Prove to me objective "rights" exist.

[organofcorti]

Statement 1 by JoelKatz : Slavery was *always* a moral abomination, whether people realized it or not.
Statement 2 by me: What you are doing is saying that today's morality is absolutely correct and that all preceding version and all the future versions are wrong

That's where.  Until 500 years ago, slavery was not a moral abomination.  Morality changed and now it is.  JoelKatz statement that it was always a moral abomination is applying today's morality to an age where it doesn't apply.

Joel Katz has never believed that morals are different in different societies at different times, but that whatever morals we think of as being 'good' right now have always been 'good' even if everyone at the time got it wrong. There'll be a Joel Katz of the distant future that says the same thing about how we treat farm produce, or some other moral judgement that simply doesn't apply right now.

Here's an example of previous arguments on a different topic but that are similar to the ones he provides here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=31400.msg475003#msg475003

There's not much point continuing the discussion. A mere mortal has no chance of changing his ideas on morality.

[1713548564]

1713548564

[1713548564]

1713548564

[1713548564]

1713548564

[Explodicle]

As I said, 1000 years ago slavery was morally OK in the eyes of everyone and abortion was a heinous offence.  Now most people are OK with abortion and slavery is a heinous offence.

Morality changed.  Saying the bible was morally wrong is only saying that you want to apply today's morality to people that lived in a different age.  

Slavery was *always* a moral abomination, whether people realized it or not. The Bible clearly condones what we now know is a moral abomination.

In any event, if you accept that morality can change and the Bible can be incorrect as a source of modern moral values, then it's hard to see what good it is as a guide. If we disagree with it, we have to substitute our own judgment, since "morality changed". So if you accept this view, then that condemns the Bible to be useless a source of moral guidance.

Again what you are doing is saying that today's morality is absolutely correct and that all preceding version and all the future versions are wrong.  But at least we agree on the Bible

It could be that in 1000 years time, factory farming, or mass abortion, or something else we take for granted is seen as a heinous offence.  

I'm not arguing that we should not enforce our moral standards - OP asked for proof objective rights exist.  I genuinely don't think they do - our morals and our rights are part of our culture.

Where did anyone say that? How did you draw this conclusion?

This is a strawman argument. It even adopts your moral relativist/populist notion of "today's" morality!

Statement 1 by JoelKatz : Slavery was *always* a moral abomination, whether people realized it or not.
Statement 2 by me: What you are doing is saying that today's morality is absolutely correct and that all preceding version and all the future versions are wrong

That's where.  Until 500 years ago, slavery was not a moral abomination.  Morality changed and now it is.  JoelKatz statement that it was always a moral abomination is applying today's morality to an age where it doesn't apply.

All you're doing now is repeating yourself, while offering no explanation as to how you bridge this epic gap whatsoever. WTF is "today's morality" if not an extension of YOUR relativist argument, not Joel's?

To break down just a couple of these holes:
* Where do these claims about "future versions" come from?
* How could just being right about slavery make "today's morality" absolutely correct?

This is just like that "immovable object" argument a couple pages back. You're defining everything in your own terms but because your terms are nonsensical, the concept you translate sounds nonsensical.

To adhere solely to "today's morality" is simply amoral - even if you don't believe in a God, there are at least some absolutes within humanity that haven't changed during our history or across cultures.

[Hawker]

...snip...

To adhere solely to "today's morality" is simply amoral - even if you don't believe in a God, there are at least some absolutes within humanity that haven't changed during our history or across cultures.

I don't know what those absolutes are.  Genuinely, if they don't include slavery (and they don't) that's the right to life and to bodily integrity off the list.  What absolute rights are there? 

[ineededausername]

...snip...

To adhere solely to "today's morality" is simply amoral - even if you don't believe in a God, there are at least some absolutes within humanity that haven't changed during our history or across cultures.

I don't know what those absolutes are.  Genuinely, if they don't include slavery (and they don't) that's the right to life and to bodily integrity off the list.  What absolute rights are there? 

I can't believe anyone talks about absolute morality/rights anymore.

[Explodicle]

...snip...

To adhere solely to "today's morality" is simply amoral - even if you don't believe in a God, there are at least some absolutes within humanity that haven't changed during our history or across cultures.

I don't know what those absolutes are.  Genuinely, if they don't include slavery (and they don't) that's the right to life and to bodily integrity off the list.  What absolute rights are there? 

No. I'm not going to play this silly little game where you snip off the part about you misrepresenting opposing viewpoints, and then explain the obvious as if you're being "genuine". Anything I say will just get translated into Hawkerspeak.

I'm done here. Atlas, either continue reading philosophy or end up like this guy. The answers are out there but you aren't going to learn them from forum rhetoric.

[JoelKatz]

Joel Katz has never believed that morals are different in different societies at different times, but that whatever morals we think of as being 'good' right now have always been 'good' even if everyone at the time got it wrong.

That's not quite precisely correct, or at least it is subject to misunderstanding.

There'll be a Joel Katz of the distant future that says the same thing about how we treat farm produce, or some other moral judgement that simply doesn't apply right now.

