Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on March 16, 2017, 12:30:53 AM
-
Does time mean owning people was OK?
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/king-no-president-owned-human-beings-honored-article-1.2998816
-
Does time mean owning people was OK?
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/king-no-president-owned-human-beings-honored-article-1.2998816
No, but their mindset was different in those days.
Many of the things we think of as right and wrong come from things we learn in society around us.
Once it was common to see Gay people as " wrong"
We look back with the benefit of hindsight.
The people living at that time didn't have that.
Not everyone has an independent moral code, most of it appears to be formed by the society we live in.
If that society suddenly says a group of people are responsible for our lack of wealth/demise it suddenly becomes ok to victimise them. It happens to us too. We call it propaganda. Which is just a form of " moral guidance" and an attempt to move us in a certain direction.
A lot of slave owners in the past, would not have thought about the inhumanity, because society and their lives told them it was ok, just like Nazi Germany thought it was ok to deal with the Jewish problem.
A lot of people don't realise how much the society around them influences their ethical choices, but it does.
Gay people didn't get equality or many rights until societies mindset had altered enough to allow it.
We may in the future be criticised for something we do, we just can't see it yet.
So those people who owned slaves were not really any worse than us, we have the benefit of society telling us it was wrong.
If you want examples, it's like castes in India believing the untouchables are...., well untouchable.
When people have a certain mindset, they don't see the harm that happens to others due to their attitude.
I wish in some ways I was blind to the fact that so much of our morals/ethics are dictated by influences around us, but it's everywhere.
People who behave with inhumanity, because society validates the inhumanity.
Unfortunately religion doesn't seem to change anything.
It's people.
So although I think slavery is always wrong, I recognise the age and attitude in which someone lives influences their actions.
Hitler used propaganda to make it ok to murder people, just like other governments all over the world use it.
It's a scary part of people, that they can be talked out of their humanity and not even be aware of it. Religion doesn't prevent it ( for all its claims of a fixed morality) sometimes it becomes a form of inhumanity in its own right.
Frightening, imo.
So I acknowledge the fact those presidents had slaves, but it was in a large part, the times in which they lived.
-
There was never any excuse for owning slaves and treating them in such a cruel way. >:(
-
Cutting up cows, pigs, sheep, chicken and relishing their flesh......will hopefully seem immoral some time in the future. Then we can say....it was never right in the first place!
-
Does time mean owning people was OK?
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/king-no-president-owned-human-beings-honored-article-1.2998816
who knows what people did to each other 10,000 years ago ?
forget it and move on .
-
Cutting up cows, pigs, sheep, chicken and relishing their flesh......will hopefully seem immoral some time in the future. Then we can say....it was never right in the first place!
Yes, you could be right.
But by then societies mindset will have changed to the point that they won't understand why people ate animal flesh in the first place.
They won't look at it with any real understanding of how life is for us, in our societies.
They might even think they are better than "us" because "they" wouldn't make that mistake.
But they are as much a product of their societies as we are.
Their future will judge them, perhaps for eating plants, instead of just fruits.
We are all a product of the society around us, you come from a society that is more accepting of vegetarianism ( I think :) ) whereas vegetarians are rarer here ( although the number seems to be growing).
If you could take a person as a baby and plant them in a society that thought you had to sacrifice a child so the sun came up, they would grow up accepting that, initially.
It's the same with slavery, if you were brought up with the attitude that you owned others who were less than you, initially it would just be reality to you.
Everyone likes to think that they would be different and have the same morality/ethics as they have now, but I don't think they would.
I think if Floo, for example, had been raised with slaves serving her and that they were less, it isn't a foregone conclusion that she would have the morality/ethics she holds now.
People who are famous for standing up for human rights, are famous because they are unusual, but even for them society has to be ready to hear the message.
-
We had staff when I was a child but they were treated well. My sisters and I had to be respectful and call them Mr, Mrs or Miss. I am still in touch with one lady, who worked for us, who will be 100 this year.
-
who knows what people did to each other 10,000 years ago ?
forget it and move on .
The problem is it's not 10,000 years ago, it's now, today!
