How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

[otseng]

From the On the Bible being inerrant thread:

How can you trust something that's written about god that contradictory, contains errors and just plain wrong at times? Is there a logical way to do so, or do you just want it to be god's word so much that you overlook these things like happens so often through the history of christianity?

The Bible can still be God's word, inspired, authoritative, and trustworthy without the need to believe in inerrancy.

For debate:
How can the Bible be considered authoritative and inspired without the need to believe in the doctrine of inerrancy?

While debating, do not simply state verses to say the Bible is inspired or trustworthy.

----------

Thread Milestones

• Case study of Hezekiah
• Start discussing global flood / Flood Model summary
• Recap arguments of authority of the Bible
• Start discussing Tower of Babel / Tower of Babel summary
• Start discussing archaeology / Philosophy of science / Origin of alphabet / End of discussion on archaeology
• Start discussing cosmology / Concluding cosmology
• Start discussing Shroud of Turin / Summary top TS imaging theories / Created DefendingChristianity.com and TS subforums / Shroud of Turin summary
• Start discussing Bible and resurrection
• Start discussing the Messiahship of Jesus / Messiahship of Jesus wrap up
• Start discussing Old Testament ethics
• Summary argument of atheism and morality / God basis for objective morality
• Start discussing genocide / Genocide summary argument
• Start discussing slavery / Slavery summary argument
• Start discussing homosexuality / Homosexuality summary argument
• Old Testament ethics summary argument
• Start discussing philosophy / Summary argument on philosophy
• Start discussing creation of universe / Summary argument universe was created

[boatsnguitars]

Hello otseng

You say - "Of course I believe the non-natural world exists and I agree with Moore a non-natural explanation best accounts for morality. Now your turn. "

Previously

Post 3717:"Atheist philosopher J. L. Mackie accepted that, if objective moral truths existed, they would warrant a supernatural explanation."
-------
My life expectancy is 90 yrs.(optimistically)
I only check this thread occasionally. Last time I was here you were using another secular source to suggest that supernatural reasons were behind Godly morality.

Why the shape-shifting from supernatural to non-natural...I explained the term supernatural, now what on earth is non-natural. Is there nothing natural in God. Is it like non-meat?
Do you consider these to be identical terms or are we, now, considering two nuances of the subject? Only you can tell us?

Thanks for recognizing that . Its frustrating because otseng seems to know better, hence his ability to avoid the meat of the problem.

But, worse, he seems to think that agnostics writing in a time when morals were simply considered Objective, give him support for God. He seems to have locked on quotes that he will use to his benefit, regardless of the morality of his use of them.

[otseng]

Why not use this one? The Bible includes support for chattel slavery in which people are bought and sold by other people.

Yes, I grant the Bible allowed for chattel slavery and the Israelites even owned slaves as property.

Are we agreeing to use the first definition of slavery that you mentioned, then? Your comment was specifically concerned with which definition to use.

I'm defining chattel slavery as:

"the enslaving and owning of human beings and their offspring as property, able to be bought, sold, and forced to work without wages, as distinguished from other systems of forced, unpaid, or low-wage labor also considered to be slavery."
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/chattel-slavery

"A form of slavery where slaves are the legal property of an individual."
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/chattel_slavery

An important thing to note is chattel slavery is a subset of slavery and they are not synomous.

My definition of objective morality is morality that would apply universally at all places at all times. Subjective morality would be morality that does not apply universally, but can differ according to places, times, and situations.

This definition will end up making the distinction between subjective and objective meaningless, leading to arguments based entirely on equivocation. You've already done multiple ways, probably unintentionally, in this post.

You'll have to expand on this. How would you define subjective and objective morality? Since there is an objective criteria to help determine if something is subjective or objective morality according to my definition, then how is it meaningless? Specifically how would it be equivocation?

There are atheists (I'm one of them) that would regard morality as subjective from a universal point of view, but objective from a human point of view, in the sense that we could define a morality that applies to all humans, past, present, or future.

I'm also looking at morality from a human point of view. So, in that sense it seems like we agree on my definition of subjective morality and objective morality.

I do think we need to subdivide morality and not just talk about morality in general. It's a trivial point to say morality applies to all humans. But the issue is the specific cases of morality that should apply to all humans.

If you are trying to make the argument that there is some human perspective under which chattel slavery would be moral, this doesn't support your point because you're switching from subjective in a universal sense to subjective in a human sense and expecting them to be equivalent.

It would go back to what is the basis of morality. So you'll need to explain your justification of your objective view of morality. Why ought people abide by a universal morality?

From a secular point of view, chattel slavery was practiced and accepted by most of human history. Since it was accepted in the past, then it was not considered immoral in the past. Therefore it is a subjective.

