So your system is valuable to you, but just an empty template to others? — Astorre

I don’t see Compassionism as just “my personal template,” but as a principle anyone could adopt because it’s grounded in something universal: the capacity to suffer and the desire to avoid harm.

Of course, people may or may not value compassion as highly as I do — but that doesn’t make it empty. It’s like honesty: not everyone practices it, but most would agree it’s better than dishonesty when building trust. Compassion works the same way — it has value beyond me because suffering and wellbeing are real for everyone who can experience them.

Stones, as far as we know, don’t have any capacity to feel pain or pleasure, so they wouldn’t be included.
— Truth Seeker

I hope the stone consciousness supporters will pass by and not look in here :lol:

Compassionism isn’t about self-destruction — it’s about balance. I
— Truth Seeker

The balance offers a scale. This is Relativism again. Maybe this is an unsolvable problem.

By the way. There are systems of views (ideologies) in which what is good and what is bad is prescribed in advance, and the choice is practically prescribed to the person (for example, Chu che). You don't need to think about what is good or bad. It has already been written for you. In my opinion, most people in the world don't even think about it; they simply believe in their ideologies (including those that emphasize personal responsibility for one's choices).

Going back to the question: does a person really need to have their own choice, or is it easier to follow a pattern? (For example, if you get on a full bus and there's only one seat available, you'll sit there instead of searching for a better spot if the bus is empty) — Astorre

On balance and relativism: I think balance isn’t the same as “anything goes.” Relativism says all views are equally valid, but Compassionism does not say that. It is about reducing the suffering of all sentient beings and helping oneself and others flourish. It gives us a clear direction, even if the details vary depending on circumstances.

On your bigger question: I agree that many people just follow ready-made systems. It feels easier, like taking the only open seat on a bus. But I think there’s value in choosing consciously instead of outsourcing morality. Even if we borrow ideas from traditions or ideologies, ultimately, it’s our compassion and responsibility that give them meaning. Following a pattern blindly might be simpler, but it risks causing harm without ever asking whether it could be avoided.

You write compassion for all sentient beings. Ok. Let's define who is sentient and who is not. Here on the forum there are many adherents of the idea that stones also have consciousness. Or again set boundaries - these are sentient, these are insensitive. Then what can this be based on? Just believe you or someone else?

then what is the limit of compassion? Sell a kidney and feed starving children with the proceeds? — Astorre

Great questions. For me, sentience means the capacity to feel pain and pleasure. That usually includes humans and non-human animals, and possibly conscious aliens from other planets. Stones, as far as we know, don’t have any capacity to feel pain or pleasure, so they wouldn’t be included. The boundary isn’t arbitrary — it’s based on whether there is scientific evidence of consciousness and the ability to have painful and pleasurable experiences.

As for the limits of compassion, I see it less as an all-or-nothing demand and more as a guiding orientation: do what you reasonably can to help, and avoid causing harm where possible. Compassionism isn’t about self-destruction — it’s about balance. It includes compassion for self and compassion for others. If I act with compassion within my means, I contribute to less suffering and more well-being in the world.

I don't like any of the approaches. That's how we live.
In the deontological approach, you have to believe in something (but what about non-believers?)
In the utilitarian approach, everyone can have different values, which leads to chaos
In the existential approach, if you are a maniac and act in accordance with your aspirations, things don't work out very well either

Nihilism is also not a solution

What would you suggest for people like me? — Astorre

I can understand your frustration — every ethical system seems to run into problems:

Deontology can feel too rigid or tied to belief.
Utilitarianism can clash when values differ.
Existentialism can be misused to justify harmful actions.
Nihilism leaves us without direction at all.

That’s why I’ve found it helpful to think in terms of Compassionism, which is compassion for every sentient being. Instead of relying on rigid rules or endless calculations, the guiding question becomes: Does this choice show compassion, or does it cause harm?

Compassionism doesn’t depend on religion, and it works even when people’s values differ — because compassion is something we all understand as a sentient being. It’s not about being perfect, just about orienting ourselves toward helping rather than harming, moment by moment.

