Scientific Method for governing

[mangueken]

Below, is an excerpt of a political endorsement from the editors SEED magazine.
Do you agree or disagree what is stated there?
Do you think there would be things that way of governing could not handle? Why?




Science is a way of governing, not just something to be governed. Science offers a methodology and philosophy rooted in evidence, kept in check by persistent inquiry, and bounded by the constraints of a self-critical and rigorous method. Science is a lens through which we can and should visualize and solve complex problems, organize government and multilateral bodies, establish international alliances, inspire national pride...

[RichardHresko]

Below, is an excerpt of a political endorsement from the editors SEED magazine.
Do you agree or disagree what is stated there?
Do you think there would be things that way of governing could not handle? Why?

I disagree. Science and the scientific method are incapable of deciding what we should choose. It can only guide us as to the best way to obtain our choice.

[mmaria]

This reminds me of my unsolved doubts. I always wonder is it a certain philosophy that makes changes in society or it is society that provokes the appearance of a new philosphy.

[RichardHresko]

This reminds me of my unsolved doubts. I always wonder is it a certain philosophy that makes changes in society or it is society that provokes the appearance of a new philosphy.

I have not heard of a society that has adopted a new philosophy under any circumstances other than those of crisis. At a time of crisis philosophies that already exist come into play, and are further evolved to suit the circumstances (see, for example, Leninism).

[billyjack]

I have not heard of a society that has adopted a new philosophy under any circumstances other than those of crisis. At a time of crisis philosophies that already exist come into play, and are further evolved to suit the circumstances (see, for example, Leninism).

what about the nazis?

[RichardHresko]

what about the nazis?

The Nazis fit in perfectly well with the observation made in my previous post. They rose to power because of the economic crisis of the Weimar Republic (plus political issues such as re-militarization). The National Socialists had no original doctrines. They borrowed most of their economics from Mussolini's Fascism. Their racial theories were hardly original. Hitler admits as much in Mein Kampf when he attributes his anti-Semitism to pamphlets he read in Vienna before WWI. One can go on and on about how derivative the tenets of the NSDAP really were. I only mentioned Leninism as an illustration, not as the only case. As I stated before, one sees transformations in a society's philosophy in times of crisis and this is not an uncommon event.

[mangueken]

I think the only philosophical change that would be necessary for our country would be one of intellectual honesty. Of course how that "trickles down" and the possible implications for a society not used to that kind of honesty are hard to determine.

And Richard, could you defend your idea that the scientific method is "incapable of deciding what we should choose?"

[TheSeeker]

How does Science react to Martin Luther King's vision: "I have a dream"? Government cannot run with a dream but can sometimes be profoundly inspired by it.

[mangueken]

Seeker and Richard,
please develop your statements into an argument. So far you both have limited yourself to just saying no but offer no reason for saying no.

[RichardHresko]

And Richard, could you defend your idea that the scientific method is "incapable of deciding what we should choose?"

Certainly. Science by its very nature is descriptive, not prescriptive. It provides us with a model of how the world works, not how it should work.

For example, physics can tell us how to use nuclear energy to build a bomb or a power plant. There is no scientific basis for choosing between these options, or even if we should choose either at all.

[mangueken]

But would you agree that "...evidence, kept in check by persistent inquiry, and bounded by the constraints of a self-critical and rigorous method" can help us make the decisions of what we should do?

[RichardHresko]

But would you agree that "...evidence, kept in check by persistent inquiry, and bounded by the constraints of a self-critical and rigorous method" can help us make the decisions of what we should do?

Scientific inquiry can help us understand the consequences of choosing different alternatives, and thus influence what we choose to do. But what is being neglected here is that the policy questions that are formulated for science to answer are not themselves questions of science. For example, one could ask whether stem cells could be used to regenerate nervous tissue. However what science can not answer is whether or not the moral considerations outweigh the use.

Once again, science tells us how to do something, but only after we have decided by other means what we want to do.

[mangueken]

I think we may not be arguing about the same thing. First, from what I understood of the above quote, it was not about any of a number of moral questions or even scientific questions in general. It was about applying the standards of the method to political and social questions. Or as I had said in one of the posts it would make intellectual honesty part of the governing system, something that our current system lacks.

Second, I heard a criticism of Karl Popper's idea of democracy that was a similar idea of what I started this thread about and I had to chuckle because the critic was right. A governing democratic system based on intellectual honesty would only work if the elected individuals were actually brought together to solve problems and not worry about their individual interests, which is exactly what we have. Imagine a government official admitting he was wrong and how that would be used in the next campaign.
So, probably a mute debate, because if we can't solve how to get people to govern without self interest we will have a hard time getting intellectual honesty to be a part of that system. So there is a long road before moral questions can ever be dealt with in a real way.

[RichardHresko]

I think we may not be arguing about the same thing. First, from what I understood of the above quote, it was not about any of a number of moral questions or even scientific questions in general. It was about applying the standards of the method to political and social questions. Or as I had said in one of the posts it would make intellectual honesty part of the governing system, something that our current system lacks.

Second, I heard a criticism of Karl Popper's idea of democracy that was a similar idea of what I started this thread about and I had to chuckle because the critic was right. A governing democratic system based on intellectual honesty would only work if the elected individuals were actually brought together to solve problems and not worry about their individual interests, which is exactly what we have. Imagine a government official admitting he was wrong and how that would be used in the next campaign.
So, probably a mute debate, because if we can't solve how to get people to govern without self interest we will have a hard time getting intellectual honesty to be a part of that system. So there is a long road before moral questions can ever be dealt with in a real way.

But political and social issues are ultimately questions about the goals and aspirations of society. These goals and aspirations are not the domain of science, but of philosophy, religion and the arts.

By a moral issue I mean any issue that has at its heart values instead of facts. Whether there should be taxation is by definition a moral issue, how to make a tax progressive is one science can answer.

[Bitterfly]

Science means knowledge, deep down, and philosophy is a particular kind of science, like history, geography, anthropology, etc. And political science exists. You can look at political and social problems in a scientific way, by, as the quote goes, looking at evidence, applying a specific methodology and developing a theory from your observations.

Lots of governments today seem to be merely acting sometimes rather thoughtlessly in reaction to whatever crises occur. I know we're not supposed to speak about politics, but if you look at what the French government is trying to do to its educational system, it seems obvious that there's no science behind their aims, only thrift and a deluded desire to copy other countries.

