how many parents say to their children , in this day and age, IF you are having sex, use protection?


is this a blanket show of SUPPORT or ENCOURAGEMENT for sex at a young age, or is it merely the loving guidance of a parent trying to address the realities around them?


I think the difference in perception of that type of situation is what this debate reflects concerning the situation of slavery in the bible, I have one perception, and others dont, and that doesnt make either of us right or wrong because the standard being described'good' vs 'bad' cannot tangibly or logically be proven or categorized

those standards continue to be highly subjective although some have a higher popularity than others

MsHarmony,

Are you suggesting that this is to be considered moral?

Exodus 21:2-4

If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. 3 If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.

Are you further suggesting that the act of buying a Hebrew servant is any different than the act of buying a southern states slave? You think that it is moral to be able to buy/sell a human?

in a word, YES, if it is with the consent of SAID 'slave'

I do, I see it as little different from employment

as to the verse above, I interpet it as such

if someone agrees to provide exclusive service to you it is to be for a period of no longer than six or seven years(moral),,,

If that someone enters into said agreement as part of a couple, that couple will leave together (moral)

If that someone enters into said agreement ALONE and then becomes a couple with someone else in such an agreement, the formers release from their agreement will NOT release the latter (moral)

That is where you're wrong. It can be and has long since been logically categorized.

The fact that there are disagreements about what constitutes right and wrong does not make morality relative.

where is it logically categorized,,,? do you have a resource or a link because I am currently taking ethics myself and concepts such as good and bad and evil are all very subjective according to my college resources,,,,, Im open to other resources which might prove otherwise though?

You're claiming that when a servant is given a wife and they have children that it is ok for the man to go free after six years as long as the wife and family have to stay.

Your calling that moral?

YES, its called an agreement. IF I agree to do work for someone for seven years, and in my third year someone comes along to do work for seven years, it is completely moral to expect the latter to COMPLETE their seven years instead of leaving after four because we became a couple and my service time has expired,,

Look at The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. It can be googled.

You believe that a man would agree to such a thing if he had another choice? The slave-owner need only buy a man, then give him a wife to entrap the man as long as he loves that wife. Should they children, the stakes of 'freedom' are even higher and less obtainable for a man who loves his family.

The very framework perpetuates it's own continuance. The man nor his family are free. That is not good.

I'm sorry but if you can call that moral, you have no idea what being moral means.

thank you for the reference, I have used it,, still no definitive explanation of what 'good' is although there are PAGES of links to different philosophers and their THEORIES about 'good'

can you be specific about the page or resource you found in the SEP that provided such a definitive explanation?

A failure to understand the difference between right and wrong is a logical consequence of moral relativism.

so say you


on the other hand, a 'MAN' will be clear of his agreement when he enters it AND its duration and will be able to make decisions accordingly, INCLUDING whether to become emotionally and romantically bonded to someone that they will not be with when they initially leave

Moral reasoning is individual or collective practical reasoning about what, morally, one ought to do


a failure to appreciate reasoning is a consequence of EGO believing it holds the only 'reason'

an insistence that right and wrong are absolute and categorical realities is an insistence that everyone lives the same life, has the same immediate needs and resources, and the same priorities


I can roll off my head a never ending list that substantiates my point of how right and wrong are not absolute or universal

does right and wrong lie in the intention of an act or the outcome?

If a man gives a homeless person twenty bucks with which that person is able to have a warm meal,, is that not GOOD? but what if his intention in doing so was merely to impress his girlfriend, does that make the action now not GOOD, even though it helped that homeless person just as much?


on the flip side

If I shoot a man dead because he approached me with a knife and I feared for my life , did I do a 'BAD' Thing?

If I shoot a man who was in the kitchen with a knife and I shoot him dead without any real fear that he was going to hurt me, was that a 'BAD' Thing,,,,,being that the man is just as dead in either case


are we going to define GOOD and BAD by intention or outcome, or does it require both and if so, how many situations will have BOTH good intention and outcome OR bad intention and outcome with no middle ground?


I could go on, but I have this inkling you will feel none of this matters either,,

The thing about moral claims, such as what one ought to do, is that they apply to ourselves and to others, and are about things that matter to everyone. That is part of what makes morality so important.

What is moral is what is good. One ought to always do what is good. Therefore, one ought to act morally. What is good has nothing to do with practicality, and therefore it is incorrect to define moral reasoning as practical reasoning, if that means that what is to be considered as good is contingent upon how practical it's implementation may or may not seem to be.

What is good for all if put into practice by all is always a moral act. That is the strongest justification possible for establishing a moral behavior. Conversely, what is not good for all if put into practice by all cannot be moral.

is it amoral for people to be unemployed, for instance, if employing NOONE would not be good for everyone?


is allowing everyone the capacity to consent to agreements that serve their needs amoral, would it be a BAD thing?

I dont quite get this line of logic, although Im not belittling your right to defend it,,

can you give me a situation that will be applicable to ALL people?

the only one I can think of is that given by Jesus, to LOVE all, which to me implies never intending harm

slavery does not imply an inherent intent to harm



there is hardly a situation that could be applied to ALL people because of the basic need for things to have a BALANCE and for units and cultures to work together in roles that COMPLIMENT and not just DUPLICATE each other

No it's not.

By the way, there is only one reality. It is the overall state of universal affairs. The individual elements within that are not "realities" in and of themselves.



I'll look at it.



Are you talking about what you call right or what is?



It is always good to act in respect of others.



The goodness of the act does not change.



Yes.



Yes.



Do you believe that that is a sufficient criterion in order to establish what is good?



Not at all, morality is all about what matters to everyone.

wow, but the same things dont matter to EVERYONE , that is the point

and if it is always good to act in respect of someone, what would you call providing them room and board,,,disrespectful?

and if they cant pay with money or resources for said room and board, is it disrespectful or 'amoral' to enter into an agreement where they pay by service instead

I dont agree that it is


what you seem to contend, respectfuly, is that what matters to YOU necessarily matters to everyone so that YOUR idea of what is good is universal and non negotiable or alterable

another idea that I disagree with


it doesnt matter to me if someone pays for me or if there is no payment involved, so long as I am TREATED with care


In fact, I can imagine I would much RATHER be PAID for by someone who was going to care for me, than to receive NOTHING in return for the company of someone who was going to misuse me

although my ultimate preference, and thanx to modern culture, my options extend beyond those two options and I have multiple other RESOURCES with which I can be sure to have room and board

but what matters to you, is that there is an initial TRANSACTION involved in the agreement that , to you, implies that a person will be treated in an amoral way

I dont make that assumption, because I know of several situations where it would not be true

This question is incoherent, can you restate it?



Again, amoral does not deal with right and wrong or good and bad, so this question is incoherent.



How humans treat one another.



The golden rule has it's share of logical flaws, although the general sentiment is a moral one.



Slavery cannot escape the fact that humans are bought and sold. It is never moral to use a person solely as a means to an end. The well being of humans must be an end in itself.



I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. There are situations that all people necessarily find themselves in. There are universal common denominators in all particular ethical codes of behavior. There are universal common denominators in all moral belief, etc.

Just because different things matter to different people does not mean that there are not things that matter to everyone.



I have no idea how you arrived at this.



Again with the term amoral. Do you mean immoral?



You disagree with yourself then. That is not my idea.



I have no idea, once again what you're talking about.



Are we even having the same conversation?