Slavery still exists, even in the UK.
Not legally, but it's still here.
The thing is seeing it, being aware.
People today find reasons and justifications why other people are worth less than them, it validates their own position in society.
Sexism, racism, class, nationality all ways of splitting people.
For ages society, on one level has accepted, cheap foreign labour picking fruit for wages most wouldn't look at.
What's the difference?
Yes they get paid, a pittance.
But essentially it's considered ok because it's not us, earning the pittance.
a whole load of them drowned a few years back, collecting shell fish and it pricked the national conscience
But how many years had they been put at risk? Before that?
How much of a blind eye do we have, because it suits us?
Those are the sort of things the future generations may well judge us on.
-
We had staff when I was a child but they were treated well. My sisters and I had to be respectful and call them Mr, Mrs or Miss. I am still in touch with one lady, who worked for us, who will be 100 this year.
There were slave owners who would have said the same things.
The only difference is they " bought" their "staff" from someone else upfront.
When we hear about slavery, we normally only hear about the bad owners.
I'm sure there were good owners as well.
The thing is, did you ever question your role, and their role as "staff"
The slaves were seen like their "staff" if they were treated well it acted as a justification, they got " bed and board."
If it's normal to have staff or servants, who are not free, who work for bed and board, who questions the status quo?
Not every slave owner would have been bad, not every slave owner would have questioned the status quo.
They would have said, "we treat our slaves well, they get bed and board"
The ones who stood against it challenged the status Quo.
Few people do that, which is why human rights leaders are famous.
If it was common sense, we wouldn't need them to address the issues, because there wouldn't be any issues.
It never makes slavery right. However I can see the people in the past are like people now, we don't always challenge the status quo.
-
Cutting up cows, pigs, sheep, chicken and relishing their flesh......will hopefully seem immoral some time in the future. Then we can say....it was never right in the first place!
In your dreams!
-
There were slave owners who would have said the same things.
The only difference is they " bought" their "staff" from someone else upfront.
When we hear about slavery, we normally only hear about the bad owners.
I'm sure there were good owners as well.
The thing is, did you ever question your role, and their role as "staff"
The slaves were seen like their "staff" if they were treated well it acted as a justification, they got " bed and board."
If it's normal to have staff or servants, who are not free, who work for bed and board, who questions the status quo?
Not every slave owner would have been bad, not every slave owner would have questioned the status quo.
They would have said, "we treat our slaves well, they get bed and board"
The ones who stood against it challenged the status Quo.
Few people do that, which is why human rights leaders are famous.
If it was common sense, we wouldn't need them to address the issues, because there wouldn't be any issues.
It never makes slavery right. However I can see the people in the past are like people now, we don't always challenge the status quo.
Glad you can see it because I can't! >:(
-
Read this, it might help.
http://storycartel.com/blog/thing-good-slave-owner/
Plus this
http://slaveryfootprint.org/slavery/website/survey/#where_do_you_live
Most people are blind to the ways "they" support slavery today.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_Footprint
It's much easier to demonise characters in the past that address our own issues.
-
Does time mean owning people was OK?
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/king-no-president-owned-human-beings-honored-article-1.2998816
You cannot compare owning a slave with what Hitler did.
It is all about how you treat human beings.
Slaves were not all treated properly but they worked and were fed. Some had good owners some had bad owners
but the same can be said of children and parents. It all has to to with the person owning the slaves.
In the case of Hitler NO JEW was safe and all treated far worse then slaves.
You might as well compare everything including bad parents, bad animal owners, Paedophiles and all who who harm another in some way.
Slave owners whether presidents or not cannot be compared to being equal to the MONSTER called Adolph Hitler.
There were slaves here and in America but Hitler killed millions of Jews in every country he took the power from.
Tyrants cannot be compared to slave owners. Who knows how many people are alive and well who came down from slaves.
Where is the decendants of the those murdered in the holocaust.
This man who wrote the article needs to stop trying to make things equal to the extermination of a race and religion of people to someone having their freedom removed and caused to serve.
Both situations were wrong but one was about extermination or slavery.
