I don't believe you

[Mr Walker]

18 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

And I always feel more intelligent after reading your posts.

lol Hopefully you have also learned something (yes i got the sarcasm)

I know my intelligence, both from a life time of  experience with a huge range of people, and from professional testing.

In some ways it is a "curse" because it means i always see things in logical, rational criteria referenced ways and this can make me see uncaring or indifferent  But in most ways it is a skill talent or abilty which has helped and empowered me throughout my life 

However i was raised that it is not  how you  feel about others which matters, but how you treat them (eg the best thing you can do for someone suffering loss is not to feel sorry for them or tell them you, are sorry, but to help them with practical things.)    I've sent my life improving the lives of others and if i seem a bit unemotional that is a fair trade off. 

In some ways i see people who react emotionally, rather than rationally, as quite dangerous, if it is excessive. 

 

[Mr Walker]

13 hours ago, eight bits said:

I'm unsure how you fantasize the people of the past to have been. There is ample evidence that, even if nothing more profound dawned on any of them, people have always understood that whatever evil befalls one person or group could someday befall them or their group. Then or now, this may not rise to a reason for the currently unafflicted to refrain from working evil on those whom they can victimize, but then and now it sure as hell lights a fire under their butts to take precuations against it happening to them.

Nobody was ever blind to the evils of slavery. They all paid money toward the common defense, and many served personally. There are other uses of money, and  other ways to use your time. But if you let the common defense slip, then you were likely to become somebody's slave, and nobody had to be psychic to foresee that that would be a bad thing, an evil thing.

What I can't think of is any truly novel evil. There is a certain sameness to it, as far back as we have records. The technology changes (waterboarding is a genuine advance over the rack), but the general ideas stay the same. Or so it seems to me.

 

I wouldn't worry so much about other posters' levels of education. And slavery is always evil is a not a personal attack, unless you happen to be a slave owner. I'd imagine not.

Oh yeah, Sherapy's one of the classiest posters on the board. If her criticisms are more than you can handle, then you're in the wrong place. Maybe you're just too good for the web.

Viable is (in American jargon) a weasel word. It gives the appearance of "narrowing the claim," but wink, wink, nod, nod, it doesn't really narrow anything.

Moi? I never said it was the only option, I just said that some societies would have collapsed, been defeated militarily, or have created great hardships for everybody in the society if they stopped doing it.

Uh, huh. Viable: Don't post bo****ks without it.

No viable (in my lexicon)  means doable or practical (never heard it used as american jargon)  Many things are theoretically possible or good, but not viable due to the practical realities of life Thus while slavery could have been stopped in some ancient  societies (if anyone had actually seen it as wrong) the effects of stopping it would have been so negative as to make that a non viable option.

We could stop all production of fossil fueled cars today and it would be a positive but  the negative realities make it non viable at this time.  

 i will accept this is one of the genuine differences which causes difficulty in communication between American speakers and English speakers  

And clearly  you are blind to  Sherapy's comments about evil, despicable, people who see slavery as a good thing.(even when some of them have explained this is not their view at all )  And parents who are child abusers because they used corporal punishment on their children. 

The level of others education and knowledge determines how sensible, deep and meaningful, any debate can be.

People who just see slavery as evil, and believe it was always evil, have no understanding of our past  and why slavery existed quite legally, and without serious dispute,  for all but the last  200 years or so,  or why rape in marriage was not even conceptualised, let alone seen as wrong, until last century, and was not legislated against until the 1960s 

 

it is difficult to have a rational debate with a person whose values are emotional, rather than logically and factually based 

Edited April 20, 2019 by Mr Walker

[Habitat]

I have no idea what 8 bits is on about with his disapproval of viable, no controversy surrounds the word that I know of.

[Mr Walker]

11 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Walker

Got a surprise today, a client told me it was a religious holiday and that I could stay home. Believe it or not, that is a first in my book of experiences.

Just wondering whether or not you think I read the links I post for you to discuss with, I read yours and then respond with material that counters or supports a position. No, I generally don't read historical soap operas so I can imagine what things were like in the past and fantasize, I do read the research and compare it to what I have had real life experience with. 

I worked as a bouncer in a lowlife bar full of pimps, prostitutes, dealers, drug addicts, and other various socially corrupt individuals and rest assured there are many similarities with the slave industry. The one pimp was especially volatile and brutal and damn he had been shot, stabbed and beat but just wouldn't die, I saw some of his enforcement tactics and did help some of his girls get away and into a new life in other cities. You may not see it in the same sense that I do but I didn't come to my conclusions based on fictional accounts because those were real people in the real world that I lived in.