Attempts to answer these questions historically led to the creation of the Deontological (correct is what is prescribed) and Utilitarian (correct is the least of two evils) approaches and their combination. — Astorre

How would we know which is correct? The deontological approach contradicts the utilitarian approach.

Veganism is more ethical than non-veganism because it reduces suffering and death by a massive amount. [ ... ] Now that I have provided argument and evidence, is it now the truth?
— Truth Seeker
Yes, but that "truth" does not entail that "non-veganism" is immoral or necessarily so. Imo, eating either non-industrial or vat-grown/3-d printed meats is no less ethical than a strictly plant-based diet.

How can consciousness be an illusion when I am experiencing it right now and you are experiencing it right now?
— Truth Seeker
Given that the human brain is transparent to itself (i.e. brain-blind (R.S. Bakker)), it cannot perceive how the trick is done and therefore that consciousness is an illusion (i.e. not the entity it seems to be or that one thinks it is).

Also, as Libet's experiments have shown, one is not "experiencing right now" but rather conscious perception occurs up to 550 milliseconds after a stimulus. And what one is conscious of is a simplified representation of the salient features of the perceived object; thus, "consciousness" is only a simplification of a much more complex process that one cannot be conscious of (like e.g. a blindspot that enables sight).

Consider Buddhist no-self, Democitean swirling atoms, Humean bundle theory, Churchlands' eliminativism ... Nørretranders' user-illusion, Hofstadter's strange looping, Metzinger's phenomenal self model, etc: some philosophical cum scientific 'models' of the entity-illusion of consciousness. — 180 Proof

Thanks for your thoughtful response. I’d like to engage with both parts of what you said.

On veganism:
You’re right that lab-grown or 3D-printed meat could potentially be just as ethical as a plant-based diet, since it wouldn’t involve animal suffering. That’s an exciting possibility for the future. But in the present, the overwhelming majority of non-vegan consumption comes from industrial and even small-scale animal farming, both of which involve suffering and killing that veganism avoids. So while non-veganism could be ethical in theory, in practice it mostly isn’t.

On consciousness:
I agree that our conscious experience is a simplified, delayed model of reality. Libet’s experiments and theories like Metzinger’s self-model do show how much is happening outside of our awareness. But calling consciousness an “illusion” may go too far. An illusion is still an experience — like a rainbow. The rainbow isn’t what it seems, but it’s still real as a phenomenon. Similarly, consciousness may not be what we intuitively think it is, but the fact that we have experiences at all means it isn’t unreal.

In short: veganism reduces real suffering today, and consciousness, while not what it seems, is still a real phenomenon of experience.

How do you define good and evil? — Constance

Good is saving and improving lives. Evil is deliberate harm and the murder of sentient beings. How do you define good and evil?

Veganism? A fine topic, I suppose, but hardly the yardstick by which morality is measured. — LuckyR

I am not measuring morality with veganism. Veganism is an example of a moral position.

I agree. Thank you for your detailed reply.

good consists in maintaining, promoting, and enhancing life, and that destroying, injuring, and limiting life are evil. — Truth Seeker

Albert defined good and evil. Veganism is good because it saves and improves lives. Vegans value all sentient lives - not just human lives.

What is the ground of ethics? — Constance

"Ethics, too, are nothing but reverence for life. This is what gives me the fundamental principle of morality, namely, that good consists in maintaining, promoting, and enhancing life, and that destroying, injuring, and limiting life are evil.” – Albert Schweitzer, “Civilization and Ethics”, 1949.

↪Truth Seeker

You can observe brain activities corresponding to pleasure, pain and even consciousness on functional MRI scans.

We know these states "correspond" to pleasure or pain because people tell us they do. A huge amount of neuroscience in this general area presupposes that people are accurate reporters of real, private, mental states. If we didn't assume that, did not presuppose it as fact, then all of our "measurable, third person data" would only tell us about how different stimuli cause different responses in different parts of the body, e.g., "do this and people emit this sort of sound wave." This is why some philosophers and neuroscience argue that we should declare consciousness a sort of unscientific illusion.