-
I find the idea that it is ok to own someone as long as you don't mistreat them in other ways just bizarre.
-
I find the idea that it is ok to own someone as long as you don't mistreat them in other ways just bizarre.
Whilst I find that not having lived through either we cannot compare now and then.
-
Whilst I find that not having lived through either we cannot compare now and then.
So you believe we shouldn't think that burning witches was wrong? After all, not as if they knew any better?
-
It can be argued - and has been argued - that the slave trade was not only sickeningly cruel, wasteful in the loss of tens of thousands of lives on the 'blackbirders', but responsible for the extinction of cf civilisations which had existed in Africa for millenia, and the creation of sub cultures in the US which caused civil unrest, death and misery for generations after the emancipation of slaves - civil unrest which continues. So, yes, slavery was every bit as evil in its own way as the extermination of slavs, disabled people, JWs, political dissidents, Christians as well as Jews in the Nazi obscenity.
-
Indeed, Anchorman and all those 'good' slaveowners who merely owned human beings and didn't beat any to death would have been knowledgeable of the if others who were seen withing their rights to beat their slaves and were complicit in the horror visited on them.
-
Yes. There's a great article here http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.586381 which Sass might like - from an American Jewish publication. If it doesn't make one stop and think, then there's a problem somewhere.
-
That is one powerful article Anchorman.
What Nearlysane said I agree with. However I do understand where Rose is coming from when she says that people in future generations might look back on us with horror at some of the things we countenanced.
Slavery is alive and well today all over the world despite being outlawed.
-
That is one powerful article Anchorman.
What Nearlysane said I agree with. However I do understand where Rose is coming from when she says that people in future generations might look back on us with horror at some of the things we countenanced.
Slavery is alive and well today all over the world despite being outlawed.
it is indeed but the effort to outlaw means it isn't countenanced. Will we be looked on in the sane way, well maybe if we haven't managed to destroy the our species and who knows what else. But that's essentially a tu quoque fallacy.
-
Spot on the fact that slavery is illegal means it isn't right even though it still happens. That counts fora helluva lot.
Society is fairer now in our part of the world & becoming more so. there will be stuff for which we'll be criticised, like you said our abuse of the planet may be one.
When I look at the past as you do with horror, those I admire were the reformers & people who ran underground networks. I'd like to think id've been on the side of the 'angels' had I lived then but can only imagine.
-
it is indeed but the effort to outlaw means it isn't countenanced. Will we be looked on in the sane way, well maybe if we haven't managed to destroy the our species and who knows what else. But that's essentially a tu quoque fallacy.
NS
I've noticed you're quite partial to one or tu quoque's recently. Is it something new you're exploring?
-
So you believe we shouldn't think that burning witches was wrong? After all, not as if they knew any better?
We know allowing people to be made homeless and live on the streets is wrong. Have you or anyone here done anything about it?
The witches once burned their own children as sacrifices in their pagan rituals do you not think what goes around comes around.
If you believe Christianity and the devil are made up then ultimately the only people responsible for 'wrongs' are human beings.
In which case as 'free will' exists no one forces mankind to do these things,. then it still remains human beings fault.
Whatever you do or see being done which is wrong. LOOK at who and what causes the wrong to be done.
Who got in those boats and went to foreign lands and decided to bring those men and women back as slaves?
Who burned the witches? They did not do it to themselves? Why become witches? That is right not everyone burned was a witch just accused. Why did the colour of the skin become a right to make those human beings slaves?
You can make all the cheap shots you care to make but ultimately all you need is human beings to do evil.
-
The last witches in my island home were apparently burnt in one of the fields, which belonged to our property. :o
-
We know allowing people to be made homeless and live on the streets is wrong. Have you or anyone here done anything about it?
The witches once burned their own children as sacrifices in their pagan rituals do you not think what goes around comes around.
If you believe Christianity and the devil are made up then ultimately the only people responsible for 'wrongs' are human beings.
In which case as 'free will' exists no one forces mankind to do these things,. then it still remains human beings fault.
Whatever you do or see being done which is wrong. LOOK at who and what causes the wrong to be done.