[mangueken]

I get your point Richard, there is no testable hypothesis for science in the "goals and aspirations of a society". But once again I bring it back to intellectual honesty and evidence. And since both philosophy and religion sometimes make value judgments based on things that can be tested by science, it would be good for governing bodies to at least have at their disposal a scientific training so they could intelligently question the proposals when made.
One other point, Bitterfly has a good point. Science is knowledge but it also continually strives to improve that knowledge and expand our understanding. That is the spirit of the question I originally proposed.

[RichardHresko]

Science means knowledge, deep down, and philosophy is a particular kind of science, like history, geography, anthropology, etc. And political science exists. You can look at political and social problems in a scientific way, by, as the quote goes, looking at evidence, applying a specific methodology and developing a theory from your observations.

Lots of governments today seem to be merely acting sometimes rather thoughtlessly in reaction to whatever crises occur. I know we're not supposed to speak about politics, but if you look at what the French government is trying to do to its educational system, it seems obvious that there's no science behind their aims, only thrift and a deluded desire to copy other countries.

You have it backwards. Science is a branch of philosophy (at least originally). Science does NOT include within its domain metaphysics or ethics, which are the areas that would need to be consulted to set the goals that science could help illuminate.

The theories science develops are ones that describe how the world functions. The questions of what would make a better world for humans are different ones.

[RichardHresko]

I get your point Richard, there is no testable hypothesis for science in the "goals and aspirations of a society". But once again I bring it back to intellectual honesty and evidence. And since both philosophy and religion sometimes make value judgments based on things that can be tested by science, it would be good for governing bodies to at least have at their disposal a scientific training so they could intelligently question the proposals when made.
One other point, Bitterfly has a good point. Science is knowledge but it also continually strives to improve that knowledge and expand our understanding. That is the spirit of the question I originally proposed.

Science can help us evaluate whether goals we have chosen are being achieved -- within limits. The reality is that science rarely gives completely unambiguous answers to the questions we most want to answer. This is especially true in the so-called soft sciences of sociology and psychology.

[mangueken]

Science can help us evaluate whether goals we have chosen are being achieved -- within limits. The reality is that science rarely gives completely unambiguous answers to the questions we most want to answer. This is especially true in the so-called soft sciences of sociology and psychology.

Well, getting "completely unambiguous" answers from anywhere is pretty difficult especially if we start with the answers we "want".

[RichardHresko]

Well, getting "completely unambiguous" answers from anywhere is pretty difficult especially if we start with the answers we "want".

Which leaves us where we started, does it not? Science can not tell us what we should want, and most often can not tell us in many cases (beyond the purely technological) unambiguously the answers to many of the questions one would want answered for policy purposes.

Thus the question posed at the start of this thread should be answered in the negative.

[TheSeeker]

In science, a theory becomes law (e.g., Newton's law of gravitation) when it could be objectively validated, often after an extensive period of research and experimentation. In government, a principle or a vision from a leader could lead to actions and laws often without proper proof of their validity.

Government does not always have the benefit of hindsight or time to validate its decisions through scientific methods, especially in crises and emergency situations. A no or delayed action could lead to catastrophic consequences. The validity of a government decision may be proved (or disproved) only after a lengthy period during which a large number of people may be profoundly affected. Most difficult situations are unprecedented for which previous lessons may not apply and yet an appropriate response is immediately required. For these cases, science cannot help, although in general scientific methods can assist government make better decisions and implement its laws. But science cannot, and should not, be the only basis for good governance. A too scientifically-oriented leader may be conservative and too cautious, missing out on opportunities and lacking responsiveness, while a less scientific but more intuitive leader may act on unfounded convictions, leading people to the best or the worst of life (such as the case of Hitler). A good balanced leader should have good vision for the country and determination to implement its vision, while leaving the day-to-day public administration to technocrats (including scientists).

However, in my opinion, a more important issue here is the responsibilities of ordinary people, responsibilities far greater than they think they need to have. Their duties are to see through the real motivations, the true principles, the inner convictions behind each politician, and then make judgments and act accordingly. And this requires true intelligence, capable of seeing another person as a whole, beyond appearances. Persistent personal development to achieve this is the real way of governing in a society. And for this, no scientific methods can help.

[mangueken]

Richard, we are only back to where we started if you dismiss evidence and intellectual honesty being good tools to help govern. I have no quarrel with religion, philosophy, art or anyone else from any other field of human interest making proposals for what they think "should" the goals and aspirations of a society. I just think that those proposals should go through the filter of a rational evidence-based governing body.

[mangueken]

Government does not always have the benefit of hindsight or time to validate its decisions through scientific methods, especially in crises and emergency situations. A no or delayed action could lead to catastrophic consequences.[QUOTE]

I can not think of one example where this is true. The only cases of dire consequences I can recall is where hasty decisions were made instead of waiting for the evidence to come in. However, my memory may be playing a trick on me can you think of a historical situation where your statement is true.


[QUOTE]The validity of a government decision may be proved (or disproved) only after a lengthy period during which a large number of people may be profoundly affected. Most difficult situations are unprecedented for which previous lessons may not apply and yet an appropriate response is immediately required. [QUOTE]

Again, any good historical evidence for this?


... although in general scientific methods can assist government make better decisions and implement its laws. But science cannot, and should not, be the only basis for good governance.


I agree and I tend to think of it as the optimal tool for governing not the only basis.


[QUOTE]A too scientifically-oriented leader may be conservative and too cautious, missing out on opportunities and lacking responsiveness, while a less scientific but more intuitive leader may act on unfounded convictions, leading people to the best or the worst of life (such as the case of Hitler).[QUOTE]

What opportunities do you imagine we could miss out on by waiting for evidence?


[QUOTE]A good balanced leader should have good vision for the country and determination to implement its vision, while leaving the day-to-day public administration to technocrats (including scientists).

However, in my opinion, a more important issue here is the responsibilities of ordinary people, responsibilities far greater than they think they need to have. Their duties are to see through the real motivations, the true principles, the inner convictions behind each politician, and then make judgments and act accordingly. And this requires true intelligence, capable of seeing another person as a whole, beyond appearances. Persistent personal development to achieve this is the real way of governing in a society. And for this, no scientific methods can help.

The scientific method cannot help? Then where will we find this "true" intelligence? On what basis can we help people persistently develop personally? What would be the tools for the average person to be able to see real motivations, principles and convictions?