Anyhow, if this counts as "observing" inner life, how is goodness not observed? Isn't medical and vetinary science incoherent without the good of the body, health? Isn't most of the field of psychology incoherent with the assumption of a mind and what is good for it? "Psychology" is itself the "discourse of the soul." So too, engineering as a science, architecture, etc., all sorts of arts and sciences, are quite incoherent without a notion of goodness. How can one decide between a good bridge and a bad one, or a good water treatment plant and a bad one, without ends you want to achieve? If a building that falls down is just as good as one that stands, or a treatment that kills patients just as good as one that heals them, these disciplines disappear.

Hence, the good (ends, desirability, choice-worthyness) seems to be everywhere. Further, if it is in the mind, and the mind comes from the physical, then ends, desirability, etc. come from the physical.

I guess that's my point. Your division here seems to beg the question, and I don't think it's actually a wise thing to just assume. IMHO, it's unclear exactly why pleasure should be so different from goodness, one "real" the other illusory for instance. — Count Timothy von Icarus

You have raised valid issues. Just because morals and laws are mental constructs, it does not mean that they are not real. I think morals and laws matter because they have real consequences for real sentient organisms. We have no way to directly access the sentience of another organism. You can't know what it is like for me to be me, and I can't know what it is like for you to be you. As we are both humans, I imagine that we have similar pleasures and pains. How can consciousness be an illusion when I am experiencing it right now and you are experiencing it right now?

Indeed, but does it reduce suffering? My local population of wild goats is controlled by fertility management. But all the goats still die eventually of old age. Is it preferable to be killed by a bear or a human? But what I want you to see is how we agree about the moral foundations while we dispute the practicalities. Nobody thinks that falsehood is preferable to truth in principle; nobody thinks that suffering ought to be inflicted for its own sake; there are some who think that life itself is not good because it always involves suffering - they would say that we ought not to reproduce at all. But again the argument proceeds from the same roots - that suffering is bad. — unenlightened

I think being killed by a bear is worse than being killed by a human because humans can shoot a deer in the brain and kill it with minimal pain, but a bear can't do that. A bear has to claw and bite the deer while the deer is still alive and conscious, which causes more pain to the deer compared to a bullet to the brain. Nonexistence is the only way to prevent all suffering. When we use contraceptives to prevent the existence of a sentient organism, we prevent all suffering, all enjoyment and the eventual death of the sentient organism. Antinatalists argue that humans should stop having babies because that is the only way to prevent more suffering and death.

I think morals and laws matter because they have real consequences for real sentient organisms.

Veganism prevents harm and promotes the well-being of trillions of sentient organisms. Yet, more than 99% of the humans currently alive (8.24 billion) are not yet vegan. Non-vegans kill 80 billion land organisms and 1 to 3 trillion aquatic organisms per year. Why isn't veganism legally mandatory in all countries?
— Truth Seeker

This is not entirely true, Truth Seeker. All life must consume something, and all life must at its end be consumed. If it were not so, life would choke itself. The most organic of gardeners rely on this; my own garden has a pond to encourage frogs that eat the slugs that would otherwise eat my vegetables. Vegans also kill, and 'natural controls of pests are by no means devoid of suffering, commonly involving being eaten from within by nematode worms or the larvae of some insect. Not to mention the mice and squirrels and rabbits that have to be kept from the harvest by some means or other.

The deer in Scotland have no natural predators, and left to themselves would breed until their numbers exceed the capacity of the land to feed them and having destroyed their own environment, would die en mass of starvation. It is a kindness for humans to control the population by acting as the top predator and keeping their numbers limited. there is less suffering in being shot than starving to death.

This is not to defend current livestock practices, or the overconsumption of meat. And particularly at the moment, I agree that one ought not to eat meat in general, given the choice. But certainly one cannot condemn those obligate carnivores, because they do a necessary job. And the scavengers also do another job of tidying up the creatures that die, and we all die, vegans and carnivores alike.

