DCP has an exciting new update on one of his upcoming books

[Everybody Wang Chung]

Also, DCP is falling back once again on plagiarism, under the guise of 'notes.' (I'll leave just one example here and put the rest in the DCP plagiarism thread, so as not to derail.)

Here's just one passage from Lewis, page 112, from the section that DCP said was in his "notes," and below that DCP's plagiarism:

...If slave defenders like John C. Calhoun were correct that African-Americans were happier under slavery than under freedom, would that justify slavery? Would a painless genocide be acceptable so long as it produced happiness for the killers? If happiness is our criterion, then slavery, genocide, and murder would all be morally correct under certain conditions, yet we all know that painless murder is still murder...

P 112, Hyrum lewis

DCP's "notes"

John C. Calhoun evidently contended that African-Americans were happier as slaves than they would have been as free men. Assuming for a moment that he was right, would that have morally justified slavery? Enslaving others may well have increased the happiness of the enslavers. If eliminating a subset of society could make the remainder of the populace happier, would that be morally justifiable? (Imagine that the genocide could be accomplished painlessly, perhaps even without inducing anxiety. Would that make a difference?) Is there a calculus for determining how large a number of people might ethically be eliminated?

If happiness or well-being is the criterion, cases can surely be imagined in which enslaving others or committing murder or genocide would increase well-being or happiness for at least some portion, larger or smaller, of the population. But all normal people know, without needing to research it or think deeply about it, that even painless murder is morally wrong. How do we know this? On the basis of what do we know it?

As usual, I noted in blue DCP's exact copies of wording, but the entire passage is nothing more than a shameless plagiarism of his BYU colleague's work. Stating at the beginning: "here are my notes (with a few contributions of my own)" , especially since he never actually quotes Lewis, does not mitigate his intellectual theft.

Is the work inherently good because the Afore plagiarizes it, or does the Afore only plagiarize it because the work is inherently good?

[drumdude]

Also, DCP is falling back once again on plagiarism, under the guise of 'notes.' (I'll leave just one example here and put the rest in the DCP plagiarism thread, so as not to derail.)

Here's just one passage from Lewis, page 112, from the section that DCP said was in his "notes," and below that DCP's plagiarism:

DCP's "notes"

As usual, I noted in blue DCP's exact copies of wording, but the entire passage is nothing more than a shameless plagiarism of his BYU colleague's work. Stating at the beginning: "here are my notes (with a few contributions of my own)" , especially since he never actually quotes Lewis, does not mitigate his intellectual theft.

Is the work inherently good because the Afore plagiarizes it, or does the Afore only plagiarize it because the work is inherently good?

[Rivendale]

Can studying botany gives insight to whether slavery is immoral? Yes. We can see the well being of certain parasitic plants are impacted. Here are two examples.

Obligate Parasites: Plants like Dodder (Cuscuta) or Witchweed (Striga) cannot survive without a host. They "enslave" the host plant by tapping into its vascular system (using haustoria) to drain water, minerals, and carbohydrates, often eventually killing the host.
Hemi-parasites: Plants like Mistletoe perform some photosynthesis but still "steal" water and nutrients from their host trees.

[huckelberry]

Also, DCP is falling back once again on plagiarism, under the guise of 'notes.' (I'll leave just one example here and put the rest in the DCP plagiarism thread, so as not to derail.)

Here's just one passage from Lewis, page 112, from the section that DCP said was in his "notes," and below that DCP's plagiarism:

...If slave defenders like John C. Calhoun were correct that African-Americans were happier under slavery than under freedom, would that justify slavery? Would a painless genocide be acceptable so long as it produced happiness for the killers? If happiness is our criterion, then slavery, genocide, and murder would all be morally correct under certain conditions, yet we all know that painless murder is still murder...

P 112, Hyrum lewis

DCP's "notes"

John C. Calhoun evidently contended that African-Americans were happier as slaves than they would have been as free men. Assuming for a moment that he was right, would that have morally justified slavery? Enslaving others may well have increased the happiness of the enslavers. If eliminating a subset of society could make the remainder of the populace happier, would that be morally justifiable? (Imagine that the genocide could be accomplished painlessly, perhaps even without inducing anxiety. Would that make a difference?) Is there a calculus for determining how large a number of people might ethically be eliminated?

If happiness or well-being is the criterion, cases can surely be imagined in which enslaving others or committing murder or genocide would increase well-being or happiness for at least some portion, larger or smaller, of the population. But all normal people know, without needing to research it or think deeply about it, that even painless murder is morally wrong. How do we know this? On the basis of what do we know it?