That's a much, much narrower definition that your earlier one. Even if morality is binding on all humans in the past, it can still be subjective.

Not sure what you're getting at. I'm not talking about morality in general, but objective vs subjective morality.

My argument is simply chattel slavery is not accepted now, but it was accepted in the past. Since views on chattel slavery is different in the past and now, then it is subjective.

Whether humans in the past believed in the morality of their actions, morality could still be objective, either universally or from the point of view of humanity as a whole.

Yes, I agree.

As it is, "the morality of slavery is subjective" as you first defined it is absolutely compatible with "slavery is now and always has been immoral in every situation that it has been practiced."

Actually, I don't believe I've ever made any claims about slavery, but only chattel slavery. The point of discussion with you is only regarding chattel slavery, not slavery in general. In our discussions, I'm just arguing chattel slavery falls under subjective morality.

Then let's eliminate any sort of voluntary slavery, whatever that means, from our definition of slavery.

Isn't that equivocation if definitions are being changed? How are you defining slavery and what is the difference between slavery and chattel slavery? How would you define chattel slavery? Is it possible to voluntarily be a chattel slave?

Even more than this, skeptics also need to address how is slavery equivalent to ebed and doulos. If they are not equivalent, then it is also equivocation.

Is such a voluntary slave allowed to change their mind? Is it still voluntary if they do and are forced to remain a slave? Were they ever a slave for the purposes of this discussion if they're voluntarily able to leave?

People can voluntarily enter a contract. If the contract states the terms, then one person cannot simply voluntarily exit the contract without consequences. However, if both parties voluntarily agree to end the contract, then the contract can be annulled.

Let's just remove those that were voluntarily serving another from our definition. If there are no cases of slavery left in the Bible, then we can start splitting hairs over just how voluntary the slavery was. I don't think we'll need to, though.

The only way to do that is to define chattel slavery to only mean involuntary slavery, which I have not seen any dictionary definition that qualifies it to only include an involuntary ownership.

I use similar metaphors for my performance at my at-will job ("slaving away" and such).

The difference is you do not worship your manager. So, it is more than just a metaphor for Christians.

This is the same equivocation we see when apologists argue that forced marriage isn't rape. It's an equally facile argument, but I think we can narrow our definition enough to eliminate that kind of equivocation and find that the Bible still condones slavery that was immoral then and is immoral now.

To be more relevant, what we see is skeptics equivocating between slavery and chattel slavery.

[Difflugia]

I'm defining chattel slavery as:

"the enslaving and owning of human beings and their offspring as property, able to be bought, sold, and forced to work without wages, as distinguished from other systems of forced, unpaid, or low-wage labor also considered to be slavery."
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/chattel-slavery

"A form of slavery where slaves are the legal property of an individual."
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/chattel_slavery

An important thing to note is chattel slavery is a subset of slavery and they are not synomous.

That's fine. I recognize that slavery is a broader concept than chattel slavery. I'll try not to be sloppy about it.

You'll have to expand on this. How would you define subjective and objective morality? Since there is an objective criteria to help determine if something is subjective or objective morality according to my definition, then how is it meaningless? Specifically how would it be equivocation?

There are two main forms of discussion between objective vs. subjective morality. The first is that an objective morality is somehow baked into the universe and would exist whether human beings were part of the equation or not. The second is that a consistent morality can be derived from some set of first principles (like, "humans feel pain") such that it would be binding on all people. The difference is that something considered objective by the second defintion could be subjective by the first. Equivocation is a problem when one switches from one to the other in the middle of an argument. That's the difference between "subjective morality is any that doesn't come from God" and "subjective morality is all made up." Equivocation is a problem when one defines "subjective" according to the first definition, but then argues as though it means the second. An example of that would be claiming that nearly all atheists think morality is subjective by the first definition, then claiming that atheists must therefore believe that morality is also dependent on local cultural values.

There are atheists (I'm one of them) that would regard morality as subjective from a universal point of view, but objective from a human point of view, in the sense that we could define a morality that applies to all humans, past, present, or future.

I'm also looking at morality from a human point of view. So, in that sense it seems like we agree on my definition of subjective morality and objective morality.

Perfect. For reference, you said, "My definition of objective morality is morality that would apply universally at all places at all times." My only quibble is that if you mean an implied reference to the point of view of humanity, then far more atheists believe in an objective morality than just Sam Harris. The idea that Sam is an outlier is wrong and based on the misunderstanding that his objective morality is based on the first definition rather than the second:

The crux of Harris's argument is that the well-being of conscious creatures should be the paramount consideration when determining whether an action is morally correct or incorrect. Source.

The sense in which he's using objective is that we can identify a set of precepts from which to derive our morality rather than something that amounts to, "I know it when I see it."

