YOUR NEIGHBOUR HAS, but save some time to combat the other neighbour who is relentlessly scheming to divest you.

Really AJ, if you do not see the worth of the last five of Gods commandments you are a dill.

Dear SOG...if ONNNNLY you knew what video I've just been watching!

Man alive.. for your information..unless you are all full bottle on it..

have a look (everyone) at THIS:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erhard_Seminars_Training

It's a bit difficult to contextualize without much more background but essentially this is it..

FREUD came up with the idea "the subconscious contains dark primal drive and must be harnessed and controlled"

One of his students RIECH challenged him and said "We must EXPRESS all those primal drives and 'self actualize'"

His thoughts were taken up by the Hippie movement. EST seminars were the place where you got in touch with those subconscious primalities and rebuilt your true naked 'self' as you wished. (see the connection to your inversion of the decalogue ?)

AJ says:
<<then we do not have free will and this is an insurmountable problem for Christians.>>

No AJ..I suggest it is an insurmountable problem for one who's theology is flawed. Ultimately, God is sovereign. The interace between 'free will' and divine election is where time and eternity meet. Our minds cannot leap into the eternal. Romans 9 would make a good read for you.

IMPORTANT.....for those who have never seen this... it's an absolute 'must see'...seriously..

Century of the self. Parts 1 to 4

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6718420906413643126#docid=-6707640545017425209 part 1

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6718420906413643126#docid=-678466363224520614 part 2

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6718420906413643126#docid=-6111922724894802811 part 3

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6718420906413643126#docid=1122532358497501036 Part 4

Add to this mix...and with a tie in to the 60s period is

History of Political correctness

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8630135369495797236#

Every Aussie should know these things and it will revolutionize your outlook on ethics ....and life.

Peter Hume,
So Singer in his view is reverting to the Papal position of Ethics. One voice one view. The World has seen how one body administers ethics on society and the consequences for desent. Obviously Singer is a controll freak.
PH Quote - "It is enough to dismiss Singer outright as a dangerous creep to know that he thinks the United Nations - of all people - should be administering the ethical standards of the world"!

I feel like JFK.:) Corruption, lies , caught-out , and the full of sh@t, we can all See...the smarter you think you are...the bigger fools you make of yourselves.

Just keep going............the new texted shall read........" you will only find dip-sh@ts, when one see,s themselves.

So...the whole world wants to go back too square one! LOL......Ok........don't say you weren't warned.

WOW! Ten too fifteen billion people on this planet, and all the so-called intell ones can do, is stick a ban-aid on it....LOL

Yes....your all earning your money:)

NEXT!

BLU

AJ, your argument is flawed. You impose your understanding of the notion of "God" - one you clearly do not accept - on people who have a very different understanding.

God and free will are not mutually exclusive. The Catholic Church holds the free will of man as a central part of its system of belief. I can't speak too much for other churches, but Catholic belief is something I understand thoroughly.

The Catholic understanding of our relationship with God acknowledges His omnipotence and His omniscience, but also acknowledges that God has equipped us with the capacity to make our own choices and allows us to make them. He offers guidance but does not control us.

Similarly, while He knows what is going to happen, He doesn't cause it to happen. While I understand your suggestion that omniscience requires events to be set in stone, it doesn't require us to simply 'follow the script'. Instead, it requires that God can foresee - but does not control - the decisions we make that lead to those events.

I'm not asking you to accept these principles. As a thinking being, and obviously an intelligent being, you are entitled (even obligated) to make your own mind up. It's not my place to try and influence you. I just offer my explanation so you can form a judgement based on a more accurate understanding of the beliefs you are appraising. I hope that helps.

I'm not sure for which Christians you have identified an 'insurmountable problem'. Certainly none I have met.

Sorry - I thought I had erased that last line. I don't want to be confrontational, because I think that's counterproductive. I apologise for its antagonistic tone.

Otokonoko......... IAM JUST GOING TO SAY YES. Maybe they should bring back witch-burning:) Poor Peter Singer......and the man has done nothing to anyone......Tis, Tis, tis.

Human-nature......the biggest contradiction ever seen.

BLUE

“Instead you ask for proof on matters that most people accept as obvious and fundamental”

Thank you, I take that as a compliment because you’ve got to admit that the capacity of most people, in all societies in all times, to accept things as obvious and fundamental that later turn out to be wrong, is quite prodigious. And very many of these beliefs have included sanctioning the unethical use of violence haven’t they, including the widespread acceptance of slavery.

Slavery - the coerced taking of someone’s labour - is, ethically speaking, indistinguishable from taxation. Libertarians are just the modern abolitionists, who reject for taxation the same arguments that were used for centuries to defend slavery: that it is:
• necessary to social order, otherwise social chaos would result
• approved by the majority, by common sense, etc.
• legal
• sanctioned by tradition
• beneficial to the victim of coercion
• necessary to run public utilities – (as if that were a justification)
• only a madman could disagree
• etc. etc. etc.

It is easy to identify the irrationality of the theist belief in God as supplying ethical solutions. The problems of interpretation involved must resolve into nothing more than an arbitrary assertion, from God’s self-appointed representatives on earth, that their will should be done, usually backed up by force whenever they can, in which they usually managed to do quite well for themselves.

But at least the church fathers explicitly chose faith over rationality, as AlGoreIsRich has just done; unlike Singer.

The modern belief in the ethics of the state is, in its deep structure, virtually identical to the old theist belief in the ethics of God. Statists like Singer invest the state with the same mystical qualities as the theists invest in Yahweh – a decision-making entity; over and above the value of the ordinary individual; representing the highest good; it is all-knowing, all-capable and without selfish interests of its own; it is presumptively capable of correcting for man’s imperfections; it can suspend the natural laws of scarcity in our favour; demand sacrifice;
(cont.)