That's entirely possible. Had I lived at a time when the shape of the Earth was not known, I likely would have argued that it was flat because it looked flat. If I lived as the evidence came in that it was round, I would then insist not just that it's round now but that it was always round and that my previous claims were in fact incorrect.

But I'm puzzled what the alternative view is -- that the Earth has no shape and is whatever shape we want it to be? That our conclusion that the Earth is round is no better than our previous belief that the Earth was flat, and hence there's no reason to adjust our beliefs on the basis of new information? That we shouldn't actually believe it's round because for all we know in a hundred years new evidence will come in to suggest it's cubical?

What is your claim exactly -- that it's no better to believe the Earth is round than that it's flat? Or that the Earth really was flat before, because we thought so, and now it's round, because we think so? Or that the possibility that we might change our mind in the future means we don't actually know anything now?

There's not much point continuing the discussion. A mere mortal has no chance of changing his ideas on morality.

On the contrary, I'm arguing that our ideas can and should change as new evidence comes in and in the process we replace worse ideas with better ones.

(I should point out that nothing I've said about should be understood to mean that morality is not context-dependent. Morality is like addition. Once all the parameters are defined, the result is objectively constrained by the nature of the universe. But the answer to questions like "what do you get when you add 2 to a number?" depends on what number you start with. Just like perceived color depends on ambient light, the nature of human vision, and the actual optical properties of the object whose color we are measuring, so does perceived morality depend on a number of factors other than just the actual properties of the thing assessed.)

[Hawker]

...snip...

To adhere solely to "today's morality" is simply amoral - even if you don't believe in a God, there are at least some absolutes within humanity that haven't changed during our history or across cultures.

I don't know what those absolutes are.  Genuinely, if they don't include slavery (and they don't) that's the right to life and to bodily integrity off the list.  What absolute rights are there? 

No. I'm not going to play this silly little game where you snip off the part about you misrepresenting opposing viewpoints, and then explain the obvious as if you're being "genuine". Anything I say will just get translated into Hawkerspeak.

I'm done here. Atlas, either continue reading philosophy or end up like this guy. The answers are out there but you aren't going to learn them from forum rhetoric.

That's technically known as an ad hominem argument.  Its logically wrong.  Its often a sign that someone can't find a rational argument so you've done well to quit.

[Hawker]

If there is a natural law, it appears the natural law been hidden to all who came before us including Moses (a slave owner), Jesus (spoke approvingly of torturing disobedient slaves in the parable of 10000 talents) and Mohammed (a slave owner).
What changed? How come we now have "natural" rights like the right to abortion in the US that are new and the right to own a slave has been lost?

Where does it say in the Qur'an that Moses/Mohamed owned slaves? or Jesus (torturing disobedient slaves) in the Qur'an ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_views_on_slavery#Slavery_in_the_Qur.27an

I'm not sure why you ask me to Google things for you.

[Hawker]

If there is a natural law, it appears the natural law been hidden to all who came before us including Moses (a slave owner), Jesus (spoke approvingly of torturing disobedient slaves in the parable of 10000 talents) and Mohammed (a slave owner).
What changed? How come we now have "natural" rights like the right to abortion in the US that are new and the right to own a slave has been lost?

Where does it say in the Qur'an that Moses/Mohamed owned slaves? or Jesus (torturing disobedient slaves) in the Qur'an ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_views_on_slavery#Slavery_in_the_Qur.27an

I'm not sure why you ask me to Google things for you.

that doesnt say mohammed/moses/jesus owned slaves in THE QUR'AN

So what?  You surely are not arguing that he didn't own slaves?

[Hawker]

just want to show, that the quran doesnt say mohammed or moses owned slaves in the Qur'an

Both did own slaves.  Ownership of slaves involves whipping and chaining people.  If there is a God, he is absolutely OK with that.

The topic here is whether or not there are objective rights that are agreed by all people for all time.  My point is that slavery was acceptable for most of human history to everyone who considered ethics.  If any objective rights that are not contravened by slavery exist, I can't think what they would be.

[Hawker]

I mean I want to show that your source that mohamed/moses owned slaves or jesus torturing is not from the Qur'an but from somewhere else.

I understand that.  But the Koran does have a lot about slavery in it.

http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/slavery.htm

Line 1 page 1 says it as well as I can: "Islam institutionalized slavery.  Muhammad began to take slaves after he moved to Medina, and had power. "

This is not the behaviour of a man who sees a moral objection to slavery is it?

http://www.muslimaccess.com/quraan/arabic/023.asp

I googled this for you.  Slavery is OK in the Koran, including sex with female captives.

[Hawker]

yes i have seen these websites and can google myself, its just when you write statements like :

"mohamed owned slaves" or "jesus tortured people " or "moses owned slaves" , some people would think its in the quran when it isnt.

though quran talks about slavery, it doesnt mention mohamed/moses owning slaves

as muslims believe quran is word of god, if you told me quran says mohamed owned slaves, i would believe that 100%, since quran is word of god, but it doesnt, so we could argue about the truth of your sources (which says mohamed owned slaves).