[RichardHresko]

I get your point Richard, there is no testable hypothesis for science in the "goals and aspirations of a society". But once again I bring it back to intellectual honesty and evidence. And since both philosophy and religion sometimes make value judgments based on things that can be tested by science, it would be good for governing bodies to at least have at their disposal a scientific training so they could intelligently question the proposals when made.
One other point, Bitterfly has a good point. Science is knowledge but it also continually strives to improve that knowledge and expand our understanding. That is the spirit of the question I originally proposed.

Aristotle teaches us that it is foolish to ask for more precision than is warranted for a given endeavor.

Evidence is not as straightforward a thing as one might suppose. Nor is it solely a matter of gathering data. Evidence is data that has been interpreted on some level. And unless one makes the non-scientific choice that one knows that material objects are the only real things there is a limit to what science can do.

I say "non-scientific" simply because there is no testable hypothesis that can be devised to look for non-materially based real objects. This does not mean that such objects exist, or that they do not exist. It only means that science can not answer the question.

Ultimately this means that the fundamental nature of reality is not a question that can be answered by the methods of science. Which is fine, since science was never intended to answer such questions in the first place.

Science also does not have a monopoly on intellectual honesty or intellectual growth. There are the arts and the humanities and many other fields in which the human spirit engages in the pursuit of the good, the true, and the beautiful.

I dispute the claim that a value judgment can be tested by science, or can be based on something that can be so tested. invite you to give an example to the contrary.

[mangueken]

Richard,
I have to admit your right, science can not answer one way or another whether non real things exist. But why ignore what it can talk about?
Your right about about evidence being interpreted at some (i would say all, but that is the historian in me) levels. But there are bad interpretations and there are good. I think a scientifically trained mind can make better evaluations over them. This is because a scientifically trained mind uses logic and evidence as a base for decisions. As a base it is not limited but can be inclusive. If there is a better way, I kindly return the challenge for you to provide one.
Your right that science isn't able to answer the "fundamental question of reality". But since most governmental challenges take place in reality this is a mute question, right? I mean budgets, projects and wars can have their projected expenses weighed against their projected benefits in a real enough fashion.

Your right that science does not have a monopoly on intellectual honesty or growth. But it does have a more consistent record than other areas for being able to accurately reflect reality.

The studies in neuroscience are producing testable results relating to love, pain and other previously thought "non scientific" areas.

It almost seems, Richard, that you are not arguing fairly. I may be wrong, but if your response to intellectual honesty and growth is "arts, humanities and many other fields in which the human spirit engages in the pursuit of the good, the true and the beautiful." then I have to ask when has the arts and other (unnamed, mysterious fields) engaged in policy decisions about budgets, infrastructure, war / peace? And done so without evidence?
Please explain why you think evidence, self correction, and logic so weak and incapable. Let me help you by saying that I don't think these things are a means unto themselves but I do stand by them as a good, if not a great, basis to start with when weighing the pros and cons of any given situation.
In the end I have to agree most with your line taken from Aristotle, however I would add to it this one part: "it is foolish to ask for more precision than is warranted for a given endeavor" But it would be worse to not apply the minimum of intelligence to the endeavor.

[RichardHresko]

Richard,
I have to admit your right, science can not answer one way or another whether non real things exist. But why ignore what it can talk about?
Your right about about evidence being interpreted at some (i would say all, but that is the historian in me) levels. But there are bad interpretations and there are good. I think a scientifically trained mind can make better evaluations over them. This is because a scientifically trained mind uses logic and evidence as a base for decisions. As a base it is not limited but can be inclusive. If there is a better way, I kindly return the challenge for you to provide one.
Your right that science isn't able to answer the "fundamental question of reality". But since most governmental challenges take place in reality this is a mute question, right? I mean budgets, projects and wars can have their projected expenses weighed against their projected benefits in a real enough fashion.

Your right that science does not have a monopoly on intellectual honesty or growth. But it does have a more consistent record than other areas for being able to accurately reflect reality.

The studies in neuroscience are producing testable results relating to love, pain and other previously thought "non scientific" areas.

It almost seems, Richard, that you are not arguing fairly. I may be wrong, but if your response to intellectual honesty and growth is "arts, humanities and many other fields in which the human spirit engages in the pursuit of the good, the true and the beautiful." then I have to ask when has the arts and other (unnamed, mysterious fields) engaged in policy decisions about budgets, infrastructure, war / peace? And done so without evidence?
Please explain why you think evidence, self correction, and logic so weak and incapable. Let me help you by saying that I don't think these things are a means unto themselves but I do stand by them as a good, if not a great, basis to start with when weighing the pros and cons of any given situation.
In the end I have to agree most with your line taken from Aristotle, however I would add to it this one part: "it is foolish to ask for more precision than is warranted for a given endeavor" But it would be worse to not apply the minimum of intelligence to the endeavor.

I am not arguing that that evidence, self-correction, and logic are weak, merely that they are 1) not the exclusive preserve of science, and 2) insufficient to formulate as opposed to evaluate policy. In other words my argument here is that the usefulness of science in matters of government is limited.

Let's consider your example of the neuroscience of love. This is a good example of the descriptive nature of science. However science can not answer such questions of "should" (policy, if you will) as to whether either pain or love ought to be pursued or eliminated. It It can help us determine what things are, and can contribute to implementing our decisions about what can be done, but does not aid in deciding what our choice (here between pursuing versus eliminating love or pain) ought to be.

When you say that science more accurately reflects reality you are building in an assumption that reality is material only. This is unwarranted.

As for the arts and humanities (for a third area we can throw in theology, which is not exactly either an art or a humanity) and their impact on policy one has to only look at the current election. Clearly one's interpretaion of history will color one's appraisal of such issues as to whether or not a war is winnable or not, or whether government intervention in the market is warranted. The visions that the candidates have as to what human life and life in society is about are fundamentally different, and these visions influence what pragmatic questions will be asked, and how the scientific answers will be interpreted and used.

The role of art in inspiration of policy is underestimated, I feel. Art, through music, painting, literature has greatly influenced policy. One example: Lincoln, on meeting Harriet Beecher Stowe remarked, "So this is the little lady that started the big war!"

Your question that "But since most governmental challenges take place in reality this is a mute question, right?" is neither rhetorical nor moot. And the answer is that a) reality is not merely the existence of physical objects, and b) the governmental challenges are based on these fundamental questions of who we are, and what our purpose in life is. This is even reflected in the Declaration of Independence and the UN's statements about human rights. In fact, the entire concept of human rights is one of those fundamental questions that has a profound impact on policy. This is why, for example, no amount of science can answer a question as to whether or not slavery or abortion should be allowed, though the economic impacts of each can be estimated, and methodologies for the most productive uses of the institutions can be worked out.