Who got in those boats and went to foreign lands and decided to bring those men and women back as slaves?
Who burned the witches? They did not do it to themselves? Why become witches? That is right not everyone burned was a witch just accused. Why did the colour of the skin become a right to make those human beings slaves?
You can make all the cheap shots you care to make but ultimately all you need is human beings to do evil.
...... the bleeding obvious!
-
We know allowing people to be made homeless and live on the streets is wrong. Have you or anyone here done anything about it?
The witches once burned their own children as sacrifices in their pagan rituals do you not think what goes around comes around.
If you believe Christianity and the devil are made up then ultimately the only people responsible for 'wrongs' are human beings.
In which case as 'free will' exists no one forces mankind to do these things,. then it still remains human beings fault.
Whatever you do or see being done which is wrong. LOOK at who and what causes the wrong to be done.
Who got in those boats and went to foreign lands and decided to bring those men and women back as slaves?
Who burned the witches? They did not do it to themselves? Why become witches? That is right not everyone burned was a witch just accused. Why did the colour of the skin become a right to make those human beings slaves?
You can make all the cheap shots you care to make but ultimately all you need is human beings to do evil.
Just to note tfat you have now accepted that slave oening was evil and can be judged in that sense as the same as thr point of the article.
-
And there is no reliable evidence of witches burning their - or anyone else's - children. Propaganda.
-
Cutting up cows, pigs, sheep, chicken and relishing their flesh......will hopefully seem immoral some time in the future. Then we can say....it was never right in the first place!
Sririam, there is a programme advertised today on BBC iPlayer called 'Carnage' (not to be confused with an earlier BBC2 programme of same name):
"Presenting itself as a history documentary made in a utopian 2067, when humans have long been banned from enslaving and eating other animals. It chronicles shifting attitudes to meat over the previous 125 years."
There's more said, that it has bite, wit and satire and stars a well known English actress of whom you may not have heard, Linda Bassett.
I read your post earlier and thought you find find 'Carnage' worth a watch if you can get it. I will watch it over the next few days.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2017/simon-amstell-carnage
-
And there is no reliable evidence of witches burning their - or anyone else's - children. Propaganda.
Go back to sleep Anchorman. You do not just service to God or man, because everything is really about you.
Wiccan a good place to start but try not to hide behind any straw men the sun just might set it on fire and singe your bum.
-
I didn't know of Wiccan followers burning children Sassy. From where did you get the information? I've read about Moloch the ancient pagan god of child sacrifice.
You were right when you said many people were burned as witches who were not witches, just accused of witchcraft.It was scandalous.
Plus as yousaid it's always people who do the evil& that's regardless of any religion to which they pay lip service.
-
Go back to sleep Anchorman. You do not just service to God or man, because everything is really about you.
Wiccan a good place to start but try not to hide behind any straw men the sun just might set it on fire and singe your bum.
-
Please provide substantiated evidence of proven witches burning their children, Sass.
Thanks.
-
Ankerman, I do not know if this is substantial evidence but I found this article (wholesome reading before retiring - not):
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Child-Sacrifice_among_European_Witches
-
Ankerman, I do not know if this is substantial evidence but I found this article (wholesome reading before retiring - not):
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Child-Sacrifice_among_European_Witches
you read the first sentence and weren't sure?
-
It is true according to some Christian writers, I've no idea if it is true or not but might tail in with what sassie has gleanedf from internet. PERsonally i am sceptical about everything I read on internet butjust put it in. My computer has been out of action for a day or mroe, had to use someone else's so was eager to post on my own when I got up briefly.No more than that. I've no bias.
-
Go back to sleep Anchorman. You do not just service to God or man, because everything is really about you.
Wiccan a good place to start but try not to hide behind any straw men the sun just might set it on fire and singe your bum.