… and it can kill, rape or rob without these being crimes, and even be rights!

Any evidence of the state’s doing good is taken without account of any countervailing cost – e.g. it fixes recessions - as if we had discovered magic pudding. And any evidence of the state’s doing bad is taken as proving the need for more state intervention!

There’s only one problem: these beliefs cannot withstand rational criticism.

“As for compulsory voting, people don’t have to actually cast a vote.”
That’s not actually correct. The law requires you to “vote”.

“I note that you did not dispute that the common weal is entitled to a return on the input of past generations into current economic operations ...”
No I don’t dispute that. It’s just that you haven’t established that the state represents the common weal, nor that it gives society a better return on past investment than they would otherwise have. It’s an apparatus built for force and demagoguery, not for caring or prudence.

“I read the economics.org site recommended and concluded that no sensible society or state could function on such a basis.”

I understand where you’re coming from. The initial reaction to such radical criticism of government is an emotion like a fear of the abyss; a questioning of so much that has been taken for granted; a frame-shift. However once we understand the state as a protection racket, it has enormous explaining power.

Consider also you have had 10 years compulsory education by the state, and probably more states-sponsored education. *Of course* they have given you a version that the state is justified and necessary – that is implied in their compulsory funding, compulsory attendance, compulsory curriculum.

But how much time have you really spent actually questioning that belief? Was all that uniformisation and regimentation *really* for the benefit of developing the child’s full potential? Or for the convenience, the power, or the purposes of the state?

You have not refuted my or Rothbard’s arguments, you have just replied to the effect that you don’t think it would be “sensible”. But if the thought process by which one reaches a conclusion is logically indefensible, then the conclusion is not sound, is it?

If there were no conflicts of interests, we would not need ethics. If no-one offered to do wrong by force, we would not need ethics. We need ethics specifically to delimit the rights and wrongs of using VIOLENCE.

A group within society claims the right to deliberately kill, claiming it is not murder but “execution”, to deliberately take others’ labour or the fruits of their labour without consent using threats of violence, and claim it is not robbery but “taxation”, in short to exercise an ethical double standard.

The state claims a monopoly of violence, and a monopoly of crime, and this fact passes right under the ethical radar of the high priests of statism like Singer . He just carries on singing its praises in liturgy unfalsifiable, and just happens to be on the state’s payroll, like the hypocrites and Pharisees of old!

A right is something you are justified in using violence to defend. Can we justify violence to pay for Singer to pontificate from his post? No. Can we justify it to stop people having sex with animals? Depends, but I don’t think so.

Can we justify violence to force people to obey our social opinions? No. What about if we hold very strong opinions? No, that doesn’t put the matter in any better position. To enforce our religious opinion? No. Our quasi-religious or moral opinions? If it’s necessary to stop aggressive violence, sure! Otherwise, no.

If that means that so much of the state is illegitimate, then your mission – should you choose to accept it – is to show how the state does not involve this intrinsic ethical double standard “I’m allowed to hit you, but you’re not allowed to hit me”.

Just a sample from Singer's 'ethics' thinking. (From "Heavy Petting")

Referring to a sexual advance from a male Oranghutan towards a female human, he says

"... We are great apes. This does not make sex across the species barrier normal or natural, whatever those much misused words may mean, but it does imply that ceases to be an OFFENSE TO OUR STATUS AND DIGNITY as human beings"

This is horrifying.. it's even diabolical that such a mind, such thinking is embedded in our bioethics dept at Melbourne UNI...

Let's re-affirm that.. "OUR"...not Singers personal ideological playpen.

If something is no longer an offense... what's the next step ?

*think* people.....

Of course..Bestiality is just one from a range of repulsive behaviors which one could easily list...

It seems we are doomed to stand uncomfortably close to the edge of a philosophical and ethical abyss, where all it will take to push us over is a bit of a tap from some well organized socio political connections.

The video's I listed above earlier are very informative and helpful in putting all this in perspective.

But I must confess... strange as the Bible can seem at times.. it's like a breath of stunningly fresh mountain air compared to the smoke filled, foul stench of the philosophical 'bar' where Singer and ilk drink.

AGIR:

One should really be careful in making such personal attacks on an author. You may well be bordering on the edge of libel, with serious consequences. Your own quote clearly indicates that the author does at no time state that sex between species is normal or natural. He's merely initiating an intellectual inquiry into the topic. For your own information if you had done a bit more research into the topic you may have discovered that the author was actually in favour of a Bill to criminalise bestiality. To most people bestiality is a disturbing sexual practice that invites hurried dismissal and is viewed with moral, judicial, and aesthetic outrage. Singer is controversial, there's no denial, - but as I've stated - all he is doing is inviting intellectual inquiry into the topic. You can disapprove of it - that is your right - but you have no right to slander the man - and you should stop doing so.

Lexi confuses 'intellectual inquiry' with perverted thinking. Very similar to those who exploit children and call it art. Anything goes with moral relativist as long as you call it 'intellectual inquiry'.

runner:

Have you ever studied at a university?

Very interesting, thanks for the links AL, social engineering and exploitation at its best. This about Freud:

July 7, 2009 | By Sander L. Gilman, Sander L. Emory University.