I disagree.

BBC - Ethics - Slavery: Attempts to justify slavery

BBC - Ethics - Slavery: Philosophers justifying slavery

Slavery in the Roman World - Ancient History Encyclopedia

SLAVERY IN ANCIENT WORLD

And yes I did read them.

Walker, I try to challenge your position and understand that you think that in those times it had to be that way and have not attacked your character for holding the position that you have expressed here as I believe that it is possible that without slavery at any time in history our tech would have still progressed to current levels and that slavery was not essential to our advancement as a whole.

jmccr8

I like this post 

yes there is some academic debate 

However it tends to fall into two camps 

Those, like you and sherapy, who believe morals and ethics are absolute   and those, like me, who see them as situational and contextual or relative. Your first source explains this but, without any good reason dismisses cultural relativism. In fact all ethics and moralities are only human constructs and thus ALL are constructed from within a cultural framework 

quote  from your source 

Slavery is acceptable in this culture

Slavery was generally accepted by the majority in some societies - if ethics is a matter of public opinion (Cultural Ethical Relativism) then some would say that slavery was ethically OK in those societies where it was the cultural norm.

This sort of argument is a key reason why many people oppose CER.

This is also bit misleading The argument is not simply that it was acceptable by their cultural values (although this is a very valid point) but tha t  it was seen as acceptable for very rational, logical reasons  (you cannot remove any cultural practice from the context of its entire society and judge it alone )

Living in slavery is better than starving to death

In circumstances of extreme poverty, living in slavery may be the least bad available option.

While slavery may be the least bad option for an individual, this doesn't justify slavery, but indicates that action should be taken to provide other better options to individuals.

 

This also misses the point and is unrealistic and naive although it sounds  nice The point was that  there were no other better options for slaves which did not endanger the slave holding society . The existing options included death, and/  or forced integration of  women and children 

 

And of course,all of the other current values and beliefs of the day meant this was not even considered 

No one is trying to "justify" slavery, other than to explain why it was necessary, and  why other options were not practical at the time. You  might as well ask why we didn't all use solar panels in the 1800s 

As i said, i find your posts genuine and  non judgemental,  even where i disagree with them  This is how debate should be carried on. 

To explain a little more about the value of fiction.

I've just been reading some books by Fiona Macintosh, an Australian author, about women among the gold and silversmith families in Birmingham in the early 20th century.

Like many authors she has done a great deal of research, and her stories  reflect and describe, not just the physical lives, but also the attitudes of people from different classes, in the time.

She explores two women in particular who enter the predominantly mans world of crafting.

However she also bring in vivid descriptions  of poverty and living conditions among the poor, what it was like in a poor house, and the limitations imposed on women by their gender and the perception of their nature. The description of women working on the industrial looms is  detailed and horrifying with the long hours, physical dangers, and poor pay.

  The descriptions of the suffering and death of people, especially children, among those so poor that the y have no food or heating, and certainly no medicine, is very moving and graphic 

  Your second source is inter sting but supports my pov 

Not even the greatest thinkers of the time, let alone the great masses, saw slavery as evil or immoral. indeed it was seen as natural. If everyone felt like that, how or why would anything change, until philosophies beliefs and values changed ? 

Edited April 20, 2019 by Mr Walker

[eight bits]

3 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

No viable (in my lexicon)  means doable or practical (never heard it used as american jargon) 

Sorry if I was confusing. Weasel word is what I was pointing to as an Americanism. Not my favorite term of disapproval, since I am fond of weasels.

The issue with the non-modifier viable is not the terminology, but the substance of the situation. Obviously, societies that organized themselves around slavery would have had to change their organization in order for them to end their dependence on slavery. Change, however, needn't be catastrophic, but the status quo will reliably have its adherents. Those adherents will be able to paint proposals for change as catastrophes in the making.

And afterwards, if the change is made, then there may well be nostalgia for the way things were. There was nostalgia here in the United States for the "noble cause" of the Confederacy, where slavery supposedly allowed an attractive lifestyle for all concerned (!).

3 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

People who just see slavery as evil, and believe it was always evil, have no understanding of our past  and why slavery existed quite legally, and without serious dispute,  for all but the last  200 years or so,  or why rape in marriage was not even conceptualised, let alone seen as wrong, until last century, and was not legislated against until the 1960s

It is one thing to hold a view, and something else to believe that in order for anybody to disagree with it, there must be some blindness, ignorance, gap in education, lack of understanding, and whatever all else you manage to come up with to explain the disagreement.