Sass, you are talking about yourself as usual! ::)
-
Let's be honest here. In their zeal to enact the Leviticus injunction (whilst blithely ignoring other injunctions in the same book and the fact that, if they were indeed Christian, the New Covenant supercedes them all), certain authors either invented or grossly exaggerated the crimes of so-called witches in order to warm their hands at what they saw was a holy bonfire. Did pagans commit Human sacrifice? Almost certainly in prehistoric Europe. Definitely in predynastic Egypt Yes, the Romans wrote blood-soaked accounts of how they cleansed their territory of those nasty druids - but those accounts have to be taken under advisement and with a lot of caution. The fact is that thousands of innocent victims were sacrificed to the flames of prejudice by a semi-literate European Christendom. We still need to apologise for that.
-
My inclincation is to agree with you anchorman (& i posted previously about Molech), but await Sassy's response.
-
NS,
Does time mean owning people was OK?
Strange article - effectively, "according to my 21st century morality what this 19th century President did was morally wrong". Well yes, according to contemporary morality it was. In his day though, presumably President Jackson was considered a moral exemplar on this issue. Hitler by contrast was widely considered a moral monster in his own time time albeit not according to Nazi doctrine specifically, so it's a poor analogy.
-
NS,
Strange article - effectively, "according to my 21st century morality what this 19th century President did was morally wrong". Well yes, according to contemporary morality it was. In his day though, presumably President Jackson was considered a moral exemplar on this issue. Hitler by contrast was widely considered a moral monster in his time time albeit not according to Nazi doctrine specifically, so it's a poor analogy.
Except as it points out there were prior Presidents who choose not to have slavea because of moral objections. Surely your approach is an ad populum? And yes I'm aware that we are not talking truths here but the effect of establishing that what is agreed is what is moral means that any argument to change morality is immoral.
-
NS,
Except as it points out there were prior Presidents who choose not to have slavea because of moral objections. Surely your approach is an ad populum? And yes I'm aware that we are not talking truths here but the effect of establishing that what is agreed is what is moral means that any argument to change morality is immoral.
I think to a large extent that the moral Zeitgeist is an ad pop, yes - how could it be otherwise? I'm not particularly familiar with Andrew Jackson, but as I understand it he was President at a time when slave ownership was a commonplace and largely morally acceptable. That others before him objected is interesting, but he doesn't seem to have been swimming against his contemporary moral tide to any great extent. Possibly (to pick up Sriram's point) those predecessors are the equivalents of today's vegetarians - outliers who point the way to a future wide scale moral shift?
-
NS,
I think to a large extent that the moral Zeitgeist is an ad pop, yes - how could it be otherwise? I'm not particularly familiar with Andrew Jackson, but as I understand it he was President at a time when slave ownership was a commonplace and largely morally acceptable. That others before him objected is interesting, but he doesn't seem to have been swimming against his contemporary moral tide to any great extent. Possibly (to pick up Sriram's point) those predecessors are the equivalents of today's vegetarians - outliers who point the way to a future wide scale moral shift?
He was about when the campaign to abolish slavery was happening in the UK, so while commonplace, the alternative was also well known. Anf as the article covers his was not a 'benign' ownership. Further if we say it's not correct to judge actions based on historical zeitgeists, then much of your position on religion being bad is undermined as anything historical was just the zeitgeist. Worse, it is surely, correct to extend this from historic positions to cultural zeitgeists.
There seems a danger here, that in seeking to 'understand' we fall into a trap of going nuclear on morality.
-
NS,
He was about when the campaign to abolish slavery was happening in the UK, so while commonplace, the alternative was also well known.
Well known perhaps, but not the Zeitgeist by any means. Again, the carnivore/vegetarian analogy comes to mind - I eat meat and I'm about when others don't. Does that make me immoral?
Anf as the article covers his was not a 'benign' ownership.
Which is a tougher call. Even if the principle “slavery is wrong” had yet to gain traction, cruelty would presumably have been less acceptable. As I understand it, that’s basically the biblical approach – “slavery is fine, but treat them reasonably”.
Further if we say it's not correct to judge actions based on historical zeitgeists, then much of your position on religion being bad is undermined as anything historical was just the zeitgeist.
It’s not quite that. You can “judge” historical actions according to the contemporary morality (ie, whether or not the person was an outlier in his time), but applying contemporary morality to historic behaviours is a mistake.