But what I see is our agreement as to the terms of the moral argument. We agree that truth is better than falsehood, that suffering is bad, and so on. And this is the same moral foundation that motivates the punishment of heresy. If one believes one has the truth of how to live, one ought to defend it from being lost, and ignored. The whole reason for human law, and especially punishment, is to persuade people who are inclined to do wrong not to do it, by making it disadvantageous. And again, it seems that we agree that this is what the law should do. But life is complicated and it is not so easy to tease out the consequences of our actions, including our law-making.

There are regions of the world that cannot produce enough non animal food for the human population. Perhaps we should leave such places wild. But perhaps we can find a place there as herders of reindeer, or buffalo, or goats, and form a sustainable way of life. If there is more life, there must be more death and more suffering, but life is good. — unenlightened

In an ideal universe, all organisms would be made of energy, instead of matter, and live forever without consuming any air, water or food. We don't live in an ideal universe. I am not condemning obligate carnivores or scavengers. Veganism is not perfect, but it causes much less suffering and death than non-veganism. Please see: https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/why-go-vegan

Dairy cows: Killed at about 4–6 years old, but could naturally live 15–25 years. They live only 20% of their natural lifespan.

Beef cows: Killed at 9–14 months, though they could live 15–25 years. That’s only 5% of their natural lifespan.

Turkeys: Killed at 12–26 weeks, but naturally live 10–12 years. That’s just 5% of their natural lifespan.

Calves (veal): Killed at 1–24 weeks, but naturally live around 20 years. That’s 3.1% of their lifespan.

Pigs (for meat): Killed at 5 months, but could live 15 years. That’s 2.7% of their lifespan.

Chickens (egg layers): Killed at 14 months, though they can live 10 years. That’s 2.7%.

Ducks: Killed at 7–9 weeks, but naturally live 6–8 years. That’s 2.6%.

Lambs: Killed at 3–5 months, but naturally live 15 years. That’s 2.2%.

Chickens (male, in egg industry): Killed at just 1 day old, even though they could live 10 years. That’s only 0.03% of their potential lifespan.

Deer overpopulation in Scotland isn’t a natural problem — it’s a human-made one. Humans killed their natural predators (wolves, lynxes and bears), cleared forests, and now even manage land to keep deer numbers high for hunting. Shooting them isn’t “kindness,” it’s perpetuating the harm. Real solutions are restoring ecosystems, rewilding predators, or using non-lethal population control like fertility management.

Assertion without argument or evidence – an opinion. — 180 Proof

Thank you for explaining. Veganism is more ethical than non-veganism because it reduces suffering and death by a massive amount. Non-vegans cause suffering and death to 80 billion land organisms and 1 to 3 trillion aquatic organisms per year. Now that I have provided argument and evidence, is it now the truth?

Imho, "opinions" are usually not "right or wrong" and, in most circumstances, more useless than useful. Btw, sophists concern themselves with "opinion" (i.e. doxa), but philosophers, according to Plato, ought to concern themselves with truth (i.e logos, alêtheia). — 180 Proof

What is opinion and what is truth? "Veganism is more ethical than non-veganism." Is this statement an opinion or is it the truth?

A vegan diet requires significantly less land than an omnivorous diet, as livestock consume large amounts of crops and pasture that could otherwise be directly consumed by humans. Shifting to a vegan diet could reduce global agricultural land use by as much as 75% because land is used much more efficiently to grow plants for direct consumption than to grow crops for animal feed. Animal agriculture, in particular red meat and dairy production, is the largest contributor to agricultural land use in omnivorous diets.

Why Vegan Diets Use Less Land
Inefficient Food Chain:
Animals convert plant-based food into meat, dairy, and eggs, but this process involves significant energy loss at each step of the food chain. This means a large amount of land is needed to grow crops for animal feed to produce a relatively small amount of animal products.