>>"In 1908, on hearing about a young man in Vienna who wanted a nose job, Sigmund Freud made a quick diagnosis: The man clearly suffered from an "anti-Semitic persecution" and did not want to be Jewish. When he was informed that "the patient is an ardent Jew" and a committed Zionist, Freud was flummoxed. In the end, he concluded that the patient was conflicted about his father and did not want to look like him."<<

This about Ernest Dichter:

>>" It is the doctor's job to probe the mass psyche for manufacturers who want to know how to sell products. The doctor has, for instance, investigated the "emotional factors" inhibiting attendance at harness races, the significance of the term "home" and the "umpire" as a father figure in baseball, as well as the impact of Esther Williams' personality on swimming pools. Personality is a big thing with the doctor. He once compared the "personalities" of an orange and a grapefruit and found, among other things, that the orange "evokes association of friendliness" whereas the grapefruit exudes "elegant reserve."<<

These schmucks laid the foundations for consumerism to be the focus in modern western life…it’s about me.

All I can say about psychiatry is if you have real problems they can’t fix it, so they use drugs, and psychoanalysts are talk show hosts that charge $500 an hour.

Just like the financial system, social engineering is controlled by a miniscule group who make money from not making anything at all.

Freud’s first law of Psychiatric Management is:
"The number of psychiatric issues always evolves in tangent with the number of practitioners available to service them"

It is all about control then money but not compassion.

It's Al's and runner's

Bioethics Department

Not its Professor's

Dear Lexi... I don't know how you get 'slander' from my vehement disagreement with Singers softly softly viewpoint as expressed and quoted.

It's nothing of the kind..and I do know the law.

It's called criticism. I express my 'feelings' about his view and I also call on the community to be equally outraged at his claim

"but it does imply that ceases to be an OFFENSE TO OUR STATUS AND DIGNITY as human beings"

they are his words...not mine...and he is making a judgement on MY feelings.. by claiming that a violent sexual attack by an animal on a human female is something we don't need to worry about or feel any sense of assault on our dignity.

I disagree strongly with that..and the other side of the coin that any human approach to an animal with sex in mind does the same thing.. destroys our dignity.

If you also have done your reading..(including my posts) you would see the reference to his mention of incest at a public lecture.. you can chase that one down too if you want.

So..I'm afraid that for me, and for any serious evangelical Christian, his position on incest and bestiality are outrageous and it is a public interest issue.

IF he is calling for a law against bestiality.. I know what he means.. he means that because the animal cannot give 'informed consent' it should be illegal. Prumably then, if a man can demonstrate that his ewe sheep is deriving considerable sexual pleasure from him mounting her.. no charges would be laid ?

I think Singer must have had a double dose of EST training. (look it up)

Dear SOG..I'm so glad you took the time to become one of we 'enlightened few' :) by checking the vids. I'm still looking at them (on DVD) over and over.. each time I gain more 'power' :) or knowledge.
(to use the EST terminology)

Please look at it again.. (I think it will be in part 3 and 4) or.. look up this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f17cu-TS-Tk

When you see how MANY Americans of the 70s were infected with this psychological disease (as I'd describe it) it's mind blowing.
Note also the use of the 'Star Wars' computer resources by capitalist interests to 'undersand' the new mind/self created through EST.

Please note also how EST training peels back ALL cultural identity and causes the person to realise (what I've been hammering at for so long) that NOTHING..... matters.. there is...NOTHING...then..they 'rebuild' or re-invent themselves anew.. (or....does some OTHER force mould them?)

Freued+Berynays->Reich->Perls->Erhard-> Masses (80% of Americans)

-> REAGANS ELECTION SPEECH (this alone is fascinating)

He used words tailored for the 'ME' generation.

"Government IS the problem".. "YOU, will reshape america" etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XObcP69dhCg&feature=related Reagan

His reference to 'elites' was pandering to the EST trained Americans who hated the idea of some group of intellectuals were trying to shape them.

On 'shaping' public opinion.. don't you love the bit where the cute chick in the crowd of men is asked "Why do you like short skirts?" and she replies "It shows more off right"... Man asks "How does that benefit you?" and she says "It makes you more attractive"... END.. cut.
Oh.. I'll be a lot of cute nymphs were instantly 'decided' to buy miniskirts.

But speaking as an independant male with a Christian perspective, "I agree.. it DOES make you more attractive.. from our belly button DOWN"

Isn't "violent

sexual attack" wrong in

All circumstances?

Freud was wrong about

Many things, similar to

Newton and Einstein

SoG,

Yes, I find the word limit is frustrating (although I still think it’s a good thing), almost as frustrating as I find my inability my resist the urge to address every single point and just keep my responses to one post.

Anyway, I didn’t say there was “no worth” in any of the Ten Commandments, I said they were “pathetically inadequate”. In fact, considering they’re supposed to come from the most powerful and perfect being ever, you could simply say they’re “pathetic”.

Firstly, there had to be an even ten and this makes it look like an obvious marketing decision for a religion invented by humans.

Secondly, the tenth commandment put wives in the same category as oxen and ass as though they were a possession; yet another reason to believe it was written my mere (primitive) humans.

That being said, where is the commandment about not being able to own another human being? There are thousands upon thousands of verses in the Bible and yet this supposedly superior being couldn’t spare one single paragraph to point out that slavery is wrong and why!

Furthermore, you can’t just focus on the last five commandments if you want to truly appreciate my point. The (supposedly) most perfect being ever is SO childish and SO insecure that they couldn’t resist dedicating the first five commandments to themself in an obvious attempt to satisfy their megalomania.

Who in their right mind could respect such pathetic being?

Speaking of the inadequacies of the Ten Commandments though, I reject the notion of ‘sin’ since it isn’t a valid concept, but here’s a list of things that I would consider a ‘sin’ (if I were to accept sin as a valid concept) that the ten commandants don’t even cover:

- Credulity and gullibility;
- Voluntary wilful ignorance;
- Letting fear prevent you from understanding reality;
- Limiting the rights and freedoms of others in order to make them abide by your standards;
- Sacrificing the mental and emotional well being of a child in deference to a supposed god;

Continued...