Of course “bad” is itself a moral judgment. I happen to think that lots of people dying now because of a prohibition on contraception is morally bad, just as by my standards lots of people being slaughtered in religious crusades was morally bad. The difference though is that crusaders were consistent with their moral Zeitgeist whereas (arguably at least) the RCs are not. Whether there are enough catholics who believe a contraception ban to be morally good to constitute a Zeitgeist is another matter though.
Worse…
Worse than what?
…it is surely, correct to extend this from historic positions to cultural zeitgeists.
Not sure of your point here?
There seems a danger here, that in seeking to 'understand' we fall into a trap of going nuclear on morality.
Going nuclear is the position that, as your truths rest on axioms and so do mine, we’re even-stevens. Morality seems to me to be a mix of instinct and reason, but as a practical matter the Zetgeist means we treat outliers – murderers for example – as wrong rather than afford them equal moral status.
-
Just to note I don't have time to do bluehillside's most excellent post justice now but I shall return
-
NS
I've noticed you're quite partial to one or tu quoque's recently. Is it something new you're exploring?
No, it just seems as if people use them more frequently
-
(lots of excellent stuff cut out to save time)
Going nuclear is the position that, as your truths rest on axioms and so do mine, we’re even-stevens. Morality seems to me to be a mix of instinct and reason, but as a practical matter the Zetgeist means we treat outliers – murderers for example – as wrong rather than afford them equal moral status.
But that then is merely descriptive, and just because you happen to agree with a majority at any one time means we are back at an ad pop. Essentially to me, your position seems to be that whatever is allowed is allowed. You are not really making any prescriptive judgement just saying that whatever happens is fine. That's why I see it ad an example of going nuclear, and in such a way that any attempt at a moral argument is rendered meaningless because it can only be descriptive.
-
NS,
But that then is merely descriptive, and just because you happen to agree with a majority at any one time means we are back at an ad pop.
I don’t understand your “but” and "merely" here, but more or less yes. Note though that an ad pop for claim of fact is a different matter from an ad pop for a claim of judgment. I see morality as akin to aesthetics for this purpose (or perhaps even as a branch of it) – the fashion for Victorian paintings for example has waxed and waned and waxed again over time with no absolute rule for artistic merit.
Just to develop that for a minute, the analogy is actually quite a close one I think – we intuit artistic merit to some degree (the golden ratio for example) and we reason our way to it too. I see the same thing with morality – some thing just “feel” right or wrong, but we’re also susceptible to argument.
Essentially to me, your position seems to be that whatever is allowed is allowed. You are not really making any prescriptive judgement just saying that whatever happens is fine.
“Fine” is wrong – I may well think that the prevailing morality is anything but fine, but again essentially yes. On what basis could I make a prescriptive judgment about morality even if I was inclined to do so? How for example would I know that my moral position on a given question today was any more “correct” than the moral position of a 17th century slave owner?
That's why I see it ad an example of going nuclear, and in such a way that any attempt at a moral argument is rendered meaningless because it can only be descriptive.
No, it’s only those things if you also claim certainty. Stick with, “this is the moral landscape I would like to occupy and that I think you’d like to occupy too and here's why” and you have a basis to argue your corner perfectly well. That it may be that more people than not agree with you (about murder for example) is an observation of fact about numbers, but not about the correctness of the Zeitgeist.
-
If morality is a matter of personal taste,how do you make any rational argument for a position. If I like Marmite and someone doesn't there is no rational discussion about it.
-
No, it just seems as if people use them more frequently
have you had many yourself?
-
NS,
If morality is a matter of personal taste,how do you make any rational argument for a position. If I like Marmite and someone doesn't there is no rational discussion about it.
Easily. I might for example say something like, "a society that practices equality of treatment and opportunity will tend to be interact more harmoniously and therefore as members of it my and your interests will be best served if we support measures to that effect". I make no claim there to an absolute truth, and my audience might in any case just say, "to hell with that, I'm in it for all I can get" but that's all I have. That's my argument.