I do think we need to subdivide morality and not just talk about morality in general. It's a trivial point to say morality applies to all humans. But the issue is the specific cases of morality that should apply to all humans.

If you are trying to make the argument that there is some human perspective under which chattel slavery would be moral, this doesn't support your point because you're switching from subjective in a universal sense to subjective in a human sense and expecting them to be equivalent.

It would go back to what is the basis of morality. So you'll need to explain your justification of your objective view of morality. Why ought people abide by a universal morality?

This is dangerously close to equivocation again. Unless your argument admits that the morality of murder is as subjective as the morality of slavery, then the important question isn't whether or not there is (or "ought" to be) a universal morality. I'd say we already agree that there is and we're discussing whether or not the morality of chattel slavery should be included in that. If you think that the morality of murder is also subjective, then our disagreement is much more fundamental, doesn't actually have anything to do with slavery as such, and we'll just be talking past each other.

My argument is simply chattel slavery is not accepted now, but it was accepted in the past. Since views on chattel slavery is different in the past and now, then it is subjective.

This isn't the defintion of subjective that we were using. This would make your argument simply that because once upon a time, people once thought chattel slavery was justified, they were in fact morally justified in owning slaves. If that's the case, we once again have a fundamental disagreement about the nature of morality that has nothing to do with slavery as such.

Then let's eliminate any sort of voluntary slavery, whatever that means, from our definition of slavery.

Isn't that equivocation if definitions are being changed?

Equivocation lies in establishing something by one definition, then deriving some corollary using a different definition. Agreeing to a definition beforehand makes that easier to avoid, at least if the equivocation is unintentional.

How are you defining slavery and what is the difference between slavery and chattel slavery?

For the purposes of this discussion, I was using "slavery" to mean chattel slavery in particular. You've adequately defined the distinction that you want between the terms and I've no problem with it.

Even more than this, skeptics also need to address how is slavery equivalent to ebed and doulos. If they are not equivalent, then it is also equivocation.

Since equivocation would depend on how exactly the argument were constructed, it could be. The Hebrew ebed broadly means any male slave. Whether or not every use fits your definition of chattel slavery is open to discussion. As long as we're aware of the possibility that some evedim aren't necessarily chattel slaves, I'm pretty sure we can avoid any unintentional equivocation.

Greek doulos and douleia refer to chattel slavery.

Miles Lavan, Slaves to Rome, p. 77

More importantly, douleia and seruitus always retain the force of their connection with the domain of chattel slavery.

We may find metaphorical uses such that in context we're not discussing chattel slaves, but a doulos is a person that is owned by another.

Let's just remove those that were voluntarily serving another from our definition. If there are no cases of slavery left in the Bible, then we can start splitting hairs over just how voluntary the slavery was. I don't think we'll need to, though.

The only way to do that is to define chattel slavery to only mean involuntary slavery, which I have not seen any dictionary definition that qualifies it to only include an involuntary ownership.

Then just state that we're only talking about involuntarily servitude. My argument would be that the Bible allows the worst forms of slavery and associated abuse. If your argument is that if it's voluntary, then it's also moral (or even can be moral), then I'm willing to grant you that because I don't need it as part of my argument. I disagree with you, but it doesn't matter; even if voluntary slavery is morally just the bees knees, the Bible allows for slavery that's involuntary, so we don't need to waste effort arguing about voluntary slavery.

I use similar metaphors for my performance at my at-will job ("slaving away" and such).

The difference is you do not worship your manager. So, it is more than just a metaphor for Christians.

No, the difference is how literal you think Paul was being. I'm sure I disagree with you.

To be more relevant, what we see is skeptics equivocating between slavery and chattel slavery.

Maybe. I'll try to avoid that.

[otseng]

Why the shape-shifting from supernatural to non-natural...I explained the term supernatural, now what on earth is non-natural. Is there nothing natural in God. Is it like non-meat?
Do you consider these to be identical terms or are we, now, considering two nuances of the subject? Only you can tell us?

Thanks for recognizing that . Its frustrating because otseng seems to know better, hence his ability to avoid the meat of the problem.

But, worse, he seems to think that agnostics writing in a time when morals were simply considered Objective, give him support for God. He seems to have locked on quotes that he will use to his benefit, regardless of the morality of his use of them.

I'll let readers assess who are the ones avoiding the meat of the problem.

As for using quotes, as I've mentioned before, I primarily depend on secular sources to avoid skeptics complaining I use biased sources. But even when I do use secular sources, if they happen to counter skeptical claims, then they are likewise questioned.

As for what is supernatural and non-natural, I'm using them synonymously to mean anything that is not natural. Natural would be everything that empirically exists in our physical universe. Supernatural or non-natural would mean anything that does not empirically exist (ghosts, angels) or is outside of the physical universe (heaven).