Fair point.

I think we can agree that slavery is accepted as normal in the Koran.  Whether or not it mentions Mohammed is a different matter and I bow to your superior knowledge.

[Hawker]

i have no superior knowledge, but when you write something about Christianity for example, about jesus torturing or owning slaves and then suddenly also start talking about mohamed, people will think that it says that in the Qur'an, because the other stuff you mentioned about jesus/Christianity is in the bible.

so I could argue mohamed didnt own slaves, because its not mentioned in the Qur'an, then you would google and find some source outside of the Qur'an saying mohamed owned slaves, but i wouldnt take that as evidence.

as for slavery being accepted as normal in the Qur'an , well you can start a new thread on that and we can spam each other with links/sources

Mohammed did own slaves.  If you said otherwise, you would be lying. 

Back on topic, Islam and all major religions have approved of slavery up until about 500 years ago.  You don't disagree with that do you?  So any rights that are negated by slavery are not "objective rights."

[Hawker]

like I said , start a new topic in Off-Topic section if you wish and we can spam it with links/sources about slavery in islam.

I've proved that the historical character we call Mohammed did own slaves and that slavery is regulated in the Koran.  If you are saying that there are objective rights and that slavery contravenes these objective rights and that Islam has not allowed slavery, you need to provide some evidence.  Its on topic to the thread so here is the place to post your views.

[kokjo]

I've proved that the historical character we call Mohammed did own slaves

no you have not. i don't know whatever he did or not, but you have proven nothing.
please stop trolling the religious guy.

[Hawker]

I've proved that the historical character we call Mohammed did own slaves

no you have not. i don't know whatever he did or not, but you have proven nothing.
please stop trolling the religious guy.

All we know of Mohammed is from the historical record.  From that record, we know if he existed, we know he married some of his slaves.  That means that the historical character we call Mohammed did own slaves.

He's trolling me...if he is a Muslim, he believes Mohammed did own slaves.

[kokjo]

I've proved that the historical character we call Mohammed did own slaves

no you have not. i don't know whatever he did or not, but you have proven nothing.
please stop trolling the religious guy.

All we know of Mohammed is from the historical record.  From that record, we know if he existed, we know he married some of his slaves.  That means that the historical character we call Mohammed did own slaves.

He's trolling me...if he is a Muslim, he believes Mohammed did own slaves.

no this is half-good proof http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Muhammad#Ownership_of_slaves, because Wikipedia is a generally trusted source.
quoting the Qur'an is better proof, as muslims believe that its gods word, and therefor is the full truth.

you did not prove anything. you just annoyed the guy.

[Hawker]

I've proved that the historical character we call Mohammed did own slaves

no you have not. i don't know whatever he did or not, but you have proven nothing.
please stop trolling the religious guy.

All we know of Mohammed is from the historical record.  From that record, we know if he existed, we know he married some of his slaves.  That means that the historical character we call Mohammed did own slaves.

He's trolling me...if he is a Muslim, he believes Mohammed did own slaves.

no this is half-good proof http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Muhammad#Ownership_of_slaves, because Wikipedia is a generally trusted source.
quoting the Qur'an is better proof, as muslims believe that its gods word, and therefor is the full truth.

you did not prove anything. you just annoyed the guy.

I put it badly - you are right. And its off topic so I'll stop.

[JoelKatz]

the best way to attack a muslim and convince him/her of your arguments/views is using the Qur'an against muslims. so if the Qur'an says "go kill and take everyone you conquered as slaves" then i will have to answer for that and defend it.

I probably have a lot more experience attacking muslims from a non-muslim perspective than you do. And I don't think that's a terribly effective strategy. The problem is twofold:

First, it's pretty silly for a non-adherent of a religion to try to tell adherents what their own religion means. (For example, when you hear American politicians saying that "real Islam" is a religion of peace, does that make you feel good that they understand your religion correctly? Or do you feel a bit of, "who the hell are they to tell people what real Islam is? How can they know when they don't believe?" In my experience, and justifiably so, it's much more of the latter.)

But second, people who believe in a holy book (whether Muslim, jewish, christian, or otherwise) will always re-interpret the book if it conflicts with what they want to believe. What was once interpreted literally will now be interpreted metaphorically.

To use your example, say I found a section of the Qur'an that said "go kill all non-believers, except for the women which you should take as slaves", what would you do? You have two choices:

1) You can change your beliefs so that you believe you really should do that.

2) You can interpret that metaphorically, so "kill" means "convince" and "slaves" means "friends".

In which scenario is that helpful to me? There's no chance that you'd abandon your belief that the Qur'an is the word of god.

This is effective sometimes when dealing with adherents of other religions though. You can cite, to Christians, sections of the Qur'an that appear to say very bad things and argue "See? Muslims really do believe in an evil religion." It's sometimes very persuasive. But, of course, it's completely dishonest. The Bible says you should kill children who disrespect their parents or farmers who don't rotate their crops properly. Does that make Christianity an evil religion?

[kokjo]

this is so way off-topic...