Direct Consumption:
A vegan diet avoids this inefficiency by consuming plant-based proteins like legumes, grains, and soy directly.

Here's a relevant post from 2022 ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/702431 — 180 Proof

Thank you very much for the link.

Your original question was: "Is right and wrong just a matter of thinking something is right (e.g. it is right to save and improve lives) and something is wrong (e.g. theft, fraud, rape, robbery, enslaving, torture and murder are wrong)?"

But here:

Different because scientific theories, e.g. the theory of gravity, are about something physical outside one's mind... Morals and laws are psychosocial constructs.

aren't you presupposing the answer to this question. It seems to me to get close to: "Facts about morality are different because morality is only in the mind." Or, "moral anti-realism is true because moral anti-realism is true."

There is no objective measure of right and wrong in the universe, the way we can objectively measure the gravity on Earth and on the Moon.

There is no objective way to measure pleasure or pain, nor consciousness itself. Are these illusory too? Are the only things that exist that which can be measured (presumably quantified)? Yet if nothing really exists except for that which can be quantified, then it would still seem that the illusion that such things exist must itself truly exist. For surely we experience values, beauty, pleasure, etc. And yet is "illusion" something that can be quantified? If not, then we must reject the idea that morality, beauty, etc. are illusions, and must simply say that most of our experiences aren't even illusory, they are nothing at all.

Our morals and laws arise out of the dynamic interactions of our genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences.

Ah, well the things you've mentioned morality arising from are "physical things outside the mind," no? So how does something that is not a "physical thing" (e.g., goodness) arise from physical things? There must be some sort of convertability, or else such an arising would not be possible. But if physical things relate to value in this manner, then it seems to me that there is no reason why value should be exclusively "in the mind." What is in the mind "arises" from the "physical" and so the physical seems to somehow contain, at least virtually, values, etc. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Morality and laws originate in the mind and get written down for others to read. If I didn't have my genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences, I wouldn't be a vegan. I consider veganism to be much more ethical than non-veganism, while non-vegans see nothing wrong with being non-vegans.

Genes, environments, and nutrients are physical things, but experiences are mental things. Without the right genes, environments and nutrients we can't get to having experiences. For example, if my human genes were replaced by the genes for apple trees, I would no longer be conscious because apple trees are not conscious.

You can observe brain activities corresponding to pleasure, pain and even consciousness on functional MRI scans. Pleasure, pain and consciousness are not illusions. However, we can't yet experience the pleasure, pain and consciousness of another sentient being with current technology.

That's a great response!

Thank you for your reply. I will think about what you quoted.

Different how? Are scientific theories not "mental constructs?" What about understandings of history? Now if morals are "mental constructs" what causes them? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Different because scientific theories, e.g. the theory of gravity, are about something physical outside one's mind. You can measure the gravity on Earth and measure the gravity on the Moon, etc. You can have delusional beliefs about physical objects, e.g. believing that the Earth is flat, but these beliefs won't change the shape of the Earth. Morals and laws are psychosocial constructs. You can believe that blasphemy is wrong and should be punished by the death penalty. There is no objective measure of right and wrong in the universe, the way we can objectively measure the gravity on Earth and on the Moon.

Our understanding of history is selective because history is written by the winners and reflects their agenda rather than objective truths. For example, the New Testament makes extraordinary claims about someone called Jesus e.g. he was born of a virgin, he is the son of God, he did miracles, he was crucified and was resurrected. Christians believe that the Bible is true, while atheists consider the Bible to be fiction.

Our morals and laws arise out of the dynamic interactions of our genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences.

If you're culture thought the Earth was flat, you probably did too. But surely this doesn't give us grounds to believe that there is "no fact of the matter," or that the shape of the Earth varies depending on which cultural context you are currently in. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I totally agree that the shape of the Earth does not vary, regardless of what people believe about it. Morals and laws are different from physical things like the shape of the Earth. Morals and laws are mental constructs which come from our beliefs, e.g. apostasy and blasphemy are considered wrongs in Islam and are punishable by the death penalty in some Muslim-majority countries, while apostasy from Islam and blasphemy against Islam are not considered wrongs in Western countries and are not punished.

