If God was the Devil, How Would You Know?

[Purple Knight]

Questions for debate: If the more powerful being were the evil, and the rebel the good, how would you know this? What clues would you look for? Would it even be possible to glean such knowledge in a universe where the evil being is omnipotent and controls all? Is it a nonsense question because a being that was truly all-powerful would have every authority and power to set up the rules for good and evil and simply favour itself?

[brunumb]

Okay, so let's say you are an ancient slave holder. How are you going to better the life of would-be slaves? Could you, as a single individual, up end the whole system of slavery, revolutionize it, to the extent that they need not be slaves in order to eat?

What has any of that got to do with whether slavery is immoral or not?

In all of his commandments and injunctions, God did not condemn slavery. Should we conclude that owning other people as property is not immoral?

[Purple Knight]

Slavery is either immoral or it is not. There are no excuses for immorality. Inventing religious laws to justify immoral behaviour doesn't cut it. The fundamental act is still immoral.

This is a perfect example of a first-order-only moral principle.

So let's try this with something else (admittedly because I have to concoct an unlikely scenario for it to work with slavery). Let's sub assault for slavery. Now we have this.

Assault is either immoral or it is not. There are no excuses for assault. Inventing religious laws to justify immoral behaviour doesn't cut it. The fundamental act is still immoral.

So what does this mean for a man witnessing a violent rape about to happen, so he assaults the rapist to free the victim? No excuses? The act is either immoral or it isn't? Well if it isn't, the rapist isn't wrong because rape is a form of assault. If it is, the man assaulting the rapist is wrong and he also belongs in jail in addition to the rapist.

[brunumb]

So let's try this with something else (admittedly because I have to concoct an unlikely scenario for it to work with slavery). Let's sub assault for slavery.

Assault is not slavery. Owning other people as property is immoral.

[Purple Knight]

So let's try this with something else (admittedly because I have to concoct an unlikely scenario for it to work with slavery). Let's sub assault for slavery.

Assault is not slavery. Owning other people as property is immoral.

So are you advocating a first-order rule, but only for slavery? For every other act, its morality can be dependent on whether you did it first or in retaliation, but not so with slavery?

[brunumb]

So let's try this with something else (admittedly because I have to concoct an unlikely scenario for it to work with slavery). Let's sub assault for slavery.

Assault is not slavery. Owning other people as property is immoral.

So are you advocating a first-order rule, but only for slavery? For every other act, its morality can be dependent on whether you did it first or in retaliation, but not so with slavery?

I don't give a fig for your first-order rule or any other act. Owning people as property is immoral and there is no justification for it.

[Purple Knight]

Owning people as property is immoral and there is no justification for it.

Alright, let's apply your rule then. When would you say someone is owned as property? Is it about forced labour, literally paying actual money to obtain a person, lack of freedom, or something else?

Let's say I take my time machine back to slavery days and buy one slave. I tell him, stay in the time machine. He has access to amenities and I feed and water him, and I make him do no labour, but it's a gilded cage. I do not allow him to leave the time machine (or drive it). Is he still a slave? Why or why not? Does it matter if I bought him or stole him from the slavers or if I kidnapped him myself? What if I let him go after a couple months?

[brunumb]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #47]

There are no scenarios that make owning another person as property moral.

[1213]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #47]

There are no scenarios that make owning another person as property moral.

That person must pay taxes makes person owned by the taxman. Have you any idea how we could set people free from that slavery?

[brunumb]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #47]

There are no scenarios that make owning another person as property moral.

That person must pay taxes makes person owned by the taxman. Have you any idea how we could set people free from that slavery?

What on earth has that got to do with the morality of owning people as property? And, no, the taxman does not own you. Ludicrous!

[William]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #47]

There are no scenarios that make owning another person as property moral.

That person must pay taxes makes person owned by the taxman. Have you any idea how we could set people free from that slavery?

What on earth has that got to do with the morality of owning people as property? And, no, the taxman does not own you. Ludicrous!

I would put it thus;

That which we pay taxes to, is that which owns our collective butts. In that, the taxman's butt is also owned by the same entity.

Democracy itself does not allow for the choice NOT to be taxed and thus owned by those entities which do the taxing.

Slaves tend to do what masters tell them [or suffer the consequences of not] and very few have found niches in which to truly be free from both democracy and tax.
(Those loop holes are being identified and closed.)

They remain slaves to their own stomaches though.
Point being, no one really is a free individual as we are all slaves to the environment in which we currently are experiencing together.

I myself, consider myself someone born into slavery to the environment and accept that as natural enough. I was also born into a system which gives me no democratic options not to be taxed, so in that I accept I am owned, and in relation to that, accept that if it were a game of chess, then I was born, already checkmated.

It is what it is and I am as we all really are, slaves to it.

Although some do not like to admit it...that is their democratic right I suppose.