CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Morality without religion?
Has morality (objective or absolute) ever existed without the initiation by religion? To me it seems like non-theists have an ad-hoc position on morality in the same way religion has an ad-hoc position in scientific advancements. Thoughts on this?
Morality can certainly exist without religion. However, I don't believe influencing a society toward a uniform moral code has ever succeeded by any measure except when using religion as a tool to do so- and even that has only been marginally successful.
Humans invented religion, so since the first religious writers were able to create a morality from nothing I think it is pretty easy to come up with morality without religion.
I am not sure what you mean by ad hoc. Is ad hoc where you have a rule that says don't murder people, but then go around killing tons of people claiming it isn't murder so it is justified?
There is no such thing as objective morality, even in the case of religion. Religious morality has changed many times. Take Biblical morality for example; At one time it was perfectly moral to stone people to death for minor offenses, owning and beating slaves was okay with god, beating your children with a rod for disobeying was touted as a good thing, selling your daughters as slaves and wives was all fine and dandy. Today those things are considered reprehensible. Religion isn't the source of morality, common sense is. You don't have to be a genius to figure out that raping, murdering and stealing isn't going to lead to a happy and prosperous society, which is what nearly every person on this planet desires.
Its funny cause at least God judged people on their conscious actions. Its funny how the same people who say Gods judgements are unfair, are all for the slaughter of unborn children. At least God judged conscious actions.
Its funny cause at least God judged people on their conscious actions.
Actually, no he didn't. He condemned all of mankind because of the actions of Adam and Eve. It wasn't my conscious decision to inherit the sins of my forefathers and be punished for what they did.
What conscious action did the slaves take that was worthy of punishment when god said it was okay to beat them? Exodus 21:20-21
What conscious action did the young girls take that was worthy of punishment when he said it was okay to sell them? Exodus 21:7-11
Its funny how the same people who say Gods judgements are unfair, are all for the slaughter of unborn children. At least God judged conscious actions.
And why is it wrong to terminate the life of something that has no consciousness? What is it about killing that makes it wrong? I've asked this to people who are against abortion many times but have never received a response.
Do you believe gods judgements are fair?
Is beating your slaves a fair thing to do?
Is selling your daughters fair to them?
Is killing someone for trying to be helpful fair? 2 Samuel 6:1–7
Is subjecting people to eternal torment for finite and minor crimes fair?
These are not rhetorical question. I want you to answer them truthfully.
Thoughts on Exodus 20:20-21. Congrads, you found a verse that involves harming a slave. However let's take a quick look at what this context is. Slavery was first of all not supported by God. God established humane limits on an already evil and cruel system. The Hebrews were already knowledgeable of what it felt to bein slavery. Along with this, the slave owners were told by God to treat their slaves fairly and with respect. They were given a day of rest (Ex. 20:10). They were to encouraged to attend religious services (DT. 12:12,18;16:11). Israelites slaves were to be treated with extra benevolence, being freed after 6 years (Ex. 21:2; DT. 15:12) or in the Year of Jubilee (Lev. 25:40-41). Female slaves who become wives to their owners were to be given all respect as a normal wife (Ex. 21:8-11). When a term of.slavery ended the slave had to be a gift (DT. 15:13-14). If a slave receives excessive physical abuse they are granted freedom (Ex. 21:26-27) and is considered a crime. Through these measures we see moses, by God, meant slaves were human beings and granted rights by their creator. So in context I believe the allowed physical abuse is like that of disciplining a child and yes I say and agree this is fair.
In Leviticus 25:44-46 god says, "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."
If god doesn't support slavery why did he tell people "you may buy slaves" and that they are "property" that you can pass down to your children, and that you can make them "slaves for life" as long as they are not Israelites? The rules he instituted for slavery only applied to Israelites.
God established humane limits on an already evil and cruel system.
How about instead of establishing humane limits he tells them to stop making people slaves. It's funny how god has no problem telling people silly things like don't wear mixed fabrics and don't eat shellfish but he doesn't seem to think that slavery is a very important issue. He tells people that the punishment for picking up sticks on the sabbath is death, the punishment for not being a virgin is death, the punishment for cursing at your parents is death, but there is no punishment for owning slaves or beathing your slaves as long as they survive the beating. Doesn't that strike you as a little odd?