Nobody here lacks understanding at your level, but lots of people have a different understanding than yours of owning people, beating children and raping family members. As to "virtue signalling," I think for most of the people who have commented here these are settled issues, They wouldn't have come up except that somebody on your side cautions us that these are institutions that have served humanity well, and if they must be reluctantly abandoned, then they deserve an honorable retirement.

No, these are mistakes. We are fallible, and we will make different mistakes from now on, but there is no argument from that which validly concludes that these practices were ever anything except mistakes.

 

[Habitat]

28 minutes ago, eight bits said:

They wouldn't have come up except that somebody on your side cautions us that these are institutions that have served humanity well, and if they must be reluctantly abandoned, then they deserve an honorable retirement.

Said who ?

[Mr Walker]

44 minutes ago, eight bits said:

Sorry if I was confusing. Weasel word is what I was pointing to as an Americanism. Not my favorite term of disapproval, since I am fond of weasels.

The issue with the non-modifier viable is not the terminology, but the substance of the situation. Obviously, societies that organized themselves around slavery would have had to change their organization in order for them to end their dependence on slavery. Change, however, needn't be catastrophic, but the status quo will reliably have its adherents. Those adherents will be able to paint proposals for change as catastrophes in the making.

And afterwards, if the change is made, then there may well be nostalgia for the way things were. There was nostalgia here in the United States for the "noble cause" of the Confederacy, where slavery supposedly allowed an attractive lifestyle for all concerned (!).

It is one thing to hold a view, and something else to believe that in order for anybody to disagree with it, there must be some blindness, ignorance, gap in education, lack of understanding, and whatever all else you manage to come up with to explain the disagreement.

Nobody here lacks understanding at your level, but lots of people have a different understanding than yours of owning people, beating children and raping family members. As to "virtue signalling," I think for most of the people who have commented here these are settled issues, They wouldn't have come up except that somebody on your side cautions us that these are institutions that have served humanity well, and if they must be reluctantly abandoned, then they deserve an honorable retirement.

No, these are mistakes. We are fallible, and we will make different mistakes from now on, but there is no argument from that which validly concludes that these practices were ever anything except mistakes.

 

your first para is quite reasonable and debatable

it depends on the overall  strength and economic structure of a society, from town to nation state. 

MAYBE some of the societies could have survived without slavery  but maybe no.  Certainly abandoning slavery would have had substantial real costs and risks 

So why should a society, which saw slavery as the norm  and a sign of their own moral, military, and social superiority over the subject races WANT to make any changes 

it was working well for them Their slaves were often divided into two classes Those of their own nation who usually had more rights and better treatment, and those of defeated nations who had lost their rights (and sometimes were seen as uncivilized barbarians by people like the greeks and romans )

I think two points are pertinent here  

First some people look back at such societies from within  our own culture and make a judgement from  our own values.   Rather one can only judge a past society by its own abilities culture beliefs and  customs. 

Second i am not excusing slavery as a good thing, even for historical societies.

I believe it was  sometimes a necessary thing, which is entirely different

 

The past is a different country and cannot be judged by our own standards otherwise all our own beliefs and ethics can be seen as potentially evil and hurtful as times change.   Most of the slaves in greece and rome were military prisoners.

I cannot see too many viable possibilities open to the victors. They had learned from  their own history that if you  left a  defeated rival intact, it could, and often would, rebuild and become a threat  So you could killl everyone from  the defeated nation (quite common)  Kill all the males over puberty, and take in the women and younger children as citizens (less common because you had to have the resources to care for them;  or make them all slaves with the advantages that gave your own nation  (most common) 

There was no chance the defeated would just be left to re-breed and re-develop, so freedom was not an option 

Second half i disagree with but i appreciate this is a subjective opinion based on the posts, tone words and criticisms of myslef and others by some posters

Sherpay keeps saying all slavery was, and is evil and despicable.  

Just that emotive language is a red alert to an academic but more to the point she is clearly wrong  There are no absolute ethics BUT even if there were, one might be  survival and thus slavery would be allowable where it enabled the survival of both  slaves and the free citizens

I do not think some posters are well read or educated enough to know and understand the complex pattern which is human history with econaloc social technolicaland relgious  factors among theose playing iportant parts   

The y have a strong ethical and moral belief and seek to insert it across time and culture 

Another example in modern times is the difference in attitude between  most western women  and many islamic ones They just dont get each other's values because the y are so culturally  imbedded 

For example i listened to a number of young modern australian Muslim women arguing why they wore the burka, and would do so even if it was banned by law.

The y explained that in their opinion  the west sexualises women from a young age  and judges them by appearance.