[mangueken]

I can admit that science may not be the best formulator (I think I did already in a previous post) but I do think it acts as good evaluator of both what policies to decide to accept to implement as well as how that implementation is going.
I think you underestimate the role it can play as a filter for bad policies.

As far as whether we should love or not I accept the limits of science on this question. But I think you ignore how much of our decisions about love are based on empirical evidence and how much of that evidence we ignore and/or accept matches our various metaphysical expectations.

Philosophy, religion and science all failed on the questions of slavery and racial superiority. But it would be safe to say that the intellectual honesty and self correction of science is the one of the three that doesn't run the risk of offering any future support to such ideas. I would say that science actually had a big role in formulating the ideas of the UN charter on human rights as well as the UNESCO declarations. At least as to how they express themselves on the questions of slavery and racial superiority, precisely because of the scientific work on the reality of whether race exists at all.

As far as war goes, once again you underestimate the role of emperical evidence. We may have philosophical, religious and / or ideological reasons for going to war but they all get "colored" by physical reality. We can also choose to ignore or accept the reality presented but we do have to deal with it.

[RichardHresko]

Richard, we are only back to where we started if you dismiss evidence and intellectual honesty being good tools to help govern. I have no quarrel with religion, philosophy, art or anyone else from any other field of human interest making proposals for what they think "should" the goals and aspirations of a society. I just think that those proposals should go through the filter of a rational evidence-based governing body.

That is an unfair characterization of my position.

Correctly stated, my position is that science does not provide the sole or even necessarily the best method for rational, evidence-based evaluations of proposals in every case, and also can not by its very nature either provide the proposals themselves, nor decide the criteria by which we should judge the proposals. Its role is properly restricted to providing accurate data. Given those restrictions there is not much point of granting a greater role in policy making to science than it already possesses.

[RichardHresko]

I can admit that science may not be the best formulator (I think I did already in a previous post) but I do think it acts as good evaluator of both what policies to decide to accept to implement as well as how that implementation is going.
I think you underestimate the role it can play as a filter for bad policies.

As far as whether we should love or not I accept the limits of science on this question. But I think you ignore how much of our decisions about love are based on empirical evidence and how much of that evidence we ignore and/or accept matches our various metaphysical expectations.

Philosophy, religion and science all failed on the questions of slavery and racial superiority. But it would be safe to say that the intellectual honesty and self correction of science is the one of the three that doesn't run the risk of offering any future support to such ideas. I would say that science actually had a big role in formulating the ideas of the UN charter on human rights as well as the UNESCO declarations. At least as to how they express themselves on the questions of slavery and racial superiority, precisely because of the scientific work on the reality of whether race exists at all.

As far as war goes, once again you underestimate the role of emperical evidence. We may have philosophical, religious and / or ideological reasons for going to war but they all get "colored" by physical reality. We can also choose to ignore or accept the reality presented but we do have to deal with it.

I am unclear as to how exactly one would make decisions on love empirically. I can see making decisions on mating with a view to generating offspring empirically -- that has been done since sex entered the world and long predates humans (and therefore presumably science). Or marrying for political or financial reasons. But love...?

I am also unsure of what you mean about failures relative to slavery and racial superiority. One can not come to a conclusion that either has a moral significance unless one does so from a context outside of science. The UN position is derived from concepts of such things as human rights, which were the products of philosophers, not scientists. Scientific input on these issues was actually minimal.

As far as war goes, the UN essentially adopts the position that there is such a thing as a just war using principles that were originally derived from Augustine.

All science can do is: a) give us more effective means of conducting war (a dubious benefit in the age of nuclear weapons) and b) a better way of evaluating one's likelihood of success (which matches a just war criterion for going to war).

[mangueken]

About love and war I stated what I thought in a clear manner. In both cases we use and / or ignore empirical evidence to judge what we do and how we do it. And this is true even if some of the things on our empirical checklist are metaphysical in nature.
In general, you do not take up the idea of a governing body using those tools that science has to filter the proposals made, independent of who who makes them.

Slavery is the best example for us to discuss because philosophy, religion and science all found ways to justify slavery. In other words it was morally and ethically ok to own other humans and take the results of their labor for the owner's benefit. So what happened for society to come to a conclusion that slavery has a moral significance different from the one it previously had (for quite a few centuries in various lands) and what is the "context outside of science" that it sprang from? Because it seems to me that it came outside the contexts of philosophy and religion.

[RichardHresko]

About love and war I stated what I thought in a clear manner. In both cases we use and / or ignore empirical evidence to judge what we do and how we do it. And this is true even if some of the things on our empirical checklist are metaphysical in nature.
In general, you do not take up the idea of a governing body using those tools that science has to filter the proposals made, independent of who who makes them.

Slavery is the best example for us to discuss because philosophy, religion and science all found ways to justify slavery. In other words it was morally and ethically ok to own other humans and take the results of their labor for the owner's benefit. So what happened for society to come to a conclusion that slavery has a moral significance different from the one it previously had (for quite a few centuries in various lands) and what is the "context outside of science" that it sprang from? Because it seems to me that it came outside the contexts of philosophy and religion.

I quite explicitly said that within the narrow limits that it can be of assistance in implementation of policy that science should be used, so it is incorrect to say that I have not taken the issue up. I just do not see expanding its role beyond that, since there is no point to it.

On the issue of empiricism and love: I would argue that on this point Woody Allen is right, "The heart wants what the heart wants." What is in the individual's "best interest" from a socio-economic or genetic POV is ultimately irrelevant. Whether that is a good or a bad thing is also irrelevant. As has been noted many times by many people humans are neither angels nor beasts, but occupy a liminal position.

Science has absolutely nothing to say about the morality of slavery, good or bad. It can evaluate how cost-effective it is. It can perhaps give some insight as to whether slavery is either a stabilizing or destabilizing institution for a culture. But nothing on the morality.

Much of the movement away from slavery came with the development of the social contract theory of society (though it is interesting to note that in Locke's Second Treatise he makes the claim that the work of the servant belongs to the master) and also the reaction to the Industrial Revolution. The latter's influence is two-fold: negative in the sense that its excesses drove people to consider a social responsibility to correct the inhumaneness of working conditions in general, and positive in the sense that it revealed a way to spread leisure in a way other than on the back of a slave.

It is a flawed argument to suggest that just because some strains of religious thought or philosophical thought have tolerated or even promoted slavery that therefore the impetus to end the institution had to come from somewhere other than religion or philosophy. That could be true only if religious thought and philosophical thought were monolithic entities, which is patently false.