The worst part for me is the suffering these animals go through - for many it is a living hell. It's disgusting that animal agriculture is still legal. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Yes, the suffering they go through is truly awful.

What is legal and what is right are not the same thing. — T Clark

I agree. Different people have different opinions about what is right and what is wrong. Which opinion is actually right and which opinion is actually wrong? How do we know?

nonexistence never hurt anyone and existence hurts everyone. — 180 Proof

Thank you for your reply and the valuable links to the other discussions. I agree that existence hurts all sentient organisms, but it does not hurt any nonsentient organisms, e.g. plants, because pain requires sentience.

You know what is bad by understanding what is injurious to you. You know what is good by understanding what revitalises you. — DifferentiatingEgg

What about delusions? For example, people have religious beliefs about going to heaven as they believe they are going to heaven because they have the right faith, e.g. Christianity, and others are going to hell because they have the wrong faith.

Even outside of veganism, people could demand an end to the more odious forms of factory farming. Future generations are going to judge us harshly on this. — RogueAI

I agree.

The proof does not prove that there is an objective morality, but it does show that IF morality is objective, the tenet of existence is good vs non-existence must be held as a foundational premise. — Philosophim

I agree.

Fight! — unenlightened

People have certainly gone to war over priorities, e.g. the United States had a civil war about slavery.

But they don't taste as good. I had an impossible burger once. Never again. But, I would pay twice as much at the store for lab grown meat. — RogueAI

I understand what you mean. I have been a vegan for 19 years. I do miss the taste of non-vegan food, but I prefer being a vegan because it saves and improves sentient nonhuman lives.

If plants are conscious does veganism lose some of it's moralistic appeal? — RogueAI

Yes.

I believe that if one is to believe that there is an objective morality, the one thing we can consider is that existence vs non-existence is good. — Philosophim

How can you know whether morality is objective or subjective? We know things from subjective sensory perceptions, e.g. I see these words on my computer screen.

Our disagreements over good and bad tend to be matters of priority - Is it better to let the robber take your stuff or kill them? We agree that best is to not have your stuff taken and not kill anyone, but... — unenlightened

How would we work out whose priority matters? Vegans prioritise saving and improving the lives of nonhuman sentient organisms, but non-vegans don't. Are vegans in the right and the non-vegans in the wrong?

You’re understanding my point back to front. Across ethical systems, a common theme is the prevention of harm. This does not imply that every possible instance of harm is recognized or codified into the moral principles of a culture. Ethical systems are selective, shaped by historical, social, and practical considerations. Some harms may go unnoticed or be considered acceptable in certain contexts, while others are amplified as morally significant. — Tom Storm

You are right in that ethical systems are selective. That's why non-vegans murder sentient organisms and think they are doing the right thing, even though there are vegan options that avoid the deliberate exploitation and murder of sentient organisms.

So the foundation of most moral systems seems to be preventing harm and promoting wellbeing — Tom Storm

Veganism prevents harm and promotes the well-being of trillions of sentient organisms. Yet, more than 99% of the humans currently alive (8.24 billion) are not yet vegan. Non-vegans kill 80 billion land organisms and 1 to 3 trillion aquatic organisms per year. Why isn't veganism legally mandatory in all countries?

Why are you here? Are you looking for people who believe the world was created a few thousand years ago? You will probably not find anyone like that here. — I like sushi

I am here to read posts by others and make my own posts about various topics that I find interesting. I am not looking for anyone.

Metaphors exist. — I like sushi

Yes, metaphors exist. However, the Bible is not written as a metaphor. It is claimed to be divinely authored truth - which it clearly is not.

Or possibly, Bible literalism is bonkers. I don't much care either way. — unenlightened

I agree that the Bible is not literally true, it is a work of fiction.

More of your rabid anti-religious bigotry. In this case especially lame. — T Clark

I am not a bigot. I have compassion for everyone, unlike the Biblical God.

