@ziminiarbeleth@crusade_enjoyer You are a 'utilitarian' you believe that the best action is the one that minimise suffering.
The problem with this kinda thought is that at some point you will need to make a decision of how much pain you are willing to inflict on either yourself or others, for the "greater good"
We started this discussion with you judging slavery as immoral. However with the definitions you just gave, slavery could be considered morally good if society deemed it beneficial. Taking away women's rights could also be considered morally good if society believed it benefited them.
The holocaust was seen as morally good by the people that committed it because they considered jews a burden on society. Likewise your moral framework leave open the possibility that such actions could be morally good.
Your moral worldview can't stand on its own. Or rather it can but then it might end up going against what you personally believe.
@ziminiarbeleth@crusade_enjoyer What would you consider perfect? I personally do not believe a humans can be perfect or achieve perfection.
As I stated before we failed with the laws we were given, so it does not logically follow that we would succeed with harder laws
God is the ultimate standard of moral goodness, not just a guy with preferences.
I do not believe Gods morality has changed, only our understanding of God has changed.
To have a subjective worldview is to have a worldview shaped by opinions. You are acclimatized to a western modern view of morality, however this form of morality only works if society deems it acceptable or beneficial.
You can not truly call anything morally wrong, because whatever is morally tight is whatever society deems.
Of course this doesn't mean that you necessarily have to agree with everything society says, however your framework is still built on it.
The laws aren't 'perfect' because man is imperfect and wouldn't be able to follow 'perfect' laws. So God created these laws for man as an minimum, and we still fail to follow them. This is why Christ had to atone for our sins.
Your statement on bronze age people being immoral does not work from an atheist worldview. All morality become subjective, and therefor just a matter of taste.
The first part is an argument from silence. Just because the bible doesn't tell you not too be sadistic doesn't mean that the bible encourage you to be so.
I have no major problems with how the New Testament depicts slaves. To bring meaning to their suffering is a good thing, to suffer without meaning is dreadful.
If you are talking about Leviticus 19:20-22 even though it sounds weird its a way to protect the woman, by punishing the man with the financial burden of offering a ram.
Even though it sounds ridiculous in today's society it would have been seen as 'progressive' when it was written.
Exodus 21:20-21 (you are quoting) talks about giving out a death sentence to the slave owner if he kills a slave.
I would say that the 3 days are there to decide if there was intent to kill the slave.
Later on in Exodus 21 it says that a slave that gets beaten to harshly should be set free.
These laws are here to protect the slave not the owner.
@ziminiarbeleth@crusade_enjoyer Slavery is forced labor. This means there aren't many ways one can use to motivate a slave to work except through violence or threat of violence.
To have a clause that impose a penalty for killing a slave is better than having no penalty at all.
Slavery isn't necessarily morally bad, however is not to be preferred.
Some prisons have forced labor.
Some people had indentured servitude to pay of debts.
From a historical pov slavery might even been preferred to death.
Slavery is ingrained throughout human history, and human society. It only became 'illegal' through Christian arguments and beliefs.