Our disagreement is probably not even one of degree, just of slightly different perspectives. We both agree that science should be used when possible to help clarify our options. Our disagreement seems to stem from differing beliefs as to how often it is possible to use science in this way.

[Janine]

Science is valuable but only as a tool; we need reason to use that tool. Science is not all and cannot be relied on to govern nations.

[Virgil]

I didn't want to get into this and I haven't even begun to read throught the thread, but on its surface the notion that science can be used to govern is absurd. Governing is a process of handling people's concerns and aspirations. Science is a method of exploring nature. The tow have nothing to do with each other.

[muazjalil]

If we look at the original excerpt, SEED, it talks about using Scientific methodology to govern people. I dont see any flaws in trying to use scientific methodology to govern people. Economics may not have reached the stage of Asimov's Psychohistory but i guess that is it's ultimate goal, achievable or not is different. And if we look at policies undertaken by modern politicians, a lot depends on economic theories (mostly defunct ones, politician have tough time catching up with development in Economics). So one could argue that already we are being governed by scientific theories, to the extent economics is considered to be science (a debatable proposition) .

[Quark]

Virgil may be right:


Governing is a process of handling people's concerns and aspirations. Science is a method of exploring nature. The tow have nothing to do with each other.

I would like to see what a scientific legal proposition would look like. Science describes actions like "if one drops a ball it will accelerate at 9.8m/s/s"; it doesn't suggest we drop the ball or make it illegal if the ball is dropped. Social rules cannot be drawn from science, then, because science merely describes what occurs--it doesn't prescribe desirable ends.

[mangueken]

Where does this mysterious reason that is above philosophy, religion and science come from? Richard said that science can't give a moral value for slavery. I agree, as a matter of fact the scientific evidence in favor of slavery was spectacularly weak. Science changed and unless some overwhelming new study was put forth with evidence for slavery, there is hardly a scientist that would take such a proposition seriously. What in religion can lead one to a negative moral value of slavery when within the bible it is in various places seen as a good and natural thing? Even the basis of our "western" philosophy is based on the good nature of slavery. Which one of the three can take the moral high ground on the question of slavery?

[RichardHresko]

Where does this mysterious reason that is above philosophy, religion and science come from? Richard said that science can't give a moral value for slavery. I agree, as a matter of fact the scientific evidence in favor of slavery was spectacularly weak. Science changed and unless some overwhelming new study was put forth with evidence for slavery, there is hardly a scientist that would take such a proposition seriously. What in religion can lead one to a negative moral value of slavery when within the bible it is in various places seen as a good and natural thing? Even the basis of our "western" philosophy is based on the good nature of slavery. Which one of the three can take the moral high ground on the question of slavery?

There are two basic problems here.

The first is that there is the implication that the disciplines of science, philosophy and theology are monolithic. That is simply untrue. Your closing remark, which is a sweeping statement on western philosophy betrays this tendency towards over-simplification.

Secondly, science never presented evidence either for or against slavery. There is no such thing as scientific evidence against slavery. The best that can be said is that science has eliminated some of the grounds for slavery, such as a justification based on a claimed innate superiority of race.

[mangueken]

And the argument against slavery from a philosophic and Biblical point of view is?

[Bitterfly]

You have it backwards. Science is a branch of philosophy (at least originally).

Not quite backwards. I'm aware that there was a momemt when philosophy and science drifted apart, but in France philosophy, history etc are considered as "sciences humaines" (obviously not in the US, where they're branches of the Humanities, no?). Probably in part because philosophers and company want to be taken as seriously as scientists, but also because their method can be considered "scientific".

To answer Mangueken, I know there was a mass of philosophical arguments against slavery at the end of the 18th century and beginning of 19th. Mill for instance argued against it on the basis of individual freedom: people should not own other people. He also rebutted the typical aristotelan argument in favour of slavery - that some people are inferior to others, so it is natural that there should be slaves - by saying that differences between people do not justify subjection of some by others (this applies to women as well); and that anyway it is not a proven fact that blacks are inferior to whites.

And doesn't the Bible say that all human beings are equal in the eyes of God? Seeing that at least one of the Wise Men was black, I suppose He considered blacks to be human beings, no? :D

[RichardHresko]

Not quite backwards. I'm aware that there was a momemt when philosophy and science drifted apart, but in France philosophy, history etc are considered as "sciences humaines" (obviously not in the US, where they're branches of the Humanities, no?). Probably in part because philosophers and company want to be taken as seriously as scientists, but also because their method can be considered "scientific".

To answer Mangueken, I know there was a mass of philosophical arguments against slavery at the end of the 18th century and beginning of 19th. Mill for instance argued against it on the basis of individual freedom: people should not own other people. He also rebutted the typical aristotelan argument in favour of slavery - that some people are inferior to others, so it is natural that there should be slaves - by saying that differences between people do not justify subjection of some by others (this applies to women as well); and that anyway it is not a proven fact that blacks are inferior to whites.

And doesn't the Bible say that all human beings are equal in the eyes of God? Seeing that at least one of the Wise Men was black, I suppose He considered blacks to be human beings, no? :D

Historically, science grew out of natural philosophy.

In the ancient world slavery was not based on either race nor on perceived inferiority, but was a purely social phenomenon. Witness the Greek tutors in ancient Rome. Also note that the Severan Dynasty of the 3rd Century Common Era was African. Also note that the greatest Catholic theologian outside of Paul, Augustine, was a Berber from what is now Libya.

Race was a late-comer to Western ideas of slavery.

[Bitterfly]

You should open your Aristotle again - he clearly says that slaves are slaves because they are naturally inferior to free citizens.

"But is there any one thus intended by nature to be a slave, and for whom such a condition is expedient and right, or rather is not all slavery a violation of nature? There is no difficulty in answering this question, on grounds both of reason and of fact. For that some should rule and others be ruled is a thing not only necessary, but expedient; from the hour of their birth, some are marked out for subjection, others for rule." (Aristotle, Politics)


Inequlity hasn't aways needed the idea of race to exist (sexism ought to show you that, if nothing else).

[RichardHresko]

You should open your Aristotle again - he clearly says that slaves are slaves because they are naturally inferior to free citizens.

"But is there any one thus intended by nature to be a slave, and for whom such a condition is expedient and right, or rather is not all slavery a violation of nature? There is no difficulty in answering this question, on grounds both of reason and of fact. For that some should rule and others be ruled is a thing not only necessary, but expedient; from the hour of their birth, some are marked out for subjection, others for rule." (Aristotle, Politics)


Inequlity hasn't aways needed the idea of race to exist (sexism ought to show you that, if nothing else).