The y wanted to be judged as a person without their appearance being known.  They also had different ideas about sexual identity and freedom, such as that the y only WANTED their husbands ot see them  and to desire them.  The y saw non muslims as presenting a desirable  sexual image to all men they encountered 

They also didn't WANT to appear sexually attractive to others and didn't see their sexuality as a commodity to be used to make friends, win favours,  get sexual partners or succeed a t work.   There was a lot more to it but it struck me that the cultural and personal  differences were irreconcilable, given the way western society has evolved  in the last half century 

Of course there are good logical arguments why, for example, rape in marriage was not wrong within past cultures  That i s my point.Just because it is seen as wrong right now (and thus IS wrong right now) in our culture, does not make this view correct or unilateral. Everything is contextual 

It simply  was NOT rape, either legally or conceptually within all the frameworks of those societies ; just like, today, eating meat is not considered illegal or immoral.

Many human practices are in the process of change, from capital punishment, to recognition of all forms of sexuality  and gender, to a growing push to eliminate meat eating and owning animals and the elimination of fossil  fuel driven cars.

No matter what some person in 100 years says about those moralities being  absolute  you are not evil if you eat meat, or keep a pet,  or drive a petrol/diesel  car.  today 

Do it in 100 years, and yes you might be unethical, immoral, and evil  

Ps I dont know what virtue signalling is, (although i can make a contextually  based guess)   haven't mentioned it, don't care enough to google it,   and would probably y see it as just another form of ad hominem comment to avoid debate of the facts 

 

 

Edited April 20, 2019 by Mr Walker

[Mr Walker]

Ps i would look at abortion as a bit like slavery It  is wrong, destructive, and hurtful; killing millions of human beings every year,   but sometimes it is necessary for the  "greater good" ie the physical and psychological well being   of humans, (women) already alive,  and with a greater right to life.

If slavery is always evil and unjustifiable, how is it possible to justify abortion?   Only through excuses and untruths which make it more palatable such as, "An unborn is not a human being" 

Funny how exactly the same phrase (replace unborn with slave)  was once used to justify slavery.  

 The truth is that both abortion and slavery are moral evils, but  are  allowed/practiced when it is necessary that the y be allowed/practiced, due to other factors in society 

Thus i disapprove of abortion in principle, but support it in practice, until society  reorganises so that  it is no longer necessary. Then it can be made illegal again, without harming women, just as slavery was abolished only once it was economical to do so. 

Right now there is no need for slavery, but a need for abortions.

However, times will change. History teaches us that this is a certainty

Edited April 20, 2019 by Mr Walker

[eight bits]

1 hour ago, Habitat said:

Said who ?

No, What's on Second; Who's on first, I Don't Know's on third.

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

Certainly abandoning slavery would have had substantial real costs and risks 

Certainly, but continuing heavy reliance upon slavery also had substantial real costs and risks. Status quo bias often takes the form of pricing change while assuming that no-change comes free of charge.

In any case, we are not slave owners, you and I, nor are we slaves. There is no real point in our discussing how lucrative slavery can be as a business plan, nor how sweet our lives would be with a Master's benevolent oversight. The third-party interest (us) is the curiosity that there are these famous documents which portray slavery as the right thing to do. We ought, I think, to be able to agree that these documents are at best dated in their economic advice, and that their "wisdom," at least on this point, was never of more than local and passing application.

2 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

I believe it was  sometimes a necessary thing, which is entirely different

Ah. Whatever really is strictly necessary (as opposed to "viably necessary," which means elective) can reasonably be exempted from moral deliberation. At most, we can regret genuine necessity. With or without strict necessity, emergencies (= urgent temporary desperate circumstances) may be met with measures that wouldn't be tolerated except for the desperate urgency at hand, and won't be tolerated for long.

We were, however, discussing institutionalized persistent and routine recourse to slave labor, in circumstances where change is possible, however unattractive change would for the slave-owning class (and to hear you tell it, often for the slaves themselves).

2 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

The past is a different country and cannot be judged by our own standards otherwise all our own beliefs and ethics can be seen as potentially evil and hurtful as times change.

I welcome the thought that those who come after me will do better than I did. One way that that is helped along is if I do my part to recognize the mistakes of the past, and with luck, my successors will do the same with my mistakes.

2 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Just that emotive language is a red alert to an academic

I can think of many exceptions, but we needn't digress further. Sherapy is not your problem, and UM isn't an academy.