They were given a day of rest (Ex. 20:10).
This wasn't for the benefit of the slave. It was because god considers work on the sabbath unholy and anyone found working on the sabbath was to be put to death. Even if it were for the benefit of the slave does it really make a difference. Is slavery somehow not so bad since they are allowed to rest one day a week?
They were to encouraged to attend religious services (DT. 12:12,18;16:11).
So not only were they forced into slavery but they also had to grovel to the god who said it was okay for them to be made into slaves in the first place. Why didn't these religious services include the message "don't own slaves" instead of "make sure your slaves attend church with you."
Israelites slaves were to be treated with extra benevolence, being freed after 6 years (Ex. 21:2; DT. 15:12) or in the Year of Jubilee (Lev. 25:40-41).
Yes, god plays favorites with the Israelites, which in itself isn't fair, but if you're not an Israelites or are female then it sucks to be you because you can be made a slave for life.
Female slaves who become wives to their owners were to be given all respect as a normal wife (Ex. 21:8-11).
How come you skipped verse 7? "If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do." Why would a benevolent god say it's okay to sell your daugthers as a slave and say that she can be made into a lifetime slave, unlike males who are set free after 6 years? So not only is god okay with slavery, he's also sexist.
When a term of slavery ended the slave had to be a gift (DT. 15:13-14).
Only for Israelites. All others are slaves for life.
If a slave receives excessive physical abuse they are granted freedom (Ex. 21:26-27) and is considered a crime.
Only if they lose an eye or a tooth during the beating and are Hebrew.
Through these measures we see moses, by God, meant slaves were human beings and granted rights by their creator.
Again, only for Israelites. Since you used Moses for your example, lets see what else he has to say about slavery. Deuteronomy 20: 10-15 "When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby."
So not only are people forced into slavery by gods chosen people, the women are considered plunder.
So in context I believe the allowed physical abuse is like that of disciplining a child and yes I day and agree this is fair.
This isn't just a minor discipline like a spanking a child. It says, “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property."
It doesn't say beat them gently like disciplining a child. It says as long as they survive the beating there is nothing wrong with it. It even mentions a rod and recovery time. Do you think something as minor as disciplining a child takes a day or two to recover from?
This video shows just how ridiculous the Biblical god is when it comes to slavery.
It's worse than that. God actually has no problem with beating them to death, so long as they don't die right away:
Exodus 21:20-21
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
20 “If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies [a]at his hand, he shall [b]be punished. 21 If, however, he [c]survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his [d]property.
Morality without religion? More like morality despite religion.
I admit I struggled with this one so I looked at an apologetic site. I came up with the same answer but without scriptural support, they gave it. Here is what I found:
The laws for servants who were non-Hebrews were slightly different. For them there was no automatic release, either in the Jubilee year (Leviticus 25:44-46), or the seventh year of debt cancellation (Deuteronomy 15:3). These foreign indentured servants were outside the covenant community, and did not receive the benefit of debt cancellation. The Hebrews were permitted to pass them on as an inheritance to the next generation until their debts were repaid, which is the meaing of ‘olam’ in Leviticus 25:46 (translated ‘perpetually’). The text does not mean they were permanent possessions, but is an explanation as to why they do not go out at the seventh year of release or the Jubilee as the Hebrews do (the reason being that their debts are not cancelled).
However, the Law of Moses still maintained their personal legal rights relating to physical protection (Exodus 21:20-21, 26-27), freedom of movement, and access to liberty (Deuteronomy 23:15-16). Any bondservant purchased from the Gentiles had the right to flee their master, and receive the protection of the Law of Moses if they did so:
Deuteronomy 23:
15 You must not return an escaped slave to his master when he has run away to you.
16 Indeed, he may live among you in any place he chooses, in whichever of your villages he prefers; you must not oppress him.
Thus even for bondservants purchased from the Gentiles, servititude was not a permanent institution.
Importantly, the Law of Moses made no provision for any slave trade. It was permissible to purchase men and women who voluntarily sold themselves into indentured service, but not to sell them (Exodus 21:2, Leviticus 25:39, 42, 45, Deuteronomy 15:12). Taking men and women and enslaving them against their will, or selling them into slavery, was expressly forbidden on pain of death (Exodus 21:16, Deuteronomy 24:7).