[otseng]

I'm also looking at morality from a human point of view. So, in that sense it seems like we agree on my definition of subjective morality and objective morality.

Perfect. For reference, you said, "My definition of objective morality is morality that would apply universally at all places at all times."

OK, good, we'll use the definition that I offered for objective morality.

My only quibble is that if you mean an implied reference to the point of view of humanity, then far more atheists believe in an objective morality than just Sam Harris. The idea that Sam is an outlier is wrong and based on the misunderstanding that his objective morality is based on the first definition rather than the second.

I'm not implying what is the source of objective morality in my definition. The justification of objective morality would be another issue, whether it is from God or humans.

Yes, I agree a lot of atheists believe (and even practice) objective morality. But the issue is on what grounds do they believe in objective morality?

Sam Harris is one of the few atheists that have attempted this. Dawkins also tried to do this, but his statements are self-contradictory and self-refuting, so he can be dismissed.

There are many problems with Sam Harris's arguments, but we can table those for now. But for those interested, I've addressed it in Sam Harris - The Moral Landscape.

This is dangerously close to equivocation again. Unless your argument admits that the morality of murder is as subjective as the morality of slavery, then the important question isn't whether or not there is (or "ought" to be) a universal morality.

I'm using ought in the is-ought problem sense. Morality involves people doing something compared to what they ought to do. If they do something contrary to what they ought to do, then it is morally bad.

So, based on this view of ought, why ought people abide by a universal morality?

I'd say we already agree that there is and we're discussing whether or not the morality of chattel slavery should be included in that.

My position is chattel slavery should not be included in the list of objective morality. Rather it is subjective since there are cases of chattel slavery that is acceptable.

My argument is simply chattel slavery is not accepted now, but it was accepted in the past. Since views on chattel slavery is different in the past and now, then it is subjective.

This isn't the defintion of subjective that we were using.

I've already offered my definition of objective and subjective morality. Do you agree or disagree with it? If you disagree, then what are your definitions?

My definition of objective morality is morality that would apply universally at all places at all times. Subjective morality would be morality that does not apply universally, but can differ according to places, times, and situations.

Now, it could be chattel slavery is objectively wrong and all cultures in the past were wrong to allow it. But on what basis can it be said it is objectively wrong?

How are you defining slavery and what is the difference between slavery and chattel slavery?

For the purposes of this discussion, I was using "slavery" to mean chattel slavery in particular.

This is commonly seen in all discussions on slavery. So, this is one reason this topic is so hard to discuss because of equivocation across the board.

The Hebrew ebed broadly means any male slave. Whether or not every use fits your definition of chattel slavery is open to discussion. As long as we're aware of the possibility that some evedim aren't necessarily chattel slaves, I'm pretty sure we can avoid any unintentional equivocation.

Greek doulos and douleia refer to chattel slavery.

I'd disagree with this, but we can table this for later. For those interested, I've touched on this in Ebed and doulos.

The only way to do that is to define chattel slavery to only mean involuntary slavery, which I have not seen any dictionary definition that qualifies it to only include an involuntary ownership.

Then just state that we're only talking about involuntarily servitude.

Then that would be equivocation because we're talking about chattel slavery. I've offered the definitions of chattel slavery and there is no qualification mentioned of only involving involuntary servitude.

My argument would be that the Bible allows the worst forms of slavery and associated abuse. If your argument is that if it's voluntary, then it's also moral (or even can be moral), then I'm willing to grant you that because I don't need it as part of my argument.

Before we go on to debate involuntary chattel slavery, do you agree chattel slavery would fall under subjective morality?

[Difflugia]

I'm also looking at morality from a human point of view. So, in that sense it seems like we agree on my definition of subjective morality and objective morality.

Perfect. For reference, you said, "My definition of objective morality is morality that would apply universally at all places at all times."

OK, good, we'll use the definition that I offered for objective morality.

As long as you're combining the statements above (i.e. "Objective morality is morality that would apply universally at all places at all times from a human point of view."), then that should do.

I'm using ought in the is-ought problem sense. Morality involves people doing something compared to what they ought to do. If they do something contrary to what they ought to do, then it is morally bad.

So, based on this view of ought, why ought people abide by a universal morality?

My own feeling is that we're all stuck here together in this life and we only get one crack at it, so morality revolves around helping each other have as good a run as possible. I haven't built a philosophical framework around it, though.

My position is chattel slavery should not be included in the list of objective morality. Rather it is subjective since there are cases of chattel slavery that is acceptable.

OK.

My argument is simply chattel slavery is not accepted now, but it was accepted in the past. Since views on chattel slavery is different in the past and now, then it is subjective.

This isn't the defintion of subjective that we were using.