As usual, I noted in blue DCP's exact copies of wording, but the entire passage is nothing more than a shameless plagiarism of his BYU colleague's work. Stating at the beginning: "here are my notes (with a few contributions of my own)" , especially since he never actually quotes Lewis, does not mitigate his intellectual theft.

I am uncertain how to see this paraphrase as theft or plagiarism. DP noted the source, author, book, and page numbers.

What I am much more struck by is the thought that moral understanding of war and genocide might not much be helped by religion, scripture, and the idea of God. The Bible is more comfortable with genocide than I am.

[Morley]

What I am much more struck by is the thought that moral understanding of war and genocide might not much be helped by religion, scripture, and the idea of God. The Bible is more comfortable with genocide than I am

(my bold)

Hmm, you’re right, Huck.

The Bible is more comfortable with rape than I am.

The Bible is more comfortable with incest than I am.

The Bible is more comfortable with slavery than I am.

The Bible is more comfortable with misogyny than I am.

The Bible is more comfortable chopping up the foreskins of enemies than I am.

The Bible is more comfortable with sending pigs running off cliffs than I am.

The Bible is more comfortable with murdering teenagers for mocking a bald dude than I am.

The Bible is more comfortable saying no bacon with your eggs than I am.

I could go on and on and on, but my brain would start to hurt.

As I say, you have a point. The Bible might not be the place to go to measure what is or is not moral. Or even to measure what is or is not God.

[huckelberry]

What I am much more struck by is the thought that moral understanding of war and genocide might not much be helped by religion, scripture, and the idea of God. The Bible is more comfortable with genocide than I am

(my bold)

Hmm, you’re right, Huck.

The Bible is more comfortable with rape than I am.

The Bible is more comfortable with incest than I am.

The Bible is more comfortable with slavery than I am.

The Bible is more comfortable with misogyny than I am.

The Bible is more comfortable chopping up the foreskins of enemies than I am.

The Bible is more comfortable with sending pigs running off cliffs than I am.

The Bible is more comfortable with murdering teenagers for mocking a bald dude than I am.

The Bible is more comfortable saying no bacon with your eggs than I am.

I could go on and on and on, but my brain would start to hurt.

As I say, you have a point. The Bible might not be the place to go to measure what is or is not moral. Or even to measure what is or is not God.

Morley. In ways the Bible is a barbaric book from barbaric times. However people have not escaped barbarism entirely.

Perhaps this is a time to float a thought which bothers me from time to time. I do not escape having a variety of reactions to the Bible. There is historical cultural curiosity, genuine inspiration, and genuine disappointment. There are boring stretches as well. What is inescapably clear is that it is not inerrant. It contains a variety of thoughts by people trying hard to understand with limited knowledge humans struggle with. Yet to a sizable number of people the Bible must be inerrant. I think that to an extent that creates an idol out of the book which may get worship which should go to God. In becoming an idol it can damage people's thinking, damage their moral sense, and damage faith.

[canpakes]

The Bible is more comfortable with rape than I am.

The Bible is more comfortable with incest than I am.

The Bible is more comfortable with slavery than I am.

The Bible is more comfortable with misogyny than I am.

The Bible is more comfortable chopping up the foreskins of enemies than I am.

The Bible is more comfortable with sending pigs running off cliffs than I am.

The Bible is more comfortable with murdering teenagers for mocking a bald dude than I am.

The Bible is more comfortable saying no bacon with your eggs than I am.

I could go on and on and on, but my brain would start to hurt.

As I say, you have a point. The Bible might not be the place to go to measure what is or is not moral. Or even to measure what is or is not God.

Does Jephthah's daughter qualify for this list? That’s another odd one.

[drumdude]

Yet to a sizable number of people the Bible must be inerrant. I think that to an extent that creates an idol out of the book which may get worship which should go to God. In becoming an idol it can damage people's thinking, damage their moral sense, and damage faith.

I suspect that's an artifact of Christianity coming into contact with the enlightenment era. Once you have notions like objective truth, objective history, the Bible is subject to the question "is it history or fable?"

I get the sense that many non-fundamentalist believers get value from the stories they like, and don't worry too much about the inerrancy aspect. Mormonism is a fairly fundamentalist religion still, so it makes sense that former Mormons aren't used to that kind of lax view about it.

[Marcus]

Also, DCP is falling back once again on plagiarism, under the guise of 'notes.' (I'll leave just one example here and put the rest in the DCP plagiarism thread, so as not to derail.)