Look at the passage you quoted to me. It points out that some are marked for rule and others for subjection, but says nothing about those subjugated as being inferior. It is precisely what I said it was-- a social phenomenon in which some rule and others are ruled.

Consider the Roman attitude towards the Greeks. Socially they were slaves. However, the Romans prized Greek culture (in fact, to Cato's chagrin, they preferred it to their own culture). In fact, many so-called 'Greek' statues in museums around the world are Roman copies. Greek, not Latin, was the educated tongue for many centuries in the Roman world. I suggest that you are reading 'inferiority' into the text where it does not belong.

[Bitterfly]

I'm also aware of the position of Greek preceptors, but you're forgetting that Aristotle distinguished between two types of slavery:
_ the first, natural, which consisted in the domination of the superior human over the inferior human: "Again, the male is by nature superior, and the female inferior", Politics; "the lower sort are by nature slaves, and it is better for them as for all inferiors that they should be under the rule of a master", Politics. Why are they inferior? Because they do not possess reason, much like animals ("the use made of slaves and of tame animals is not very different; for both with their bodies minister to the needs of life", Politics) even if they are ultimately considered as semi-human (because they belong to a master).
We can note that he himself sees a problem in his argument, though, since he says that nature often makes mistakes, giving freemen bodies and minds of slaves, and vice-versa. But this does not stop him from defending the principle of slavery!
_ the second, when prisoners of war are pressed into slavery: this Aristotle does not seem to approve of, even though it could be rationalised by his own arguments (if they lost the war, it proves they're inferior).

To answer mangueken's question again, Aristotle was answering other philosophers who, them, condemned slavery. Euripides was against it, and so were the sophists (who argued that all men were equal).

[mangueken]

This has proven to be a very interesting debate, at least for me but there are some things we still need to answer. Let me reiterate a few key points for people who may not have read through all the posts.
I used the quote from SEED to start a debate. I don't think there are scientific laws or theories on how to govern. I do think the scientific method contains tools useful for governing.

Richard brought up the inability of science to make a moral judgment on slavery, which I happened to find interesting because while it never said it was good or bad it did try to justify it through faulty theories of racial supremacy.
My response to this was the question, what in philosophy and religion makes them better able to make moral judgments since they also had their own justifications. For about 1800 years or more, philosophers and those from the Christian / Jewish religions had sound reasons in favor of slavery.
I don't want to fill up a bunch of pages with all the quotes in both the Old and New Testaments of the bible in favor of slavery since they are readily available through various online bible source. At best we could say that philosophy and the bible are morally confused on the subject and if I'm wrong about that, I'll be happy to read the articles and books you all point out.

I think Richard, in one of previous posts, said something that may be the beginning of the right answer. The change in society caused by the industrial revolution and the horrors that presented. However that seems to imply that the moral judgment on slavery (and working conditions of the poor in general?) did come from outside religion and philosophy and helped influence the change in views in both areas.

[RichardHresko]

I'm also aware of the position of Greek preceptors, but you're forgetting that Aristotle distinguished between two types of slavery:
_ the first, natural, which consisted in the domination of the superior human over the inferior human: "Again, the male is by nature superior, and the female inferior", Politics; "the lower sort are by nature slaves, and it is better for them as for all inferiors that they should be under the rule of a master", Politics. Why are they inferior? Because they do not possess reason, much like animals ("the use made of slaves and of tame animals is not very different; for both with their bodies minister to the needs of life", Politics) even if they are ultimately considered as semi-human (because they belong to a master).
We can note that he himself sees a problem in his argument, though, since he says that nature often makes mistakes, giving freemen bodies and minds of slaves, and vice-versa. But this does not stop him from defending the principle of slavery!
_ the second, when prisoners of war are pressed into slavery: this Aristotle does not seem to approve of, even though it could be rationalised by his own arguments (if they lost the war, it proves they're inferior).

To answer mangueken's question again, Aristotle was answering other philosophers who, them, condemned slavery. Euripides was against it, and so were the sophists (who argued that all men were equal).

We are pretty much in agreement then. My point was that slavery was not merely a matter of inferiority. That there were some people who Aristotle considered to be inferior and that were therefore appropriately slaves does not disprove my claim.

Slavery in the ancient world was a much more complicated business than it was in the 19th Century. And, as you noted, could not be rationalized away in its entirety.

My other point still stands as well. Aquinas to the contrary, philosophy is more than Aristotle. There is no single voice that speaks for all religion or all philosophy. Or for all of science either, for that matter.

To bring this side issue around to the theme of this particular thread -- there is nothing that suggests that science possesses a uniquely qualified voice for determining the moral/social questions such as whether slavery should be allowed. In fact, for example, NONE of the so-called "intrinsic evils" the American Council of Bishops has identified (abortion, euthanasia, stem cell research, or gay marriage) can be determined as evil on the basis of science. Religion and philosophy can weigh in on the morality of these issues (and I assure you that not every theologian or philosopher would agree with the bishops).

[RichardHresko]

This has proven to be a very interesting debate, at least for me but there are some things we still need to answer. Let me reiterate a few key points for people who may not have read through all the posts.
I used the quote from SEED to start a debate. I don't think there are scientific laws or theories on how to govern. I do think the scientific method contains tools useful for governing.

Richard brought up the inability of science to make a moral judgment on slavery, which I happened to find interesting because while it never said it was good or bad it did try to justify it through faulty theories of racial supremacy.
My response to this was the question, what in philosophy and religion makes them better able to make moral judgments since they also had their own justifications. For about 1800 years or more, philosophers and those from the Christian / Jewish religions had sound reasons in favor of slavery.
I don't want to fill up a bunch of pages with all the quotes in both the Old and New Testaments of the bible in favor of slavery since they are readily available through various online bible source. At best we could say that philosophy and the bible are morally confused on the subject and if I'm wrong about that, I'll be happy to read the articles and books you all point out.

I think Richard, in one of previous posts, said something that may be the beginning of the right answer. The change in society caused by the industrial revolution and the horrors that presented. However that seems to imply that the moral judgment on slavery (and working conditions of the poor in general?) did come from outside religion and philosophy and helped influence the change in views in both areas.

I disagree that science tried to justify slavery. I think it is far more accurate that policy makers (which included some scientists) tried to use science to do something that it plainly is not equipped to do.