2 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Ps I dont know what virtue signalling is, (although i can make a contextually  based guess)   haven't mentioned it, don't care enough to google it,   and would probably y see it as just another form of ad hominem comment to avoid debate of the facts 

One of your fans used the term. It's not really ad hom so much as an unsympathetic description of speech, the mirror image of dog whistle. In its original use, the actual intended audience appreciates the content of the speech being so described, while the user of the term who "overhears" the speech does not. In the US, the political left is said to signal virtue while the political right is said to dog whistle. For either wing, such speech supposedly enhances solidarity and allows the speaker to self-identify as a member of the group.

Finally, since you bring up abortion, it is a nice illustration that trying to second-guess how future generations will view our choices is unhelpful as a means of current moral deliberation. At least in the United States, both sides expect to be "vindicated by history." Thus, any actual intelligent discussion of the issue needs some other foundation.

 

[Habitat]

24 minutes ago, eight bits said:

Finally, since you bring up abortion, it is a nice illustration that trying to second-guess how future generations will view our choices is unhelpful as a means of current moral deliberation. At least in the United States, both sides expect to be "vindicated by history." Thus, any actual intelligent discussion of the issue needs some other foundation.

Yep, still unable to come up with anything that is wrong in today's society, that the world of tomorrow will judge as "evil", but we are happy to judge those from yesteryear, as immorally turning a blind eye. If slavery was bad ( no argument from me on that), then the entire society that had the ability to stop it, by the ballot box, are as bad as the slave owners.  No ? Do you like to think you'd have been an activist, if alive in those days ?  Being wise after the event is just too easy, hence I ask you to be wise about what exists in today's world that will be similarly seen as a blight in the future. Maybe in 1850 you'd be saying something similar to what is in the quote box.

[Essan]

4 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Yep, still unable to come up with anything that is wrong in today's society, that the world of tomorrow will judge as "evil",

Slavery?   There are more slaves today than at any time in history.   And I don't think that includes child labour in sweat shops making your designer t-shirts or working in mines to find rare earth metals for your mobile phone.

Environmental damages etc will no doubt also be seen in the furtue as one of the evils we do today.

The fact we have more awareness of what is happening around us today simply makes us even worse than any of our forebears.   We really cannot speak when it comes to slavery or anything else!

[Habitat]

8 minutes ago, Essan said:

Slavery?   There are more slaves today than at any time in history.   And I don't think that includes child labour in sweat shops making your designer t-shirts or working in mines to find rare earth metals for your mobile phone.

Environmental damages etc will no doubt also be seen in the furtue as one of the evils we do today.

The fact we have more awareness of what is happening around us today simply makes us even worse than any of our forebears.   We really cannot speak when it comes to slavery or anything else!

I'm not disagreeing, just questioning people feeling superior by pointing out the evils of the past, and how they disown all of it, but apparently they did not have forebears that agreed with them. If there is social injustice in a democracy, then the majority are responsible, not just the exploiters.

[Habitat]

Mass extinctions from environmental destruction surely won't be looked upon as good stewardship, people really need to quit getting off on the idea we are the enlightened ones, and the errors are of the past. They are probably more grievous than ever.

[Essan]

13 minutes ago, Habitat said:

I'm not disagreeing, just questioning people feeling superior by pointing out the evils of the past, and how they disown all of it, but apparently they did not have forebears that agreed with them. If there is social injustice in a democracy, then the majority are responsible, not just the exploiters.

Yeah, agree.  Although in the past slavery was not perceived as being wrong in the way it is today - and we should judge the past by today's values.   Of course, we are even more wrong to criticise those in the past for permitting slavery, and making money from it, when we continue to do exactly the same ourselves today! 

[+Sherapy]

3 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

your first para is quite reasonable and debatable

it depends on the overall  strength and economic structure of a society, from town to nation state. 

MAYBE some of the societies could have survived without slavery  but maybe no.  Certainly abandoning slavery would have had substantial real costs and risks 

So why should a society, which saw slavery as the norm  and a sign of their own moral, military, and social superiority over the subject races WANT to make any changes 

it was working well for them Their slaves were often divided into two classes Those of their own nation who usually had more rights and better treatment, and those of defeated nations who had lost their rights (and sometimes were seen as uncivilized barbarians by people like the greeks and romans )

I think two points are pertinent here  

First some people look back at such societies from within  our own culture and make a judgement from  our own values.   Rather one can only judge a past society by its own abilities culture beliefs and  customs. 

Second i am not excusing slavery as a good thing, even for historical societies.

I believe it was  sometimes a necessary thing, which is entirely different

 

The past is a different country and cannot be judged by our own standards otherwise all our own beliefs and ethics can be seen as potentially evil and hurtful as times change.   Most of the slaves in greece and rome were military prisoners.