...Continued

- Wasting the one and only life that you can KNOW you’re going to have, worrying about and working for an afterlife that somebody told you might exist.

And finally, I am so glad you listed those ‘anti-commandments’ and the ramifications of following them, because those ramifications you mentioned demonstrate exactly why we don’t need such obvious commandments to begin with. Any society that lived like that would collapse and cease to exist and that is in no one’s interests.

The Ten Commandments are redundant.

Boaz,

Think about this for a second...

<<No AJ..I suggest it is an insurmountable problem for one who's theology is flawed.>>

In other words, it’s only an insurmountable problem for those who haven’t bothered to invent a way of obfuscating the issue to get around a sound piece of logic, because...

<<Ultimately, God is sovereign. The interace between 'free will' and divine election is where time and eternity meet.>>

...until you can demonstrate this, your claim is indistinguishable from any just old made-up nonsense, and therefore, not only is a claim to knowledge here dishonest, but my point about god and free will stands unabated since it adheres to logic.

In regards to Romans 9 though, you’re going to have to sum it up for me, I see no relevance. Although I’m not sure there would be any point in you doing so, to be honest. What the Bible says is irrelevant; it has no authority and it gives those of us, who are willing to apply a healthy dose of scepticism because we actually value the truth of our beliefs, no reason to believe that any of what it says is true.

Otokonoko,

Unfortunately your response to me amounts to little more than preaching without any actual reasoning as to why I was wrong. So it’s a bit rich to claim that my argument was “flawed”. The criticism I offered encompasses all gods - even the one you described.

<<While I understand your suggestion that omniscience requires events to be set in stone, it doesn't require us to simply 'follow the script'. Instead, it requires that God can foresee - but does not control - the decisions we make that lead to those events.>>

Okay first, you have erroneously conflated omniscience with the act of following a script. Of course, if an omniscient god existed, it wouldn’t feel, to us, like we were reading from a script because we wouldn’t have any knowledge of what was going to happen.

Secondly, you erroneously conflate omniscience with ‘control’. I never said anything about an omniscient being controlling what we do - this is something you’ve introduced yourself - just that they’d know in advance what we were going to.

Thirdly, you effectively admit I’m right when you say: “[Omniscience] requires that God can foresee ... the decisions we make that lead to those events.” If you don’t agree, then please explain to me how deviating from what an omniscient being foresaw would not be a paradox.

Your entire argument hinges on rebutting a claim I have never made: that an all-powerful god controls what we do.

So I’m afraid my point still stands.

In regards to the sentence you meant to delete, I’m not concerned about any antagonistic tone in it. What concerns me is the fact that I didn’t make the claim to begin with.

But I’m sure you realise that now.

And finally, I’m humbled that an obviously intelligent person such as yourself would consider me to be a “thinking” and “intelligent” being. I’m certainly a “thinking” person, but I don’t consider myself particularly “intelligent”. My thoughts on this topic are simply the result of a long battle to maintain a faith that, in the end, lost out to reason.

AJ Philips,
We can well recognise you have no admiration, praise or meditation of great and pure character which is the foundation of human dignity and aspiration. The world would be a better place if we were without attitues of such hostility to greatness, and hate of a great character.

Your spirit is antagonistic and negative to pure thought and motive.

Christianity is based upon the teachings of Jesus Christ who said in Luke 4:18 - 19 God has sent me to liberate the captives, and the opressed. Note he says God sent him, obviously he believed God wanted slaces freed in his kingdom.

Dear AJ.. I'll address just one (rather central) point.

<...until you can demonstrate this, your claim is indistinguishable from any just old made-up nonsense>

I appreciate your viewpoint is valid to you. I'm coming from "Divine Revelation" which involves a reasoned faith in what came through the old Testament, to the New....through Christ and finally Paul, but the 'God is sovereign' assertion is found articulated in Romans 9... which I take as divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit.

ETHICS and the ESELON INSTITUTE. My head has exploded probably uncountable times over the past week, since I came across the video's I listed above..earlier. Now..I'm watching day by day.. time after time to try to capture as much as I can.

The Eselon institute changed the whole of the American psyche so it's not unimportant. Here are the dots joined.

FREUD.. "Neuroses are based on the dark inner conflicts in the subconscous, which must be controlled" (Summary position)

REICH (you cant make this up) his student (also Jewish) tried to find a 'final solution' to Freud's position by going opposite:

"Neuroses are based on LACK of expression of the subconscious which is the true peron"

REICH believed the most fundamental energy of man was LIBIDO.. sex!
He was destroyed by Anna Freud in a bloodless coup at the International pshychoanalytical association, which saw Reich made an outcast. (He was later jailed for selling something which he touted as having 'libinal' energy to fight cancer, he died 1 month later) "Freudians had won"....

or had they ?

REICH's ideas were taken up by the SDS (Students for a Democratic Society.. radical leftists) and the WeatherUnderground, but promoted mostly by a small group of radical psychoanalysts who taught his views at the Eselon institute.

2 important books

"On becoming a Person" 1961 by Carl Rogers.
"Toward a Psychology of Being" 1962 by Abraham Maslow.

*ENTER...STAR WARS* (The SRIinstitute of research)

http://www.strategicbusinessinsights.com/vals/free/2010-08-VALSfaq.pdf

Very...VERY *interesting*

Philo,

Thanks for the insult; responses like this often indicate a bullseye. But your ad hominem response doesn’t say anything about whether or not what I’ve said is actually true - just that you don’t like it.

<<Your spirit is antagonistic and negative to pure thought and motive.>>

No, my “spirit” is antagonistic to potentially harmful and unfounded nonsense that offers more bad than good, while having received, and often demanding an unfounded respect that it hasn’t earned, but thinks it’s owed purely by virtue of being itself.