-
NS,
Easily. I might for example say something like, "a society that practices equality of treatment and opportunity will tend to be interact more harmoniously and therefore as members of it my and your interests will be best served if we support measures to that effect". I make no claim there to an absolute truth, and my audience might in any case just say, "to hell with that, I'm in it for all I can get" but that's all I have. That's my argument.
Which is just a long version of 'I like it', it has no rational basis, especially as you think that it cannot be consistently justified through history or culture
-
NS,
Which is just a long version of 'I like it', it has no rational basis, especially as you think that it cannot be consistently justified through history or culture
What's irrational about liking something?
-
NS,
What's irrational about liking something?
It's not irrational, it's arational. It doesn't allow for any further discussion just as there is no point to having a rational discussion of whether someone should agree with you about liking Marmite
-
It's not irrational, it's arational. It doesn't allow for any further discussion just as there is no point to having a rational discussion of whether someone should agree with you about liking Marmite
Most of life does not have a rational basis - why would it? Nevertheless, stuff can still be discussed. Marmite advertising will have an effect, it can even exploit people not liking Marmite.
Beliefs, behaviour and morality can be discussed and discussion can change how some people feel about some issues. Just as views on the morality of slave ownership have changed over time.
If some principles are accepted in common at the start of a discussion this can be a rational, logical, discussion if desired.
-
Most of life does not have a rational basis - why would it? Nevertheless, stuff can still be discussed. Marmite advertising will have an effect, it can even exploit people not liking Marmite.
Beliefs, behaviour and morality can be discussed and discussion can change how some people feel about some issues. Just as views on the morality of slave ownership have changed over time.
If some principles are accepted in common at the start of a discussion this can be a rational, logical, discussion if desired.
Indeed, but the principles seem to be based in arational likes. Given that blue hillside takes a position that the zeitgeist has some impact over and above being descriptive (note, I may be getting him wrong on that), I am struggling to see how morality is not just a matter of personal taste.
-
Indeed, but the principles seem to be based in arational likes. Given that blue hillside takes a position that the zeitgeist has some impact over and above being descriptive (note, I may be getting him wrong on that), I am struggling to see how morality is not just a matter of personal taste.
does that include kid fiddling?
-
NS,
It's not irrational, it's arational. It doesn't allow for any further discussion just as there is no point to having a rational discussion of whether someone should agree with you about liking Marmite
Why is it arational? Being murdered could be painful and distressing for myself and for those who'd grieve for me. It's entirely rational therefore to avoid suffering it if I can, and so I describe murder as "immoral". I also avoid doing it to others instinctively because it has no appeal, and rationally because I expect others to behave reciprocally. As a rationale for "murder is immoral", we can discuss that as much as you like.
As for Marmite, that's different. Someone else liking or disliking it has no effect on me; someone liking or disliking murder on the other hand...
(Though that does open the interesting line about whether anything done in private between consenting adults could be called immoral. I think it can be, but it's a more attenuated argument than the position about murder).
-
NS,
Indeed, but the principles seem to be based in arational likes. Given that blue hillside takes a position that the zeitgeist has some impact over and above being descriptive (note, I may be getting him wrong on that),
You are to the extent that the descriptive is all that's necessary - indeed all we have. Why the descriptions are as they are, why they change etc is interesting but ultimately there's nothing else I can point to for authority.
-
NS,
Why is it arational? Being murdered could be painful and distressing for myself and for those who'd grieve for me. It's entirely rational therefore to avoid suffering it if I can, and so I describe murder as "immoral". I also avoid doing it to others instinctively because it has no appeal, and rationally because I expect others to behave reciprocally. As a rationale for "murder is immoral", we can discuss that as much as you like.
As for Marmite, that's different. Someone else liking or disliking it has no effect on me; someone liking or disliking murder on the other hand...
(Though that does open the interesting line about whether anything done in private between consenting adults could be called immoral. I think it can be, but it's a more attenuated argument than the position about murder).
If you then apply that though then the argument that you cannot criticise people in differing times or cultures if they act within the zeitgeist has to fall then. It's what seems to me the inconsistency in your position that I am struggling with. If it us rational then it is so in all times and cultures.