I cannot see too many viable possibilities open to the victors. They had learned from  their own history that if you  left a  defeated rival intact, it could, and often would, rebuild and become a threat  So you could killl everyone from  the defeated nation (quite common)  Kill all the males over puberty, and take in the women and younger children as citizens (less common because you had to have the resources to care for them;  or make them all slaves with the advantages that gave your own nation  (most common) 

There was no chance the defeated would just be left to re-breed and re-develop, so freedom was not an option 

Second half i disagree with but i appreciate this is a subjective opinion based on the posts, tone words and criticisms of myslef and others by some posters

Sherpay keeps saying all slavery was, and is evil and despicable.  

Just that emotive language is a red alert to an academic but more to the point she is clearly wrong  There are no absolute ethics BUT even if there were, one might be  survival and thus slavery would be allowable where it enabled the survival of both  slaves and the free citizens

I do not think some posters are well read or educated enough to know and understand the complex pattern which is human history with econaloc social technolicaland relgious  factors among theose playing iportant parts   

The y have a strong ethical and moral belief and seek to insert it across time and culture 

Another example in modern times is the difference in attitude between  most western women  and many islamic ones They just dont get each other's values because the y are so culturally  imbedded 

For example i listened to a number of young modern australian Muslim women arguing why they wore the burka, and would do so even if it was banned by law.

The y explained that in their opinion  the west sexualises women from a young age  and judges them by appearance.

The y wanted to be judged as a person without their appearance being known.  They also had different ideas about sexual identity and freedom, such as that the y only WANTED their husbands ot see them  and to desire them.  The y saw non muslims as presenting a desirable  sexual image to all men they encountered 

They also didn't WANT to appear sexually attractive to others and didn't see their sexuality as a commodity to be used to make friends, win favours,  get sexual partners or succeed a t work.   There was a lot more to it but it struck me that the cultural and personal  differences were irreconcilable, given the way western society has evolved  in the last half century 

Of course there are good logical arguments why, for example, rape in marriage was not wrong within past cultures  That i s my point.Just because it is seen as wrong right now (and thus IS wrong right now) in our culture, does not make this view correct or unilateral. Everything is contextual 

It simply  was NOT rape, either legally or conceptually within all the frameworks of those societies ; just like, today, eating meat is not considered illegal or immoral.

Many human practices are in the process of change, from capital punishment, to recognition of all forms of sexuality  and gender, to a growing push to eliminate meat eating and owning animals and the elimination of fossil  fuel driven cars.

No matter what some person in 100 years says about those moralities being  absolute  you are not evil if you eat meat, or keep a pet,  or drive a petrol/diesel  car.  today 

Do it in 100 years, and yes you might be unethical, immoral, and evil  

Ps I dont know what virtue signalling is, (although i can make a contextually  based guess)   haven't mentioned it, don't care enough to google it,   and would probably y see it as just another form of ad hominem comment to avoid debate of the facts 

 

 

Basically, you have bought into the myth of the contented slave,  Your opinion is duly noted and completely refuted. 

You go onto add there are good arguments as to why rape was not wrong within a marriage. 

Of course, there are no good arguments for rape. 

Human’s do not always make the best choices and yes, we even commit great acts of evil, I would put slavery and rape on this list, so we respond by getting proactive to try and prevent the same harm to generations to come. 

The why or what motivated a person to such savagery helps us address and hopefully redirect/rewrite  one’s perspective by appealing to one’s humanity or, empathy towards the greatest good. 

 

 

 

[+Sherapy]

38 minutes ago, Habitat said:

I'm not disagreeing, just questioning people feeling superior by pointing out the evils of the past, and how they disown all of it, but apparently they did not have forebears that agreed with them. If there is social injustice in a democracy, then the majority are responsible, not just the exploiters.

Why do you see a person as feeling superior by bringing attention to areas that caused a lot of harm in the past? 

You took History in school correct?  We are taught to look to the past and discuss what went wrong,  or what went right and what can we do better, refine, or change. It is an ongoing process. 

Our system is set up to effect change, albeit it can be a slow and arduous endeavor, but with the addition of social media change is getting faster. 

 

 

[Habitat]

Just now, Sherapy said:

Why do you see a person as feeling superior by bringing attention to areas that caused a lot of harm in the past? 

You took History in school correct?  We are taught to look to the past and discuss what went wrong,  or what went right and what can we do better, refine, or change. It is an ongoing process. 

Our system is set up to effect change, albeit it can be a slow and arduous endeavor, but with the addition of social media change is getting faster. 