The Hebrews were permitted to pass them on as an inheritance to the next generation until their debts were repaid, which is the meaing of ‘olam’ in Leviticus 25:46 (translated ‘perpetually’). The text does not mean they were permanent possessions, but is an explanation as to why they do not go out at the seventh year of release or the Jubilee as the Hebrews do (the reason being that their debts are not cancelled).
The meaning of olam isn't "until their debts were repaid". Here is how the word olam is translated throughout the Bible along with the number of times it occurs in parenthesis.
Ages (1), all successive (1), always (1), ancient (13), ancient times (3), continual (1), days of old (1), eternal (2), eternity (3), ever (10), Everlasting (2), everlasting (110), forever (136), forever and ever (1), forever (70), forevermore (1), lasting (1), long (2), long ago (3), long past (1), long time (3), never (17), old (11), permanent (10), permanently (1), perpetual (29), perpetually (1).
As you can see the vast majority of them mean forever or some synonymous word. The verses I quoted even said "slaves for life", not slaves until a debt is repaid.
Leviticus 25:39-54 makes a clear distinction between Hebrew indentured servants who voluntarily sell themselves to pay off debt and non-Hebrew slaves. Hebrew servants "are to be treated as hired workers", "must not be sold as slaves" and you "must not rule over them ruthlessly." They are to be released when they or one of their relatives have paid off their debt or at the end of 6 years of service, whichever comes first. Non-hebrews and women, on the other hand, were considered "slaves" and "property". They were "slaves for life" and didn't have the option of paying for their freedom.
However, the Law of Moses still maintained their personal legal rights relating to physical protection (Exodus 21:20-21, 26-27)"
Did you read those verses? The first one says if someone beats their slave with a rod they should not be punished if the slave survives the beating for a day or two. The second one is only about Israelite slaves as I mentioned previously.
Any bondservant purchased from the Gentiles had the right to flee their master, and receive the protection of the Law of Moses if they did so:
Deuteronomy 23:
15 You must not return an escaped slave to his master when he has run away to you.
16 Indeed, he may live among you in any place he chooses, in whichever of your villages he prefers; you must not oppress him.
Thus even for bondservants purchased from the Gentiles, servititude was not a permanent institution.
Neither of those verses or the surrounding verses say anything about them being gentiles. However, the following two verses and many other verses in the surrounding chapters mention Israelites, so given the context and all the other verses from Leviticus they are most likely talking about Israelite slaves.
Importantly, the Law of Moses made no provision for any slave trade. It was permissible to purchase men and women who voluntarily sold themselves into indentured service, but not to sell them (Exodus 21:2, Leviticus 25:39, 42, 45, Deuteronomy 15:12).
As I already said, those rules only apply to Israelites.
Taking men and women and enslaving them against their will, or selling them into slavery, was expressly forbidden on pain of death (Exodus 21:16, Deuteronomy 24:7).
The second verse specifically says "a fellow Israelite." The first one doesn't specify who it applies to but based on other verses in the Bible it's pretty clear that gods people have no problem kidnapping and enslaving people, so I think it's safe to assume he was referring to Israelites again. I already mentioned Deuteronomy 20: 10-15 where Moses himself tells his army to make an entire city into slaves and if they don't cooperate kill all the men and take the women and children as "plunder". If Moses was talking about Gentiles instead of Israelites in that Exodus verse you mentioned, then why would he command his army to do exactly what he just said not to do?
Here are some more verses where gods people force people into slavery.
Joshua chapter 9 talks about how Joshua and his army is going around slaughtering cities in the name of the lord, but due to some subterfuge by one of the towns he ends up forcing them into a lifetime of slavery instead of killing them.
King Solomon used forced slave labor to build "the lords temple."
1 Kings 9:15-22 - "Here is the account of the forced labor King Solomon conscripted to build the Lord’s temple, his own palace, the terraces, the wall of Jerusalem, and Hazor, Megiddo and Gezer. (Pharaoh king of Egypt had attacked and captured Gezer. He had set it on fire. He killed its Canaanite inhabitants and then gave it as a wedding gift to his daughter, Solomon’s wife. And Solomon rebuilt Gezer.) He built up Lower Beth Horon, Baalath, and Tadmor in the desert, within his land, as well as all his store cities and the towns for his chariots and for his horses—whatever he desired to build in Jerusalem, in Lebanon and throughout all the territory he ruled. There were still people left from the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites (these peoples were not Israelites). Solomon conscripted the descendants of all these peoples remaining in the land—whom the Israelites could not exterminate—to serve as slave labor, as it is to this day. But Solomon did not make slaves of any of the Israelites; they were his fighting men, his government officials, his officers, his captains, and the commanders of his chariots and charioteers.