How is Christian thought and motive any more “pure” than non-Christian thought and motive?

<<Christianity is based upon the teachings of Jesus Christ...>>

And you don’t think that the slave holders and heretic burners throughout the past hadn’t read the words of the Jesus?

Of course they had.

But this goes back to my point about Christians relying on secular ethics and morality to know how to interpret their own holy book: it obviously has nothing to do with the Holy Spirit and/or god, or we would have known hundreds of years ago how to believe. And what purpose would a god have for such a delay in telling us how to correctly interpret them other than to hide their appearance by making it look like they were never needed in the first place - as they’ve apparently done with evolution?

<<Luke 4:18 - 19 God has sent me to liberate the captives, and the opressed. Note he says God sent him, obviously he believed God wanted [slaves] freed in his kingdom.>>

Yes, the slaves that god himself specifically endorsed the enslaving of in the first place, and this presents yet another critical problem for Christianity: A perfect and eternal god would remain unchanging because what their perfection had determined was good/evil in the past, would remain good/evil in the future and forevermore. Thus Jesus would not be able to just come down and change the rules without debunking himself.

But note that god still didn’t condemn slavery, he just expresses a desire for the slaves to be freed.

It may be worse than I thought, Boaz.

If you can find sinister meaning in a straightforward presentation on marketing techniques...

"VALS is a lens for understanding consumer psychology. The VALS consulting and consumer-research services provide clients with tailored, real-time, marketing solutions for customer Targeting, Positioning and Communications"

...then I'm afraid that your own "lens" has become hugely distorted.

The Esalen (not Eselon) Institute is equally harmless. Just because some people find odd ways of pursuing self-discovery, and addressing their own "personal growth" agenda, does not mean that they intend to subvert the ethical standards of a continent.

I suspect - no, I know for a fact - that you have great difficulty understanding that many people do not share your core tenet, which is that your version of Christianity is the ultimate in ethical choices. People who find, for example, that there are too many contradictions in it, from the sheer implausibility of an omnipotent and omniscient deity, to the massive difference between preaching and practice that they see, every day.

Nevertheless, there are such people.

And some of those people look elsewhere for a form of thinking that helps them make sense of what is, let's face it, a fairly confusing existence on one tiny planet in a massive, mind-blowing universe.

What puzzles me is why you spend so much time, trying to link together a sequence of perfectly normal and harmless quests for knowledge, into the semblance of a vast conspiracy aimed at corrupting the entire globe.

I would guess that it is insecurity. An insecurity that has the same roots as your visceral hatred of any religion that is not your own.

But hey, what would I know?

It might just be your Highland ancestry.

Boaz,

I understand that you’re coming from the “Divine Revelation” angle. But revelation is necessarily first person. What has been “revealed” to you may be a good enough reason for you to believe, but it’s not a good enough reason for others.

So there really is no point in quoting the Bible (as if it held some authority) and expecting others to suspend their critical thinking, when so many of your religious claims and Christianity in general are in direct conflict with everything we know about reality.

As I alluded to before, non-believers exercise a healthy scepticism because they care about the truth value of their beliefs; Christians, on the other hand (or the more fundamentalist types anyway), are so convinced that the Bible works for them that they immediately, automatically and instinctively shun anything and everything that contradicts their beliefs without the slightest appreciation for the actual truth.

AJ Philips,
I suggest you read History and find out just who were the ones fighting to remove slavery, and racial opression. The devout Christian Wilberforce in England, Harriet Becher Stowe, and Martin Luther King of recent times in America etc etc. All were followers of Christ who believed in the equality of every man to self determination, and responsibility.

The Torah and the Kor'an both endorce slavery. However there are more slaves in the world today than ever before in history used by atheists for monetry gain. Some of the products found on shop shelves in Australia are produced by slaves. Some brothel owners and clothing manufacturers in Australia import girls from Asia to work in Australia for mere board and basic keep.

The NT says every worker is worthy of his hire. Labor today is hired and paid on the acceptable rate. We are free to choose our employment.

Philo,

I don’t doubt that many Christians were responsible for the abolition of slavery, but that’s beside my point.

<<The Torah and the Kor'an both endorce slavery.>>

Interesting how you say “the Torah” instead of ‘the Old Testament’. Why, it’s almost as if you’re keen to ditch the Old Testament and declare the Bible as a book that consists only of the New Testament.

A bit of a stretch for someone who rejects evolution, don’t you think?

You can’t do this though because, according to Christian theology, the god of the Old Testament if still the god of the New Testament - regardless of the insurmountable problem this presents for Christianity.

<<However there are more slaves in the world today than ever before in history used by atheists for monetry gain.>>

Only used by atheists, eh? Either way, you don’t think the fact that world is many times more populated now has anything to do with the numbers?

Anyway, this is a ridiculous rebuttal, because I’m not blaming Christianity for slavery, I simply mentioned that the Christian god never denounced it.

For your implicit laying-of-the-blame for a lot of today’s slavery on atheism to be valid, you would have to demonstrate how atheism says anything about the use of slaves and how the slavery in today’s world is a direct result of atheism.

You can’t, and so your thoughts and motives here are “unpure” and run contradictory to your claim earlier, that Christianity has the monopoly on “purity”.

<<Some of the products found on shop shelves in Australia are produced by slaves. Some brothel owners and clothing manufacturers in Australia import girls from Asia to work in Australia for mere board and basic keep.>>

And this is the direct result of atheism, is it? Atheists don’t even have a doctrine to follow, let alone one that endorses slavery. But if you’re not laying the blame on atheism, then your motioning of slave holders being atheists was as inconsequential as mentioning their hair colour.