 

 

What purpose does it serve ? The past cannot be changed. We all know that slavery was rank exploitation, we all know that the subjugation of native peoples was just dreadful. It all springs from the same attitude of mind, " I/We are more important than you". Don't fall into the trap of being "better" than others, even Mr Wooker, by imagining he is some moral inferior to you.

[onlookerofmayhem]

On 2/18/2019 at 10:07 PM, Jodie.Lynne said:

Why do YOU continue to argue this issue?

I think civilized discourse is the best way to understand others point of views.

We all live in our own little bubble despite how many levels we share this reality.

No two people agree on everything. There is always a subject that will become a point of contention. 

Personally, the last thing I want to do is live in an echo chamber and surround myself with only people that agree with me. That doesn't leave much room for any kind of growth. 

I remember doing a report on Led Zeppelin in high school. My closing sentence was a line from the song Over the Hills and Far Away, "I've often wondered how much there is to know."

I conceded that it was impossible to know everything. Yet that has never impeded my interest in trying to understand as much as possible. 

I find it disheartening that so often conversations devolve into petty arguments that don't aim at understanding another's point of view. It's usually a fight about, "I'm right and you're wrong!" I never participated in Debate Club in school, but the older I get the more I think it should be a mandatory school exercise. A lot of people are absolutely terrible at defending their points of view. For the record, I don't consider myself a great debater.

Although most people are so set in the beliefs the have evolved and justified, they simply don't/can't look at something from a different perspective. 

I don't have the goal of convincing everyone that I'm right or that they are wrong. 

I find it stimulating to hash out, as well as I can, why I believe the things I do. And in turn expect that people who espouse their beliefs here to be able to do the same.

Not that we will all ever agree on everything. I find it admirable that at least some people do try to find common ground. Because when it comes down to brass tacks, most of us agree on far more than we disagree on. The main issue with this concept is that most forums aren't an echo chamber. There will always be opposing opinions. 

[+Sherapy]

51 minutes ago, Habitat said:

What purpose does it serve ? The past cannot be changed. We all know that slavery was rank exploitation, we all know that the subjugation of native peoples was just dreadful. It all springs from the same attitude of mind, " I/We are more important than you". Don't fall into the trap of being "better" than others, even Mr Wooker, by imagining he is some moral inferior to you.

Perhaps for you there is no purpose, and we each contribute in the ways that suit us, for me as a mother, it isn’t/wasn’t about being better than, but being better for, being more of service, being what I wished to see. 

I am the kind of mom that sought the feedback of my offspring, not about how great I was, but what could I do to change, which in turn inspired me to be of better service to them. 

Do no harm, there are many paths to this as well as away and slavery and rape serve no sustainable purpose, other than to conclude “Never do this”.

 

 

[eight bits]

2 hours ago, Habitat said:

Yep, still unable to come up with anything that is wrong in today's society, that the world of tomorrow will judge as "evil",

When I said that waterboarding was an advance over the rack, you thought I meant what?

1 hour ago, Habitat said:

I'm not disagreeing, just questioning people feeling superior by pointing out the evils of the past,

Who's feeling superior? I make different mistakes than my predecessors, not fewer or nicer ones. Which, by the way, is one of the points of studying history, as you asked. As little comfort as it is to make different mistakes, it still beats making the same ones over and over.

[+Pettytalk]

Walls of words abound here. Some are slaves to walls while others are free to build them without reproach. Addressing those posts on ethics and slavery, just where do ethics originate? And when did slavery first begin, and where?

It's all about justice...Absolutely! Absolute justice is what frees all of us from slavery. Ethics? In the physical world Nature and Evolution dictate ethics; survival of the fittest, where only the strong survive....at any cost. Strength may also mean submission. Submission for the benefit of the stronger, since to survive in our world requires the destruction of others. To survive in this "eat or be eaten" world, ethics are just an ornament on someone's else grave, or slavery collar. Reincarnation/Karma squares all ethical and unethical behavior...says true philosophy.

Is Free Will conditional? But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Is it still deemed as free will when one is persuaded to eat the fruit, through deceptive means? ...but of the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘You must not eat of it or touch it, or you will die.’” “You will not surely die,” the serpent told her. “For God knows that in the day you eat of it, your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” 

Adam and Eve had been given a bad apple from God, as He exposed them to evil without first giving them the knowledgeable of good and evil. Whereby, with that knowledge, they could have recognized the lie, and therefore avoided the mortal sin....disobedience.  Was it ethical for God to expose his two created children to dangers without giving them proper instructions on how to avoid them and survive in the garden without worries, pain and work? But the real question in the story is, who lied, God or the serpent? What is the real moral of the story, ethically speaking? And what of slavery in the story? Is not slavery a form of punishment? Is not a form of bodily slavery having to do something mandatory?  For instance, eating is mandatory for living.