Here's just one passage from Lewis, page 112, from the section that DCP said was in his "notes," and below that DCP's plagiarism:

DCP's "notes"

As usual, I noted in blue DCP's exact copies of wording, but the entire passage is nothing more than a shameless plagiarism of his BYU colleague's work. Stating at the beginning: "here are my notes (with a few contributions of my own)" , especially since he never actually quotes Lewis, does not mitigate his intellectual theft.

I am uncertain how to see this paraphrase as theft or plagiarism. DP noted the source, author book and page numbers...

He wrote this:

...Here are my notes (with a few contributions of my own) from Hyrum Lewis, There Is a God, 110-112:...

Then, with no quotation marks, he rearranged the words a little but exactly stated Lewis' ideas, adding some words, here and there. Saying these are his notes from Lewis is not sufficient attribution. This is called mosiac plagiarism by every university including BYU, here's a definition from Turnitin:

Turnitin:

...In its simplest terms, ‘mosaic plagiarism’ refers to weaving phrases and text from several sources into one’s own work and adjusting sentences without quotation marks or attribution. Although an apt name for the type of misconduct it describes, it can be confusing for students to understand mosaic plagiarism as a more extensive pattern of unoriginality and misattribution in their work that must be addressed...

https://www.turnitin.com/blog/what-is-m ... o-avoid-it

I bolded the last sentence, in my opinion it captures the issue very well.

[Tom]

Here are my notes (with a few contributions of my own) from Hyrum Lewis, There Is a God, 110-112:

If morality can’t be deduced or derived from matter and only matter is truly real, can another source for it be identified?

Lewis cites the example of the vocal “New Atheist” Sam Harris and his book The Moral Landscape. In that book, Harris contends that we can get morality from science.

Now, at first glance, such a claim seems pretty obviously silly. Compassion can’t be proven good in a cyclotron or a chemistry lab. Does botany tell us anything about whether slavery is wrong? Can a microscope demonstrate that torturing animals or abusing small children is immoral? Don’t we already know that murder is evil before we enroll in a course on evolutionary biology? Has any scientist ever engaged in laboratory or field research for the sake of constructing (or falsifying) a moral system? (You may recall Sir Karl Popper’s contention that “falsifiability” is a requirement for a scientific theory to be meaningful.)

But Harris’s argument isn’t that obviously ridiculous. In The Moral Landscape, he contends that we can base our morality on science by determining, scientifically, what promotes “well-being” and then deciding, on that basis, what we ought to do. For example, living in community makes us happier than living in isolation, thus contributing to our well-being, so the promotion of community and living in community are moral goods. Donating to charity also enhances human well-being, so it is also demonstrably moral. There is no need to invoke God here, he says. All we need is science.

Where, though, does Harris get his principle that we should pursue happiness, or well-being? Where does that should come from? Isn’t that already a value-laden or moral judgment? And, if it is, was it scientifically derived? Was it deduced from counting lichen spores or finding exoplanets? Is it falsifiable? And why couldn’t someone, instead, declare that we should pursue domination, or power, or pleasure? Or control? Or enlightenment? Or growth or experience or “fulfillment”? Or expanded Lebensraum for the Aryan race? How can one distinguish between those goals “scientifically”? Evolutionarily or biologically, couldn’t someone make the case that the true moral imperative is the maximum spread of his genes? Why not? How does one determine “scientifically” that happiness or well-being is the one proper moral goal? Isn’t that a nonempirical leap of faith?

Lewis cites Bertrand Russell’s Autobiography (161-162) as saying that his work in philosophy “brought moments of delight, but these [were] outweighed by years of effort and depression.” Still, even though his own personal unhappiness was often the result of his effort, he continued, as he saw it, to “pursue truth.”

I located what seems to be the right passage in Russell’s Autobiography (p. 238 in the linked edition), although I don’t know why Lewis uses the word brought without giving an indication that he changed Russell’s language. From Russell:

What first turned me away from utilitarianism was the persuasion that I myself ought to pursue philosophy, although I had (and have still) no doubt that by doing economics and the theory of politics I could add more to human happiness. It appeared to me that the dignity of which human existence is capable is not attainable by devotion to the mechanism of life, and that unless the contemplation of eternal things is preserved, mankind will become no better than well-fed pigs. But I do not believe that such contemplation on the whole tends to happiness. It gives moments of delight, but these are outweighed by years of effort and depression.

(emphasis added). I had to look around a bit for Russell’s use of “pursue truth,” but I found it earlier in his book (p. 68 in the edition linked above).

I don’t have a copy of Lewis’ book itself.