<<The NT says every worker is worthy of his hire.>>

And yet it still doesn’t denounce slavery

Philo,

Many of the squires that propped their over sized backsides on the church pews each Sunday in the years ensuing the abolition of slavery were simultaneously presiding over the debased factory labour of small children (and their families).
The factory system flourished alongside "noble Christian ethics"- how do you reconcile that?
Here is an excerpt from a report written by John Fielden M.P. in 1836 on the treatment metered out to children procured from parish workhouses in London to "slave" in factories in the north:
"...cruelties of the most heartrending were practised upon the unoffending and friendless creatures who were then consigned to the charge of master-manufacturers; that they were harassed to the brink of death by excess of labour, that they were flogged, fettered, and tortured in the most exquisite refinement of cruelty; that they were, in many cases, starved to the bone while flogged to their work, and even in some instances, they were driven to commit suicide to evade the cruelties...."
These cruelties were "not" unusual - they were commonplace.

Speaks for itself, really

Christians and slaves

Interesting history

In terms of ethics

http://tiny.cc/e5wju

People have called themselves Christian over time yet have never read or been convicted by the teachings of Christ, to love and treat those around them as we would do to ourselves. It was from devout Christian conviction that has brought about social changes in the last 300 years to demonstrate care for the fatherless, sick, imprisoned and poor. Why? because it teaches love for all persons above all principles; even demonstrate love of one's enemies.

As stated here by atheists that, "Atheists does not have a doctrine" obviously anything that opposes theism is valad in their text book. It does not have an orthodox position on Ethics and human behaviour just irrational random negative rebutal of theology and Christ's teaching and character.

I would have thought that a held position on any subject is what defines a doctrine. Obviously they do not believe their own statements to be true.

Philo, you would be wrong.

>>I would have thought that a held position on any subject is what defines a doctrine.<<

doctrine n. A principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief, as by a religious, political, scientific, or philosophic group.

There is no groupthink among atheists. We do not share a body of principles. The only common denominator is that we do not believe there is a God.

Your "held position" may apply to one atheist, but not to the next. This is where it differs from religious belief, which specifically requires a unique dogma. Catholics have theirs, Muslims have theirs, Hindus have theirs - each religion is actually defined by that particular set of rules.

Atheists have never sat down together and said "hey, these are all the things that every one of us believes in". Each is responsible for their own ethical standards.

But you already know this, as you say:

>>[Atheism] does not have an orthodox position on Ethics and human behaviour<<

But you are again mistaken, here:

>>...just irrational random negative rebutal of theology and Christ's teaching and character.<<

It is a rational, specific, positive rebuttal of the evidence for God's existence.

None of which, of course, has anything to do with Christ's teaching, or character. It is possibly that he was a very nice chap. And one who would most probably be horribly upset with the activities that have been undertaken "in his name" for the past two thousand years.

And you might want to think this through again...

>>...devout Christian conviction... teaches love for all persons above all principles; even demonstrate love of one's enemies.<<

Tell that to the Northern Irish, next time you're there. Their demonstration of love for their enemies often involved shooting off their kneecaps.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/kneecapping-of-14yearold-causes-outcry-476312.html

AJ Philips:>> Secondly, the tenth commandment put wives in the same category as oxen and ass as though they were a possession; yet another reason to believe it was written my mere (primitive) humans.<<

AJ, you intimate that we are better than primitive, that a haircut suit and lap top somehow alters what we are at our base. I disagree, I know we are well capable of living only to satiate ourselves at whatever cost. Society is a veneer and some think they actually are the veneer but the reality is circumstance dictates the veneer.

The anti commandments that I listed were not plucked from assumption. I simply remembered back to the first twenty five years of my life that I spent living just behind Kings Cross. I was born at Paddington Women’s Hospital and was an inner city kid from day one.

I knew families and their many acquaintances that lived by the anti commandments. I grew up with their kids till my mid teens at which point I started to study and they started to go to jail.

They would steal from each other, they would lie to each other, the guys would screw around with their cousins and sometimes brothers wives, you could not rely on them or anything they told you, and they lived their whole lives like this, they still do I expect, but no longer at Paddo, probably Campbelltown. They were poor and had that "immediacy" that the comfortable do not have, if they see an opportunity they grab it, without a moral component to the thought process.

AJ, I am not an old man so the human character exhibited and the society it existed in is still current. People need rules, or they need lots of cash to keep them happy. A moral compass may come as standard equipment with you but believe me it is an optional extra with some.

OK AJ,

Re-reading my post has revealed how inadequate and vague it was. The part of your argument I was tackling specifically was your statement that "if a god exists, then we do not have free will and this is an insurmountable problem for Christians." It is followed in the next post with "If a god existed then, being all-powerful and all-knowing, they would have full knowledge of what was going to happen in the future. This means that everything we have done, and will do, is already ’set in stone’. If we were able to deviate from what this god foresaw, then this god would no longer be a god."

I have read through these and the surrounding passages several times, and to be honest I cannot find an interpretation other than the one I addressed - that an all-knowing and all-powerful deity controls what we do. How else could the existence of God stand at odds with the existence of free will?

In your counter-rebuttal, it is pretty clear that you and I are on the same page. I just don't understand how this renders God impossible or puts us at odds with free will.

Anyway, if I came off as "preaching", I apologise. That is certainly far from my intent.

Oto.. very good point.

"I just don't understand how this renders God impossible or puts us at odds with free will."

Philosophically, AJ has touched on the old faithful 'unanswerable question'.

We can say as an affirmation "God exists, and is completely sovereign over all things"

At the same time, we observe and experience "free will"....

Though it might be argued that we don't really have it and that our choices were made by God for us.

I really hope you and AJ will examine closely Pauls statements in Romans 9 where he tackles this very issue.

14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses,

“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”

16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17 For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” 20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’”21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?