To the woman he said, “I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children.Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”

To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’ “Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.” 

That was a savage punishment for two that were put in a catch-22 position, ethically speaking. Imagine being placed between God and His devil without any knowledge of His Good or His Evil!

I believe, rather than I don't believe.

I believe the Garden of Eden is an Affirmation of a Savage Garden.

I believe the sun should never set upon an argument
I believe we place our happiness in other people's hands
I believe that junk food tastes so good because it's bad for you
I believe your parents did the best job they knew how to do
I believe that beauty magazines promote low self esteem
I believe I'm loved when I'm completely by myself alone

I believe in Karma what you give is what you get returned
I believe you can't appreciate real love until you've been burned
I believe the grass is no more greener on the other side
I believe you don't know what you've got until you say goodbye

I believe you can't control or choose your sexuality
I believe that trust is more important than monogamy
I believe that your most attractive features are your heart and soul
I believe that family is worth more than money or gold
I believe the struggle for financial freedom isn't fair
I believe the only ones who disagree are millionaires

I believe in Karma what you give is what you get returned
I believe you can't appreciate real love until you've been burned
I believe the grass is no more greener on the other side

I believe you don't know what you've got until you say goodbye

I believe forgiveness is the key to your unhappiness
I believe that wedded bliss negates the need to be undressed
I believe that God does not endorse TV evangelists

 

[Habitat]

8 hours ago, Sherapy said:

Perhaps for you there is no purpose, and we each contribute in the ways that suit us, for me as a mother, it isn’t/wasn’t about being better than, but being better for, being more of service, being what I wished to see. 

I am the kind of mom that sought the feedback of my offspring, not about how great I was, but what could I do to change, which in turn inspired me to be of better service to them. 

Do no harm, there are many paths to this as well as away and slavery and rape serve no sustainable purpose, other than to conclude “Never do this”.

 

 

This is not about how good people are to their children, it is about attitudes of superiority to others that make it easier for people to rationalize exploiting others, that makes them think that it is nothing more than the natural order of things. Generally speaking, even the worst of those people are protective of their own children.

[Habitat]

8 hours ago, eight bits said:

When I said that waterboarding was an advance over the rack, you thought I meant what?

Who's feeling superior? I make different mistakes than my predecessors, not fewer or nicer ones. Which, by the way, is one of the points of studying history, as you asked. As little comfort as it is to make different mistakes, it still beats making the same ones over and over.

As I say, there are no prizes for being smart after the event, pointing the finger at past evils, but being unable to identify present ones, is no gain, those in the past possibly thought all was well in the ordering of society, and we can only assume they did, in a democracy where slavery existed.

[eight bits]

While we're not awarding prizes, Habbie, what's your ethical basis for excluding the views of slaves when estimating the degree of anti-slavery sentiment prevalent in slaveholding societies? Slaves' perspectives don't count in your calculations?

There is no paradox at all of a majority view failing to dominate in a democracy. Only a minority of adult Americans could vote prior to 1865, with only slow improvement thereafter. No women could vote, no slaves could vote, in some times and places no people who didn't pay taxes (= neither owners of

real property nor holders of "faculties," such as medical or legal practices) could vote.

Bottom line, property owners cut other property owners a break, to the detriment of disenfranchised non-property owners. Is that really such a mystery to you? Are you that innocent of history?

Added to which, several posters here have identified present evils, but apparently things like torturing prisoners and exploitation of non-unionized labor fly beneath your moral radar.

34 minutes ago, Habitat said:

pointing the finger at past evils

beats the hell out of explaining away their immorality as "viability" issues or even as necessities.

[Habitat]

18 minutes ago, eight bits said:

While we're not awarding prizes, Habbie, what's your ethical basis for excluding the views of slaves when estimating the degree of anti-slavery sentiment prevalent in slaveholding societies? Slaves' perspectives don't count in your calculations?

Like any sensible person, I assume the slaves are not in favour of slavery, hardly needs much thinking about, but thanks for bringing me up to date about the then US voting system, which seems not to have been democratic at all. I guess we'll be left wondering what the attitude of the majority was to slavery.

"When this country was first founded, only White men who owned land were allowed to vote. Lawmakers believed that only property owners had enough at stake in the country to vote responsibly. By the early 1800s, the property requirement was replaced with a poll tax, which required citizens to pay a special fee in order to vote. Poll taxes were made illegal by the 24th amendment to the Constitution in 1964."

Edited April 20, 2019 by Habitat