Here are some examples of the Biblical God's lack of compassion:

Matthew 5:22

"Anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell."

Matthew 5:29–30

"It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell."

Matthew 13:40–42

"As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age... they will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

Matthew 18:8–9

"It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire."

Matthew 25:41, 46

"Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels...
Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

Mark 9:43–48

"If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out. And if your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell. And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, where ‘the worms that eat them do not die, and the fire is not quenched.’"

Luke 12:5

"Fear him who, after your body has been killed, has authority to throw you into hell."

Luke 16:19–31 (Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus)

The rich man is in torment in Hades, longing for relief from the flames.

Jude 1:7

"Sodom and Gomorrah... serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

Revelation 14:10–11

"They will be tormented with burning sulfur... And the smoke of their torment will rise forever and ever. There will be no rest day or night..."

Revelation 20:10, 14–15

"The devil... was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur...
They will be tormented day and night forever and ever...
Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire."

Deuteronomy 7:1–2

"When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations... you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy."
— Commands total destruction of seven nations

Deuteronomy 20:16–17

"However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them — the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites — as the LORD your God has commanded you."
— Commands killing of everything that breathes


Numbers 31:17–18

"Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."
— Massacre of Midianites; only virgin girls spared as sexual slaves

1 Samuel 15:2–3

"This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites... Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”
— Explicit command to kill children and infants

Joshua 6:21

"They devoted the city to the LORD and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it — men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys."
— Jericho: all inhabitants slaughtered

Joshua 10:40

"So Joshua subdued the whole region... He left no survivors. He totally destroyed all who breathed, just as the LORD, the God of Israel, had commanded."
— Genocidal conquest of the entire southern region

Joshua 11:11–12

"Everyone in it they put to the sword. They totally destroyed them, not sparing anyone that breathed, and he burned Hazor itself."
— Northern campaign led by Joshua

Deuteronomy 2:33–35

"The LORD our God delivered him over to us and we struck him down, together with his sons and his whole army... We completely destroyed them."
— Refers to Sihon the Amorite king and his people

Judges 20:48

"The men of Israel went back to Benjamin and put all the towns to the sword, including the animals and everything else they found. All the towns they came across they set on fire."
— Near total destruction of the tribe of Benjamin

Leviticus 25:44–46 (NIV)

“Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you... You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life.”
— Endorses chattel slavery of foreigners as permanent property.

Exodus 21:2–6

“If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free... But if the servant declares, ‘I love my master...’ then his master... shall pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life.”
— Allows indefinite enslavement of Hebrews who choose to stay.

Exodus 21:20–21

“Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies... But if the slave recovers after a day or two, the owner is not to be punished, since the slave is their property.”
— Permits beating slaves nearly to death without punishment.

Deuteronomy 20:10–11, 14

“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.”
— Allows the enslavement of conquered peoples.

Ephesians 6:5 (New Testament)

“Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.”
— Reinforces obedience to masters without calling for abolition.

SEXUAL SLAVERY IN THE BIBLE

Numbers 31:17–18

“Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.”
— After war with the Midianites, virgin girls are taken for male use; widely interpreted as sexual slavery.

Deuteronomy 21:10–14

“When you go to war... and you see a beautiful woman among the captives and become enamoured with her, you may take her as your wife... If you are not pleased with her, let her go... you must not sell or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.”
— Allows war captors to forcefully take women as wives.

Ephesians 6:5–8 – Slaves are told to obey their earthly masters as they would obey Christ.

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart..."

Colossians 3:22–25 – Similar to Ephesians, reinforcing obedience of slaves.

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything..."

1 Timothy 6:1–2 – Slaves should regard their masters as worthy of full respect.

"All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect..."

Titus 2:9–10 – Slaves are told to be subject to their masters in everything, to be trustworthy and not talk back.

"Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything..."

1 Peter 2:18–21 – Slaves should submit to even harsh masters and endure suffering as a good thing in God's eyes.

"...if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God."