COMMENT. Understanding that rather 'ruthless' passage, we need to remember that Paul was LIVING it... yet he acted and preached entirely as it if depended on peoples individual free responses.

I don't believe he BELIEVED that.. as a careful reading of the whole chapter will show. But there's the dilemna and the intersection of eternity with time.

Well, SoG, we’ve now done a full circle here and you seem absolutely determined to not understand.

Firstly, I just want to clarify that while I see some worth in the rules that some of the Ten Commandments represent, the Ten Commandments themselves are redundant and yes, worthless.

The Ten Commandments are redundant because we already have a real-world set of rules in the law with our law enforcement there to up hold it. Our laws are superior to the Ten Commandments since they are reality-based and we have law enforcement to uphold them.

Without Christian theology to insert them into, the Ten Commandments are just words with no authority. So your argument for the Ten Commandments relies on the concept of a god and the threat of eternal consequences.

But I’ve already explained to you why the system set up by Christianity means that no believer necessarily needs to suffer consequences for their actions due to the loophole created for the irrational, unrealistic and immoral criteria by which its followers are expected to live (and this is how Christianity keeps it followers coming back). Let’s not even get into how immoral the concept of infinite punishment for finite crimes is.

I fail to see how you think you encourage moral behaviour and conformity from a system that is so inherently immoral, unjust and irrational to begin with.

You may be able to fool some, but there are many who will see through it.

Otokonoko,

I’ve been giving this some more thought and it’s possible that I’m being a little too rigid with the concept of ‘free will’.

According to your understanding of Catholic Theology (which was also my understanding of Christian theology in general) we certainly do have something that at least mimics ‘free will’.

For the sake of argument, I’ll agree with you and say that despite everything having been ‘set in stone’ due to the omniscience of a god, we do still have free will in the sense that the decisions we make at least coincide with our conscious desire at the time.

That being said, free will - a core aspect to Christian theology - doesn’t actually matter in the end. It would only have any real value if the future was not set. So the question then becomes: Why bother waffling on about free will if it doesn’t even matter? It becomes as pointless as praying for god to ‘fix’ a situation when his omniscience had already determined how things would play out anyway.

So your point about free will and omniscience doesn’t really solve much.

Another bigger problem though, is moral dilemma of a god, who despite foreseeing the bad decisions that people would make (ultimately leading some to eternal punishment), decided to go ahead with it all anyway.

Why bring something into existence when they’re only going to suffer eternally anyway? Wouldn’t it make more sense to just not bring them into existence? The contradiction here with omnibenevolence is yet another problem for Christianity, as is perfect justice and mercy, since mercy is a suspension of justice.

I realise that many Christians nowadays believe that non-believers will simply disappear into nothingness when they die - as we are all going to - but this isn’t much of an improvement since they still believe that they will get something that others will miss out on.

Continued...

...Continued

<<I cannot find an interpretation other than the one I addressed - that an all-knowing and all-powerful deity controls what we do. How else could the existence of God stand at odds with the existence of free will?>>

I guess, in a sense, the god would be controlling what we do, but I didn’t mean to imply that he would be deliberately or consciously doing it.

<<In your counter-rebuttal, it is pretty clear that you and I are on the same page. I just don't understand how this renders God impossible or puts us at odds with free will.>>

Well, I didn’t say it renders god impossible; that’s not usually the approach I take on this topic since I don’t think it’s necessary. Simply pointing out that a naturalistic worldview is more rational - due to religion’s violation of Occam’s razor - is plenty. The inherent contradictions in concept of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent god, who is apparently both perfectly just and merciful at the same time, are more than enough to render god’s existence beyond any reasonable doubt given what we currently know.

<<...if I came off as "preaching", I apologise. That is certainly far from my intent.>>

No need to apologise; I see (more so now) that you were simply trying to explain Catholic theology as you understand it. I suppose when theists start makeing all these claims about what god is and is not, without being able to demonstrate it in any way, it comes off as preaching regardless unfortunately.

Besides which, I would actually expect that you DO preach. According to Christian theology, as I understand/understood it, Christians are obliged to be “fishers of men” since this is what Jesus supposedly commanded his disciples to do.

If you are in possession of some facts that have eternal consequences, I could imagine nothing more gravely negligent than withholding it.

People may find Boaz’s preaching annoying, but to his credit, he is at least doing as Christian theology demands. Tirelessly too.

Hi AJ... I'd prefer the word 'proclaim' than preach :)

But I'd like you to consider for a moment a phrase you continue to use...

"It's a 'problem' for Christianity" etc.. Nope.. I see it as a problem for people. Christian Theology is fine. It declares that God is sovereign, and just.. no matter what. It's by virtue of his sovereign decree. After all..He is the Creator.

Our inclination to elevate ourselves to a platform from which to criticize the Creator is more a product of the last 30 years of brain demolishing done by the fight between firstly Freud and then his rebellious pupil Wilhelm Reich. They seem to have regarded our brains as some kind of academic playpen for their psychological fantasies.

There are many places where educated people simply do not even think of raising such questions toward God. Such questions, in my view are more a Post 60s Western phenomenon.

What think you ? (Those video's linked to earlier will help unfold this)

I am not sure if we can trust the current law makers to set the rules and punishments for good human behaviour. Human responsibility of conscience seems to be ignored. Take the voluntary contribution thousands have made to flood victims, they are now enforced again to pay a tax above what they gave free willingly.

The law makers assume we are selfish and uncaring of others plight, when the great Aussie spirit reaches out to our brothers hurting. The principle of the 10 commandments is Love the highest aspects of character and your fellow humans as yourself. This calls for devotion to love; whereas AJ wants the enforcement of laws in Taliban style.