I've already offered my definition of objective and subjective morality. Do you agree or disagree with it? If you disagree, then what are your definitions?

I'm fine with your definition, but that's not the definition you're using here, at least as you've presented both statements. Whether someone objectively ought to own someone (or do anything) has nothing to do with either their personal acceptance of it or a cultural acceptance of it. As far as I'm concerned, if someone thinks chattel slavery isn't objectively immoral, they're wrong regardless of personal feelings or cultural norms.

Now, it could be chattel slavery is objectively wrong and all cultures in the past were wrong to allow it. But on what basis can it be said it is objectively wrong?

It's wrong to exploit people. "Do unto others." Whatever.

For the purposes of this discussion, I was using "slavery" to mean chattel slavery in particular.

This is commonly seen in all discussions on slavery. So, this is one reason this topic is so hard to discuss because of equivocation across the board.

Equivocation would be if I used "slavery" to mean two (or more) different things, but implying that I'm still only using one definition.

The Hebrew ebed broadly means any male slave.

Greek doulos and douleia refer to chattel slavery.

I'd disagree with this, but we can table this for later.

OK.

Then just state that we're only talking about involuntarily servitude.

Then that would be equivocation because we're talking about chattel slavery. I've offered the definitions of chattel slavery and there is no qualification mentioned of only involving involuntary servitude.

OK. I'm trying to narrow the discussion based on what you're telling me, but you're telling me that doesn't fit the discussion. Equivocation would be if you were to make some point that only applies to voluntary servitude, but claiming (or implying) it's true for chattel slavery at large. Explicitly narrowing the definition isn't equivocation; it's trying to eliminate potential equivocation. I'm trying to see where the phrase might be used in multiple ways, like slavery being used to mean both "voluntary servitude" and "involuntary servitude" in the same argument, and eliminate one of the meanings. Even if it's artificially narrow for normal speech, it helps identify and prevent logic errors before they occur.

If you have a few moments, read the Wikipedia article on the fallacy of four terms.

Before we go on to debate involuntary chattel slavery, do you agree chattel slavery would fall under subjective morality?

No.

[otseng]

As long as you're combining the statements above (i.e. "Objective morality is morality that would apply universally at all places at all times from a human point of view."), then that should do.

OK. I'll add that all my definitions I've provided and will provide by default are from a human point of view.

I'm using ought in the is-ought problem sense. Morality involves people doing something compared to what they ought to do. If they do something contrary to what they ought to do, then it is morally bad.

So, based on this view of ought, why ought people abide by a universal morality?

My own feeling is that we're all stuck here together in this life and we only get one crack at it, so morality revolves around helping each other have as good a run as possible. I haven't built a philosophical framework around it, though.

Here's the fundamental problem. And it's not just with you, but it's a problem for all skeptics that believe in objective morality. There is no viable justification for the belief in objective morality for skeptics (in particular naturalists), but it is simply a personal belief.

What if a skeptic asked me why do I believe God exists and I simply said my own feelings says God exists? How would skeptics respond to this?

I'm fine with your definition, but that's not the definition you're using here, at least as you've presented both statements.

Let me state it this way:

1. Subjective morality is morality that is different for different people, places, times, and situations.
2. Chattel slavery was morally accepted by societies in the past.
3. Chattel slavery is not morally accepted by societies today.
4. Voluntary chattel slavery is morally acceptable.
5. Therefore chattel slavery is subjective morality.

Where is the error in the logic?

Please present your argument that chattel slavery is objectively wrong.

Whether someone objectively ought to own someone (or do anything) has nothing to do with either their personal acceptance of it or a cultural acceptance of it. As far as I'm concerned, if someone thinks chattel slavery isn't objectively immoral, they're wrong regardless of personal feelings or cultural norms.

If you have no justification of the objective morality of chattel slavery, how can you justify saying everyone else's view of chattel slavery is wrong? Why should your personal feelings trump everyone else's view?

Now, it could be chattel slavery is objectively wrong and all cultures in the past were wrong to allow it. But on what basis can it be said it is objectively wrong?

It's wrong to exploit people. "Do unto others." Whatever.

It can't just be a whatever.

"Do unto others" is simply borrowing religious morality.

It might be wrong to exploit people, but that is just another statement that needs justification.

Equivocation would be if I used "slavery" to mean two (or more) different things, but implying that I'm still only using one definition.

You had originally used the word "slavery" to refer to "chattel slavery". You stated, "I was using "slavery" to mean chattel slavery in particular." This is what I'm referring to as equivocation. And you're not alone in this. Almost all discussions and debates use the term slavery to specifically mean chattel slavery, not slavery in general. This is so ingrained in the public mind that it's hard to separate the two.

I've offered the definitions of chattel slavery and there is no qualification mentioned of only involving involuntary servitude.