Philemon 1:10–16 – Paul sends the escaped slave Onesimus back to his master Philemon, though urges Philemon to receive him kindly as a brother.

"...no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother."

Luke 12:47–48 – In a parable, Jesus describes a master beating his slaves, with no condemnation of the master.

"That servant who knows his master’s will and does not get ready... will be beaten with many blows."

Here are some verses where Jesus speaks or acts malevolently:

"I came not to bring peace, but a sword."
Matthew 10:34–36

“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
For I have come to turn ‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother...’”
This contradicts the image of Jesus as a peacemaker and suggests division and familial conflict.

"Bring them here and kill them in front of me."
Luke 19:27 (from the Parable of the Ten Minas)

“But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them — bring them here and kill them in front of me.”
While technically part of a parable, the speaker in the story represents Jesus himself. The violent imagery is unsettling.

Drowns 2,000 pigs after casting out demons
Mark 5:11–13

“He gave them permission, and the impure spirits came out and went into the pigs. The herd... rushed down the steep bank into the lake and were drowned.”
Jesus allows a legion of demons to destroy innocent animals — property of the local people.

"Let the dead bury their own dead."
Matthew 8:21–22

“Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead.”
This callous-sounding response comes after a man asks permission to bury his father first.

"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother..."
Luke 14:26

“If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters — yes, even their own life — such a person cannot be my disciple.”
A demand for total allegiance to Jesus over all human relationships — using the word hate.

"It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs."
Matthew 15:22–26

“It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”
Jesus compares a Canaanite (non-Jewish) woman to a dog when she asks for healing for her daughter.

Curses a fig tree for not bearing fruit out of season
Mark 11:12–14, 20–21

“May no one ever eat fruit from you again.”
Jesus kills a fig tree for having no fruit — despite it not being the season for figs.

"Whoever is not with me is against me..."
Matthew 12:30

“Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.”
This black-and-white view implies no neutrality or middle ground — only allegiance or opposition.

God lied to Adam and Eve

Genesis 2:16,17
And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

What was said: In Genesis 2:17, God tells Adam that eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil would result in death on that day.

What happened: Adam and Eve eat the fruit, but they do not die that day. Instead, they are:

Banished from Eden.

Cursed with suffering (painful childbirth, hard labor, mortality).

Told they would return to dust — implying eventual death, not immediate.

Wider Fallout: Collective Punishment
Not only were Adam and Eve punished, but all of humanity and even non-human animals suffer and die.

Eve’s punishment was extended to all women, with pain in childbirth and submission to men (Genesis 3:16).

Adam’s punishment led to a cursed ground, requiring hard labor to survive (Genesis 3:17–19).

This presents God as:

Inflicting intergenerational punishment.

Imposing suffering on billions of humans (including trillions of sentient organisms) for a single act of disobedience by only two humans.

Commanding reproduction (Genesis 1:28, Genesis 3:16) even though childbirth is cursed — a painful contradiction.

Deception: God said one thing (immediate death) but did something else.

Cruelty: Instead of just death, the punishment was lifelong and multigenerational suffering.

Injustice: All descendants and other species suffer for the mistake of two.

From an ethical perspective, punishing innocents for the actions of others — especially when omniscient and omnipotent — is morally evil.

On 24 December 2024, a Christian man smeared our window with blood and tried to knock our front door down. He gave us death threats. We phoned the police, and the police arrested him. The police wanted to know if we wanted to press charges. We said that we didn't want to press charges and asked the police to get the man help for his alcoholism. The police did that, and the man is in a program for alcoholism. If we had pressed charges, the man would have gone to jail because we recorded his death threats.

Six of my relatives and my best friend were killed in separate incidents. I didn't hunt down the perpetrators and punish them. Could any of the perpetrators have refrained from killing? Not unless the determinants (i.e. genes, environments, nutrients and experiences) of their choices were changed.

The tit for tat approach makes the world worse. Of course, we need to protect victims from perpetrators - we should do this by placing perpetrators in quarantine and helping them change.