[keane]

>>This is quite literally nothing more than the age old 'there cannot be an objective morality without a higher power

Indeed, the argument is quite storied. Since Hume's observation in 1738, it has never been refuted. Following Hume's observation that we are unable to derive morals from observations of Empirical facts, the concept of Moral Nonrealism—that moral statements are merely delusions we told ourselves to help/comfort us—seized humanity and led to a variety of interesting reactions including Surrealism, Dada, Egoism, Existentialism, modern art, postmodernism, et al.

>>[Sam Harris presenting Utilitarianism at TED]

Seen it. Hilarious. Sam Harris has heard of Is-Ought and begins by acknowledging it is the barrier to secular realism. His answer is to pretend it doesn't exist and move on with his talk. See this comment, #99, for more: https://web.archive.org/web/20150302143837/http://www.projec...

>>slavery is fine, rape is fine, beating your wife is fine

Jesus in Matthew 5:21-22 explains that calling someone a 'fool' is equivalent to murder relative to the /actual standard/ so slavery, rape, beating, &c. are going to be hard to explain. For more on this type of perspective you can look into Anabaptist theology.

>>Making a claim about what is good/bad is something we can judge, particularly as society advances.

What is moral doesn't change, or you would have Relativism.

>>Our modern moral code, subjective or objective, is "better"

This society did not spring from a vacuum. Then Wesleyan theologians led Abolitionist efforts; now we "know" slavery is wrong. Like the Personalist Project puts it "Those who repudiate God cannot preserve the personalist affirmation of the incomparable worth of each person, though they may for a time live by the light of a setting sun."

>>We know this. It's undisputed fact that owning people is wrong.

Indeed. This type of knowledge falls under self-evident truth, the same way we know that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. That we universally, inherently are positive about these natural revelations either points to something or they are collective delusions.

>>the question isn't objective or subjective morality.

To believe in objective morality you've departed from the realm of Empiricism. Perhaps you won't and will choose subjective morality but then you'll be unable to provide evidence your whims/wishes aren't disposable opinions.

>>all have fallen short

ha, great reference :)

[Snowe]

To believe in objective morality you've departed from the realm of Empiricism.

One could argue that by appealing to the supernatural one has also departed from the realm of Empiricism.

[keane]

Precisely.

[fingerprinter]

>>>>slavery is fine, rape is fine, beating your wife is fine

>>Jesus in Matthew 5:21-22 explains that calling someone a 'fool' is equivalent to murder relative to the /actual standard/ so slavery, rape, beating, &c. are going to be hard to explain. For more on this type of perspective you can look into Anabaptist theology.

This does nothing to resolve the simple questions: is slavery, rape, beating your wife wrong? It's a simple societal question these days, but when the bible was being written, the authors went to great lengths to describe the systems and rules around which all of those were indeed acceptable. To our eyes and ears that is ridiculous! There is no system or rules for owning people; it's just wrong. Doesn't matter if you marry the person you rape, it's still wrong.

So, again, religion, in this particular case Christianity, regardless if we ever get to the question of objective v subjective morality, has a problem. It has clear and demonstrated instances where it is on the wrong side of the moral debate which inherently makes the religion objectively wrong. Any purported religion designed by a higher power whose purpose is to set guiding principles and rules by which our lives are to be lived, governed and judged has to be, by definition, never worse/lower than the society. It always has to outpace the moral landscape of society. By definition and, you know, common sense.

>>>>Making a claim about what is good/bad is something we can judge, particularly as society advances.

>>What is moral doesn't change, or you would have Relativism.

So, stating it another way. Is slavery ok, objectively? You have a problem if it isn't. It means Christianity is wrong. If you say it is, you have an entirely different problem because we as a society have moved beyond this concept.

>>>>Our modern moral code, subjective or objective, is "better"

>>This society did not spring from a vacuum. Then Wesleyan theologians led Abolitionist efforts; now we "know" slavery is wrong. Like the Personalist Project puts it "Those who repudiate God cannot preserve the personalist affirmation of the incomparable worth of each person, though they may for a time live by the light of a setting sun."

Skirts the issue entirely. Is slavery wrong? Has it always been wrong?

>>>>We know this. It's undisputed fact that owning people is wrong.

>>Indeed. This type of knowledge falls under self-evident truth, the same way we know that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. That we universally, inherently are positive about these natural revelations either points to something or they are collective delusions.

Again, skirts the issue. Is slavery wrong? Has it always been wrong?

[keane]

Not at all my intent to skirt the issue. Slavery is objectively wrong and has always been wrong. The entire Christian reason is human freedom and liberty to captives.

Christianity is what ended slavery and additionally, without it or apart from it, slavery would not be wrong (if you have reasoning otherwise, let's hear it).