Psalms 2:8 says "Ask of me (god), and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance (slaves)."
Isaiah 50 says, "This is what the Lord says: “Where is your mother’s certificate of divorce with which I sent her away? Or to which of my creditors did I sell you? Because of your sins you were sold; because of your transgressions your mother was sent away."
This person was clearly not working voluntarily as servant. The slave isn't the one selling themselves, they are being sold by someone else as shown by the underlined part.
Leviticus 25:39-54 makes a clear distinction between Hebrew indentured servants who voluntarily sell themselves to pay off debt and non-Hebrew slaves. Hebrew servants "are to be treated as hired workers", "must not be sold as slaves" and you "must not rule over them ruthlessly." They are to be released when they or one of their relatives have paid off their debt or at the end of 6 years of service, whichever comes first. Non-hebrews and women, on the other hand, were considered "slaves" and "property". They were "slaves for life" and didn't have the option of paying for their freedom.
This part is actually unclear what they are speaking of because it can either be talking about the gentiles or the Isrealites.
Did you read those verses? The first one says if someone beats their slave with a rod they should not be punished if the slave survives the beating for a day or two. The second one is only about Israelite slaves as I mentioned previously.
If the first is referring to all slaves, then so is the second because they're is no break in the writing or other group mentioned. Also, the rules on slave violence are like the rules in the book All Things Fall Apart. Okonkwo is legally allowed to beat his wives, outside of The Week of Peace, but it frowned upon by the the because of both severity and frequency he does it.
This part is actually unclear what they are speaking of because it can either be talking about the gentiles or the Isrealites.
Unclear? In verse 39-43 it specifically says "your fellow Israelites." How is that unclear? Then starting at verse 44-46 it talks about non-Israelites. If you're wondering how I know it transitions to non-israelites it's because in verse 43 it says that Israelites are not to be sold as "slaves." Then in verse 44 it says if you want "slaves" you have to get them from the nations around you, not your fellow Israelites.
If the first is referring to all slaves, then so is the second because they're is no break in the writing or other group mentioned.
What difference does it make? You're completely missing the point. The point is that god, who is supposedly benevolent, does not condemn owning and beating slaves as long as they survive the beating for a day or two. Do you really not see the problem there?
Also, the rules on slave violence are like the rules in the book All Things Fall Apart. Okonkwo is legally allowed to beat his wives, outside of The Week of Peace, but it frowned upon by the the because of both severity and frequency he does it.
We're not talking about Okonkow, we're talking about god, a god who is supposed to be the most benevolent being to ever exist. A god who thought it was important to condemn ridiculous things like wearing mixed fabrics, picking up sticks on the sabbath and eating shellfish, but he didn't feel it necessary to condemn slavery. He specifically said "you may buy slaves" when he should have said "you may not under any circumstances buy slaves."
So here are the questions I would like you to answer.
1. Would a benevolent god say "you may buy slaves" and that they are "property"?
2. Would a benevolent god say that people who beat their slaves are "not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two"?
3. Would a benevolent and fair god play favorites and treat Israelites different from other people?
4. Would a benevolent god condone selling your daughters as life-long slaves?
Well, kind of. I think morality would exist without religion because it's most likely a human invention, but I think religion helped spread morality across the globe. Without it, the world may have been a little less moral, but religion has led to many problems as well. That's due to there being too many religions.
There is always something I wondered about people who believe in moral objectivity. What does it mean for something to be morally objective? What makes something objectively right, if right and wrong is what is BAD and what is GOOD, that sounds inherently subjective to me... I can't even imaginably comprehend what it would mean for something to be objectively right or objectively wrong, I can't imagine that... it's like trying to imagine a square circle... Morality is inherently subjective, the same way a circle is inherently round, to talk about objective morality sounds like someone talking about a square circle to me. What makes something objectively moral? You could just have a different definition of morality than me, but if that is the case, maybe I don't care to be "moral" by your definition?