My argument about the industrial revolution certainly does not imply that the change came about outside of religion, philosophy or the arts. I would argue that the fight against the horrors of the industrial revolution came from within religious communities, from those with profound religious sensibilities (William Blake comes to mind), writers (Dickens), and philosophers (Bentham and Mills).

Slavery in the O.T. was a different kettle of fish than in the 19th Century, as the discussion between Bitterfly (who has an excellent command of texts) and myself has clearly indicated within this thread. I don't think that slavery would have ended one minute sooner had we had more scientific data, except if it could have been shown that slavery depressed production.

One anecdote from Suetonius may illustrate the point. An inventor showed the emperor Vespasian (an absolutely interesting fellow, BTW) the plans for some labor saving device. Vespasian looked it over, saw it would work, and immediately rejected using the invention, saying that if he used the device what would he do with all the poor laborers who would be put out of work.

[mangueken]

I disagree that science tried to justify slavery. I think it is far more accurate that policy makers (which included some scientists) tried to use science to do something that it plainly is not equipped to do.

That you think that is fine. I agree that science is descriptive. Can we move on to what I actually said, using the tools of science can be beneficial to everyone on how to formulate the questions? As you have so often pointed out, science can give us information about something not what to do with that information. No disagreements. I feel fine with governments first asking for scientific information then making their reflected, thoughtful decisions


My argument about the industrial revolution certainly does not imply that the change came about outside of religion, philosophy or the arts. I would argue that the fight against the horrors of the industrial revolution came from within religious communities, from those with profound religious sensibilities (William Blake comes to mind), writers (Dickens), and philosophers (Bentham and Mills).

It most certainly does. All of the thinkers you mentioned above were reacting to something preexisting. in other words, something changed in society that needed to be addressed, that process did lead to a social change. However, there seems to be a place where our morality changes before God or science makes their changes.


Slavery in the O.T. was a different kettle of fish than in the 19th Century, as the discussion between Bitterfly (who has an excellent command of texts) and myself has clearly indicated within this thread. I don't think that slavery would have ended one minute sooner had we had more scientific data, except if it could have been shown that slavery depressed production.

You are making a dishonest response to what I have said. Instead of answering the question I did make, which is that the bible is morally ambiguous on the question of slavery, you are arguing against a straw man.


One anecdote from Suetonius may illustrate the point. An inventor showed the emperor Vespasian (an absolutely interesting fellow, BTW) the plans for some labor saving device. Vespasian looked it over, saw it would work, and immediately rejected using the invention, saying that if he used the device what would he do with all the poor laborers who would be put out of work.

I am not going to get into anecdotal incidents as proof of an argument one way or another. It is what it is, anecdotal.


In other words, the question that have come up out of this thread discussion that still need to be answered is:

1) what makes makes religion and philosophy better able to make moral judgments, when you take into account the religious and philosophical support of both for slavery in the US?

[Bitterfly]

Simply that science isn't there to make moral judgements, no? And that's why there are ethics committees, to check whether scientific research and discoveries aren't violating ethics. Therefore we come back to a branch of philosophy.

Afterwards, morality is rather relative, so it's not very surprising that some religious thinkers and philosophers vindicated slavery or other abominations, often on the basis of mere definitions (what is a man, for instance). Is this a reason to disqualify them? Perhaps... I would tend to agree with you that science seems to be better placed to allow moral judgements to be made. But at the same time, science can be used to justify unacceptable ideas, a you have already pointed out, so... So, as I said, I think in my first post, it seems that we can only use the methodology of science, which seems to be the only objective thing. Politology does that, no? And it's considered a science, at least where I live.

But there again, you can argue that methodology itself can be biased (you only need to reflect on literary methodologies - deconstruction, for instance, is influenced by ideology).

Why, also, are you speaking of moral judgements? Do you think, really, that morality and government go well together? I'm thinking of Machiavelli, here, who is considered by some as the first politologist, because (I think) he was actually the first to separate morality and politics.

Nice Vespasian anecdote, by the way. Goes to show that some things never change...

[mangueken]

Simply that science isn't there to make moral judgements, no? And that's why there are ethics committees, to check whether scientific research and discoveries aren't violating ethics. Therefore we come back to a branch of philosophy.

Afterwards, morality is rather relative, so it's not very surprising that some religious thinkers and philosophers vindicated slavery or other abominations, often on the basis of mere definitions (what is a man, for instance). Is this a reason to disqualify them? Perhaps... I would tend to agree with you that science seems to be better placed to allow moral judgements to be made. But at the same time, science can be used to justify unacceptable ideas, a you have already pointed out, so... So, as I said, I think in my first post, it seems that we can only use the methodology of science, which seems to be the only objective thing. Politology does that, no? And it's considered a science, at least where I live.

But there again, you can argue that methodology itself can be biased (you only need to reflect on literary methodologies - deconstruction, for instance, is influenced by ideology).

Why, also, are you speaking of moral judgements? Do you think, really, that morality and government go well together? I'm thinking of Machiavelli, here, who is considered by some as the first politologist, because (I think) he was actually the first to separate morality and politics.

Nice Vespasian anecdote, by the way. Goes to show that some things never change...

I have been playing Devil's advocate through most of this just to get the argument flushed out. Good points you raise about how anything can be used for good or bad. Machiavelli was a master at this duality. I think that morality is part of our biological make up and there is no safety to be found in science, religion or philosophy since all have the same chance of being used for good or bad. The hows and whys of our changing morals is the question that this discussion brought to my attention and has now become my main interest. Some of the books I've started reading on this are:

When Good Thinking Goes Bad: How Your Brain can Have a Mind of It's Own
by Todd C. Riniolo

Evil Genes: Why Rome Fell, Hitler Rose, Enron Failed, and My Sister Stole My Mother's Boyfriend
by Barbara Oakley

The Secular Conscience: Why Belief Belongs in Public Life
by Austin Dacey

If you have any suggestions into this area, I'd love to check them out.

[Bitterfly]

I'm interested in morality as well, but mostly I speak about it, don't read about it (or practise it much :p ). I've got one book about the subject, though: Metaphysics as a guide to morals, by Iris Murdoch, who was, as I suppose you know, an Oxford don in philosophy. Alas, I read it quite some time ago and do not remember its arguments, but it does deal with the question of science - whether morality is still possible, actually, in a world dominated by technology.

Nietszche of course is an interesting reference - The Genealogy of Morals or Beyond Good and Evil. Pascal speaks about moral relativity too... I suppose most philosophers do speak about morality, actually!!