Philo:

Most people have the same broad ethical principles. There is a consensus about what we do as a matter of fact and what we consider right and wrong: a consensus that prevails surprisingly widely. This consensus has no obvious connection with religion. It extends, however, to most religious people, whether or not they think their morals come from the scriptures. The majority of people don't cause needless suffering; they believe in free speech and protect it even if they disagree with what is being said, they pay their taxes, they don't cheat, kill, don't do things to others that they would not wish done to them.

Much has been said about the "Ten commandments." Various individuals and institutions have attempted to express their consensual ethics in a "New Ten Commandments." What is interesting is that they tend to produce similar results to each other and what they produce is characteristic of the times in which they happen to live. Here is one set of the "New Ten Commandments," from an atheist website.

1) Do not do to others what you would not want them to do to you.
2) In all things, strive to cause no harm.
3) Treat your fellow human beings, your fellow living things, and the world in general with love, honesty, faithfulness and respect.
4) Do not overlook evil or shrink from administering justice, but always be ready to forgive wrongdoing freely admitted and honestly regretted.
5) Live life with a sense of joy and wonder.
6) Always seek to be learning something new.
7) Test all things; always check your ideas against facts, and be ready to discard even a cherished belief if it does not conform to them.
8) Never seek to censor or cut yourself off from dissent; always respect the right of others to disagree with you.
9) Form independent opinions on the basis of your own reason and experience; do not allow yourself to be led blindly by others.
10) Question everything.

I love history

It's how I first heard about

The Enlightenment

Lexi,
Thanks for the principles you listed from the atheists creed. All those supported by those who uphold Christ teaching. The 10 commandments deals with social boundaries but Christ dealt with attitudes that go deeper than merely being law abiding. Love and respect cannot be identified by law, only by the heart. Every person can be guilty of hate, fear or disrespect; which makes us all guilty under conscience.

Philo,

I prefer to think that every person has a personal commitment to the atributes of fair play and integrity. That commitment must include our capacity to love each other as human beings, to remember we are brothers on this planet, and to surrender any thoughts we have to the contrary. May every nation and every people and evey colour and every
belief system, religious or other, find at last the one hearbeat we share. David f., has started a new discussion thread that might appeal to you, "We/they." I'm still thinking about it, but I shall add my comments later on.

Lexi,
I would like to think all persons alive today would hold to those values, but it is obviously not the case as stabbings, shootings occurr every day in our Australian society. The thing is most of us in Western culture have been condition by Judeau-Christian ethics.

When you look at Middle Eastern cultures they feel a responsibility to kill, rape and steal from kafir. For them to kill it is legitimate service to their god, as they do not see kafir as equal humans. Many Radical Muslims in Indonesia have killed peace loving unbelievers and Christians and they have the approval of the military. Witness what is happening in Egypt to Coptic Christians. The Western values are not innate they must be taught the value of every life including an opponent.

http://secure.afa.net/afa/activism/takeaction.asp?id=384

Philo:

"Christian, dost thou see them
On the holy ground?
How the troops of Midian
Prowl and prowl around?
Christian, up and smite them.
Counting gain but loss;
Smite them by the merit
Of the holy cross."

Much has been done in the name of religion. Yet most people live decent, peaceful lives, in spite of it. The problems in the Middle East are complex - and should be discussed on another thread. Enjoy your week-end.

Lexi,
Obviously for you it is irrelavent to talk about Ethics on what is current human behaviour. Your quote is not from the teachings of Christ but some pseudo religion that has no place in a Christ like society.

The discussion of religious Ethics is very relative to this thread. For you to try and identify me with some ungodly tag "Christian" which has nothing to do with the character of Christ shows your short sightedness on human motivation. A large part of human population is motivated by the ethical teaching of Mohamet.

Lexi

Thank you for the 10 commandments which are relevant to everyone irrespective of religion, race or whether one follows no formal religious dogma.

I find Philo's uncritical acceptance of the Abrahamic 10 Commandments, quite sad - indicating a lack of critical discernment.

The first 4 of the biblical commandments are entirely concerned with the ego of a deity and have nothing to do with ethics or morality:

ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.'

TWO: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'

THREE: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.'

FOUR: 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.'

The remainder have relevance if one disregards the anachronistic terminology and are better elaborated in Lexi's list.

FIVE: 'Honor your father and your mother.'

SIX: 'You shall not murder.'

SEVEN: 'You shall not commit adultery.'

EIGHT: 'You shall not steal.'

NINE: 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'

TEN: 'You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.'

Therefore, in conclusion, the Abrahamic religions have only 6 edicts none of which includes the golden rule, which has been elaborated by the first 4 of New 10 Commandments.

I don't expect to change Philo's mind. However, many others who follow these pages can decide for themselves, which is the point of this website - as long as you don't disagree with the moderator.

:)

J Parker,

Thank You. I am disappointed that Philo doesn't seem to grasp what's being said - and takes it as an attack on Christianity. It has to be admitted that absolutism is far from dead, It seems to rule the minds of a great number of people in the world today. Such absolutism nearly always results from strong religious faith. Anyway, I've had enough of this discussion and I'm beginning to see that nothing constructive will be achieved by continuing with it. I'm not interested in a slanging match or personal insults. Hopefully I shall see you on another thread.

J Parker,
So I assume
1. that you do not have vision or devotion to the highest ideals of character and behaviour. That you will accept any standard. God is spirit manifest in human attitude and behaviour upon which we humans are designed.
2. that you do not give your devotion to character but rather to made objects like money, cars etc
3. That you prefer to degrade holy character and a persons character
Name in Hebrew thought refers to character.
4. That you do not take any time off work for rest or holidays [holy days].

So in your terms of ethics you ignore ideals of human character, devotion to envisaging the highest view of character and rest from work. What a low view of society you operate under.