OK. I'm trying to narrow the discussion based on what you're telling me, but you're telling me that doesn't fit the discussion.

I'm just trying to address chattel slavery first and then later we can drill down into involuntary chattel slavery.

Explicitly narrowing the definition isn't equivocation; it's trying to eliminate potential equivocation.

I understand. But the term we are debating now is the morality of "chattel slavery", not "involuntary chattel slavery", which we will get to later.

If you have a few moments, read the Wikipedia article on the fallacy of four terms.

I entirely agree we need to be clear on the usage of our terms and that our arguments should avoid using words/phrases that have multiple meanings and to use them in our arguments with different meanings.

Before we go on to debate involuntary chattel slavery, do you agree chattel slavery would fall under subjective morality?

No.

Since we differ on this, we'll need to hash out chattel slavery before diving deeper into involuntary chattel slavery.

[Masterblaster]

Hello otseng

You say - "I'll let readers assess who are the ones avoiding the meat of the problem.
As for what is supernatural and non-natural, I'm using them synonymously to mean anything that is not natural. Natural would be everything that empirically exists in our physical universe. Supernatural or non-natural would mean anything that does not empirically exist (ghosts, angels) or is outside of the physical universe (heaven)."

-------

First things first otseng , Thank You for your reply of clarification. I have been watching American politics and I have been watching your submissions at the same time. The politicians plead to the non-present, they exclaim " The American people will not stand for this" This is the energy drink of their argument. You do the same, you appeal to the readership with confidence that they will see things your way. You make this appeal constantly when you are backed up by someone.

Let me get this straight, to you supernatural and non-natural can be used synonymously. Ok!
You have been using them in argument to imply God, who is now in with heaven, ghosts and angels and other things that do not empirically exist.
Did I miss something,....fairies?

[Difflugia]

it is simply a personal belief.

I fail to see the problem. It's no more a "personal belief" than that there's one and only one god that defines morality, thus somehow making it "objective." From the point of view of human beings, it's immaterial whether our commonalities are natural or supernatural in origin.

What if a skeptic asked me why do I believe God exists and I simply said my own feelings says God exists? How would skeptics respond to this?

I can't speak for all skeptics, but I'd personally respond that you're being refreshingly honest.

Let me state it this way:

1. Subjective morality is morality that is different for different people, places, times, and situations.
2. Chattel slavery was morally accepted by societies in the past.
3. Chattel slavery is not morally accepted by societies today.
4. Voluntary chattel slavery is morally acceptable.
5. Therefore chattel slavery is subjective morality.

Where is the error in the logic?

There are multiple. First, numbers 2 and 3 are invalid. You said this earlier:

Now, it could be chattel slavery is objectively wrong and all cultures in the past were wrong to allow it. But on what basis can it be said it is objectively wrong?

If you meant that, then whether or not it was "morally accepted" by someone in the past or, indeed, someone in the present, is immaterial.

Second, numbers 4 and 5 seem to be conflating "voluntary" chattel slavery with involuntary chattel slavery in a way that I suspect is going to be central to your argument.

Third, I put voluntary in scare quotes because I'm not sure you and I are even defining that the same way. You've mentioned that you think contracting oneself into slavery is voluntary. If that person changes their mind, does it stay voluntary? If it has to be enforced, is it still voluntary? Since we seem to agree about what involuntary chattel slavery means, I'm willing to limit the debate to that. If the Bible condones involuntary chattel slavery and involuntary chattel slavery is immoral, it looks to me like that includes the important point you deny.

Please present your argument that chattel slavery is objectively wrong.

If that's what we're arguing, then you're already shifting the burden of proof. You're the one that said that showing that the morality of chattel slavery is subjective somehow shows that the Bible doesn't necessarily condone immorality. While you've asserted that, you haven't shown it and you're now trying to frame my burden as though you have.

I'm here because you invited "skeptics" to this thread to debate you "on slavery." Considering the context of this thread, I'm saying that the important part of the claim is that the Bible contains at least one example of God condoning an unambiguously (and perhaps even "objectively") immoral practice. In that light, my claim would be that I can find at least one example of God condoning slavery (or "chattel slavery," or "involuntary chattel slavery") that a Christian ought to find immoral in its biblical context.

If you have no justification of the objective morality of chattel slavery,

We're still just trying to define what we're debating. You keep trying to get me to commit to debate arguments while your position is still ambiguous, but I'm not going to.

how can you justify saying everyone else's view of chattel slavery is wrong? Why should your personal feelings trump everyone else's view?

I haven't. You don't get to claim without support that my view of slavery is at odds with "everyone else's." I'm pretty confident that, correctly justified or not, my view on the morality of chattel slavery is much more in line with "everyone else's" than yours is.