I've also wondered why our morals seem to evolve all the time, and whether it's possible to act according to moral absolutes when you know that they don't really exist. At the same time, I do believe in upholding Kant's categorical imperatives - so I'm contradictory (I suppose you're right and we have a moral gene!!). If you're too relativistic, you end up condoning or at least accepting any type of behaviour... But, whereas it seems possible for an individual to act morally, I'm not so sure if it's the case for governments. By the way, Mazarin also wrote a little-known guide to public and private behaviour, and government. It's a very interesting read, even if what he writes is rather close to Machiavelli's thought.

[librarius_qui]

Interesting thread ... I read it all at once. Maybe it has a lot to do with me.



This has proven to be a very interesting debate, at least for me but there are some things we still need to answer. Let me reiterate a few key points for people who may not have read through all the posts.
I used the quote from SEED to start a debate. I don't think there are scientific laws or theories on how to govern. I do think the scientific method contains tools useful for governing.

Richard brought up the inability of science to make a moral judgment on slavery, which I happened to find interesting because while it never said it was good or bad it did try to justify it through faulty theories of racial supremacy.
My response to this was the question, what in philosophy and religion makes them better able to make moral judgments since they also had their own justifications. For about 1800 years or more, philosophers and those from the Christian / Jewish religions had sound reasons in favor of slavery.
I don't want to fill up a bunch of pages with all the quotes in both the Old and New Testaments of the bible in favor of slavery since they are readily available through various online bible source. At best we could say that philosophy and the bible are morally confused on the subject and if I'm wrong about that, I'll be happy to read the articles and books you all point out.

I think Richard, in one of previous posts, said something that may be the beginning of the right answer. The change in society caused by the industrial revolution and the horrors that presented. However that seems to imply that the moral judgment on slavery (and working conditions of the poor in general?) did come from outside religion and philosophy and helped influence the change in views in both areas.

I agree with Richard in ONE point: you seem to mix some things up, and go backwards in some places. As well as make some complex things too simplistic.

Science, throughout history of knowledge in the Western "cities" (I dislike the word "society" (...) has had its origin in philosophy.

For a Greekman as Aristotle, probably philosophy was his religion . . . (Please, consider the spaced dots.)

You can't put all the weight of religion on "the bible". It isn't the only religion in this world. It's only one among other sacred texts. And there are many many religions derived from that single text, which is, in itself, very plural. I'd like to hear you speak about theology, instead of religion, and to mention others. An this so mentioned The Bible text is a very ancient text. Old testment as well as new one were written in days when slavery was part of the city life.

No matter what a man (including governors) uses to make his decisions, decisions are made by men. Each of us. Philosophy, theology, the arts, science, all these are speeches and grounds for speech. The more of them you use, the better based your decision will be. No matter what your religion is. Many people make of one of these bases of speach their religion; this is another talk.



I'm interested in morality as well, but mostly I speak about it, don't read about it (or practise it much :p ). I've got one book about the subject, though: Metaphysics as a guide to morals, by Iris Murdoch, who was, as I suppose you know, an Oxford don in philosophy. Alas, I read it quite some time ago and do not remember its arguments, but it does deal with the question of science - whether morality is still possible, actually, in a world dominated by technology.

Nietszche of course is an interesting reference - The Genealogy of Morals or Beyond Good and Evil. Pascal speaks about moral relativity too... I suppose most philosophers do speak about morality, actually!!

I've also wondered why our morals seem to evolve all the time, and whether it's possible to act according to moral absolutes when you know that they don't really exist. At the same time, I do believe in upholding Kant's categorical imperatives - so I'm contradictory (I suppose you're right and we have a moral gene!!). If you're too relativistic, you end up condoning or at least accepting any type of behaviour... But, whereas it seems possible for an individual to act morally, I'm not so sure if it's the case for governments. By the way, Mazarin also wrote a little-known guide to public and private behaviour, and government. It's a very interesting read, even if what he writes is rather close to Machiavelli's thought.

Moral comes from mos, moris (m.), Latin word. Your issues with France, I think, are because our world is still based on the model of the French revolution, and France seems to take for herself a responsability of being creative, and not making anything as anyone else ... haha! Politically, at least, as a model of democracy, the bureaucratic democracy we have, comes from France, while our contemporary world "mos" (custom, habit, or ethos) is very British/USan (...).



:crash:

[librarius_qui]

Below, is an excerpt of a political endorsement from the editors SEED magazine.
Do you agree or disagree what is stated there?
Do you think there would be things that way of governing could not handle? Why?

By the way, I disagree, because the statement seems to put science as some sort of solution (religion), and I don't think groups of cities (nations) can be ruled on one ground of speech only.

Possibly that way of governing would have some difficulties with the "different" groups, in the city, and differences in general, minorities, maybe ... Talking about a city. It's difficult to predict. Because it looks like too strict. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's what I think

[mangueken]

I agree with Richard in ONE point: you seem to mix some things up, and go backwards in some places. As well as make some complex things too simplistic.

I try not to do those things, but I also try to correct the situation when I do. ;)


Science, throughout history of knowledge in the Western "cities" (I dislike the word "society" (...) has had its origin in philosophy.

For a Greekman as Aristotle, probably philosophy was his religion . . . (Please, consider the spaced dots.)

For the Greeks, religion and philosophy were separate entities. Although, science did come out of philosophy, today they are separate entities.


You can't put all the weight of religion on "the bible". It isn't the only religion in this world. It's only one among other sacred texts. And there are many many religions derived from that single text, which is, in itself, very plural. I'd like to hear you speak about theology, instead of religion, and to mention others. An this so mentioned The Bible text is a very ancient text. Old testment as well as new one were written in days when slavery was part of the city life.

I didn't put all the weight of religion on the bible, religious people did that. I was bringing up the bible as it pertained to how it related to slavery in the US, so in that sense I was specific and purposely ignored other religions.

You're right about slavery being an accepted part of society when the bible was written, which is the reason I think it serves as a good example of it's weakness for moral decisions in a world that now thinks slavery is unacceptable.


No matter what a man (including governors) uses to make his decisions, decisions are made by men. Each of us. Philosophy, theology, the arts, science, all these are speeches and grounds for speech. The more of them you use, the better based your decision will be. No matter what your religion is. Many people make of one of these bases of speach their religion; this is another talk.

I agree to a certain point, we need to have open dialogue between all members of society. Humans have the ability to use philosophy, arts, theology and science for good and bad, so the more we discuss the better chance we have to make good decisions.