It's wrong to exploit people. "Do unto others." Whatever.

It can't just be a whatever.

Until you help me nail down what you're talking about, it will be. In this thread, I've already had to deal with shifting and vague claims being important to your arguments. I'm willing to treat it as unintentional for a bit and try to help you through it, but I'm not going to keep guessing at what you mean and then have you tell me I guessed wrong.

"Do unto others" is simply borrowing religious morality.

Not unless Jesus was a time traveller.

It might be wrong to exploit people, but that is just another statement that needs justification.

And there might be circumstances under which involuntary chattel slavery isn't immoral, but you haven't justified that yet, either. The sooner we agree about what we're debating, the sooner we can start justifying our positions.

You had originally used the word "slavery" to refer to "chattel slavery". You stated, "I was using "slavery" to mean chattel slavery in particular." This is what I'm referring to as equivocation.

Even though you apparently misunderstood what I meant and even if I was using the word incorrectly, I was maintaining a consistent and narrow definition. That's the opposite of equivocation. That's why I asked you to read the Wikipedia article.

I'm just trying to address chattel slavery first and then later we can drill down into involuntary chattel slavery.

Why? The only reason I see to include "voluntary" chattel slavery is to give yourself the opportunity to conflate voluntary and involuntary servitude. If part of your argument is that involuntary chattel slavery isn't necessarily immoral because voluntary chattel slavery isn't necessarily immoral, then it's based on a logical fallacy.

Explicitly narrowing the definition isn't equivocation; it's trying to eliminate potential equivocation.

I understand. But the term we are debating now is the morality of "chattel slavery", not "involuntary chattel slavery", which we will get to later.

It really looks like you're trying to set up an argument by equivocation. Let's debate the morality of involuntary chattel slavery specifically. Alternatively, you could claim that none of the chattel slavery condoned by the Bible is involuntary and I'd be willing to debate that with you.

Since we differ on this, we'll need to hash out chattel slavery before diving deeper into involuntary chattel slavery.

Why? If your argument doesn't require equivocation or a slippery slope, why does the morality of involuntary chattel slavery have to do with things outside that definition? If your claim is just that some things in the Bible aren't immoral, then I agree with you. That doesn't counter the claim that some things in the Bible are immoral, though. Those claims aren't opposites.

[otseng]

it is simply a personal belief.

I fail to see the problem. It's no more a "personal belief" than that there's one and only one god that defines morality, thus somehow making it "objective."

If you have no justification for your belief, then why should anyone accept your belief as being true?

As for God and objective morality, I've presented the justification at Objective morality of Christianity.

From the point of view of human beings, it's immaterial whether our commonalities are natural or supernatural in origin.

I've covered many attempts at naturalistic explanations of morality and summarized them at Summary argument of atheism and morality.

What if a skeptic asked me why do I believe God exists and I simply said my own feelings says God exists? How would skeptics respond to this?

I can't speak for all skeptics, but I'd personally respond that you're being refreshingly honest.

So, you're being "refreshingly honest" that you have no justification of objective morality?

Let me state it this way:

1. Subjective morality is morality that is different for different people, places, times, and situations.
2. Chattel slavery was morally accepted by societies in the past.
3. Chattel slavery is not morally accepted by societies today.
4. Voluntary chattel slavery is morally acceptable.
5. Therefore chattel slavery is subjective morality.

Where is the error in the logic?

There are multiple. First, numbers 2 and 3 are invalid. You said this earlier:

Now, it could be chattel slavery is objectively wrong and all cultures in the past were wrong to allow it. But on what basis can it be said it is objectively wrong?

If you meant that, then whether or not it was "morally accepted" by someone in the past or, indeed, someone in the present, is immaterial.

It goes back to whose morality is correct? Why should your view of morality trump everyone else's view in the past? Why should your feelings be considered an objective source of morality?

I'm surprised you reject premise 3. Chattel slavery is morally accepted by societies today?

Second, numbers 4 and 5 seem to be conflating "voluntary" chattel slavery with involuntary chattel slavery in a way that I suspect is going to be central to your argument.

Number 5 is the conclusion of the given premises.

Voluntary chattel slavery is one who willingly becomes a chattel slave. Involuntary chattel slavery is one that unwillingly becomes a chattel slave.

As for exiting voluntary chattel slavery, it depends on the agreed upon conditions. If one knew ahead of time the condition for chattel slavery is for a lifetime, then one cannot simply willingly break that condition unless all parties agree to break it. If there is no condition, then yes that person can be free at anytime to leave.

Please present your argument that chattel slavery is objectively wrong.

If that's what we're arguing, then you're already shifting the burden of proof.

It's not shifting the burden of proof if I've already given my argument for chattel slavery being subjective. I'm simply asking for you to justify your position that chattel slavery is objectively wrong.

You're the one that said that showing that the morality of chattel slavery is subjective somehow shows that the Bible doesn't necessarily condone immorality.

Actually, I haven't stated anything regarding the Bible and the morality of chattel slavery yet.

I'm here because you invited "skeptics" to this thread to debate you "on slavery." Considering the context of this thread, I'm saying that the important part of the claim is that the Bible contains at least one example of God condoning an unambiguously (and perhaps even "objectively") immoral practice.

What you claimed was "chattel slavery" which is what we're debating now...

The Bible includes support for chattel slavery in which people are bought and sold by other people.

If chattel slavery is not objectively wrong, then your original implication that chattel slavery is bad is just a subjective opinion.

I'm also pointing out to readers if you have no justification for your view of objective morality, then it has no normative weight and is simply a personal opinion.

In that light, my claim would be that I can find at least one example of God condoning slavery (or "chattel slavery," or "involuntary chattel slavery") that a Christian ought to find immoral in its biblical context.

Yes, I know that is what you claim. But we can look deeper at that particular case later.

If you have no justification of the objective morality of chattel slavery,

We're still just trying to define what we're debating. You keep trying to get me to commit to debate arguments while your position is still ambiguous, but I'm not going to.

Don't know what you mean. We're debating chattel slavery and whether it is objectively wrong or a subjective morality. My position is it is subjective and your position is it is objective. And now we're defending our positions.

how can you justify saying everyone else's view of chattel slavery is wrong? Why should your personal feelings trump everyone else's view?

I haven't. You don't get to claim without support that my view of slavery is at odds with "everyone else's."

For "everyone", I'm referring to premise 2 - "Chattel slavery was morally accepted by societies in the past." Everyone is all the people in the past before slavery was made illegal. If slavery was legal back then, why should chattel slavery be considered objectively immoral when it was practiced and accepted?

It's wrong to exploit people. "Do unto others." Whatever.

It can't just be a whatever.

Until you help me nail down what you're talking about, it will be. In this thread, I've already had to deal with shifting and vague claims being important to your arguments. I'm willing to treat it as unintentional for a bit and try to help you through it, but I'm not going to keep guessing at what you mean and then have you tell me I guessed wrong.

I'll let readers judge for themselves regarding the discussion on the flood.

Not sure what you're referring to with shifting and vague claims regarding the current topic of chattel slavery. I've given definitions of chattel slavery, objective morality, and subjective morality, which you've agreed to. And I've given my argument why chattel slavery is subjective based on the agreed upon definitions. Whereas when asked for you to provide your justification that chattel slavery is objectively wrong, you just claim we're still trying to define what we're debating.

"Do unto others" is simply borrowing religious morality.

Not unless Jesus was a time traveller.

I'm not claiming Jesus was the first to say it. I'm referring to religion in general.

And there might be circumstances under which involuntary chattel slavery isn't immoral, but you haven't justified that yet, either.

Of course. I've explicitly stated we'll discuss involuntary chattel slavery after dealing with chattel slavery.

The sooner we agree about what we're debating, the sooner we can start justifying our positions.

You don't agree we're discussing about chattel slavery? Weren't you the one to bring that up?

The Bible includes support for chattel slavery in which people are bought and sold by other people.

You had originally used the word "slavery" to refer to "chattel slavery". You stated, "I was using "slavery" to mean chattel slavery in particular." This is what I'm referring to as equivocation.

Even though you apparently misunderstood what I meant and even if I was using the word incorrectly, I was maintaining a consistent and narrow definition. That's the opposite of equivocation. That's why I asked you to read the Wikipedia article.

Isn't this the argument skeptics make?

The Bible allows for slavery.
Chattel slavery is morally bad.
Therefore the Bible condones morally bad things.

The equivocation in the above is equating slavery with chattel slavery.

And here's the argument you are making:

The Bible allows for chattel slavery.
Involuntary chattel slavery is morally bad.
Therefore the Bible condones morally bad things.

The equivocation is saying chattel slavery is involuntary chattel slavery.

If part of your argument is that involuntary chattel slavery isn't necessarily immoral because voluntary chattel slavery isn't necessarily immoral, then it's based on a logical fallacy.

I've never stated that and it is also not what I claim. What I do claim is chattel slavery is subjective morality. As for my position on involuntary chattel slavery, I'll get to that later.

Alternatively, you could claim that none of the chattel slavery condoned by the Bible is involuntary and I'd be willing to debate that with you.

I've never claimed that either.

Since we differ on this, we'll need to hash out chattel slavery before diving deeper into involuntary chattel slavery.

Why?

If you were the one to bring up chattel slavery, why are you asking me why we need to hash out chattel slavery?