-
NS,
You are to the extent that the descriptive is all that's necessary - indeed all we have. Why the descriptions are as they are, why they change etc is interesting but ultimately there's nothing else I can point to for authority.
I think as I have just posted in other reply, that you have an inconsistent position in arguing that there are rational arguments for a morality but that they can't be used to judge others in a different zeitgeist.
-
NS,
If you then apply that though then the argument that you cannot criticise people in differing times or cultures if they act within the zeitgeist has to fall then. It's what seems to me the inconsistency in your position that I am struggling with. If it us rational then it is so in all times and cultures.
This doesn’t make sense. If the moral Zeitgeist in the 18th century about, say, slavery was that it was fine then within that context the slave owner would have been behaving morally well. The outliers would have been the early abolitionists who – again by the standards of the time – behaved morally badly. What was rational to the former does not seem rational to me now, whereas for the latter it’s the other way around. Rational thinking isn’t set in stone – it changes and develops over time. “On Liberty” for example wasn’t published until 1859, and it had a profound effect on the abolition of slavery. It changed the Zeitgeist.
Science and technology incidentally has a role to play too. If non-caucasians were once thought at a fundamental level to be different such that the difference could support the notion of inferiority, the premise was swept away by the discovery of genes. Similar things may be happening just now with new discoveries about other species.
I think as I have just posted in other reply, that you have an inconsistent position in arguing that there are rational arguments for a morality but that they can't be used to judge others in a different zeitgeist.
No, for the reason I just set out. Rational argument may be the best we have, but there’s no appeal to certainty. Who’s to say for example that an equivalent to “On Liberty" might not be published tomorrow that shifts things again? The work of Peter Stringer on animal rights for example could be doing that even as we speak.
-
NS,
This doesn’t make sense. If the moral Zeitgeist in the 18th century about, say, slavery was that it was fine then within that context the slave owner would have been behaving morally well. The outliers would have been the early abolitionists who – again by the standards of the time – behaved morally badly. What was rational to the former does not seem rational to me now, whereas for the latter it’s the other way around. Rational thinking isn’t set in stone – it changes and develops over time. “On Liberty” for example wasn’t published until 1859, and it had a profound effect on the abolition of slavery. It changed the Zeitgeist.
Science and technology incidentally has a role to play too. If non-caucasians were once thought at a fundamental level to be different such that the difference could support the notion of inferiority, the premise was swept away by the discovery of genes. Similar things may be happening just now with new discoveries about other species.
No, for the reason I just set out. Rational argument may be the best we have, but there’s no appeal to certainty. Who’s to say for example that an equivalent to “On Liberty" might not be published tomorrow that shifts things again? The work of Peter Stringer on animal rights for example could be doing that even as we speak.
We're back at this effectively being the going nuclear option. There cannot be an appeal to anything, never mind certainty, if you allow that rationality changes in this way because there is no way to show that what you now argue is rational.
-
NS,
We're back at this effectively being the going nuclear option. There cannot be an appeal to anything, never mind certainty, if you allow that rationality changes in this way because there is no way to show that what you now argue is rational.
No we're not. Going nuclear entails treating all axioms as if they are equivalent - effectively, "OK I'm guessing, but so are you". Rationalism on the other hand involves accepting the argument that cannot be falsified and that itself falsifies the arguments that came before it – a sort of last man standing position.
That's all that's being said here. I take a last man standing approach to the rationalism that supports my morality, but I make no claim to that man not being replaced by a different one in due course.
-
We're back at this effectively being the going nuclear option. There cannot be an appeal to anything, never mind certainty, if you allow that rationality changes in this way because there is no way to show that what you now argue is rational.
Is this really a problem? You are trying to get to a rational foundation for morality but there is no reason to think there is one, it could be that the foundation is an arbitrary set of instincts. In the end there is nothing to fall back on except your own human/animal existence - which, in my mind, is also the source of religion.
At a practical level, BHS's best so far/best can do approach seems fine to me.
Even in science and maths, the further you drill down, contrary to the 19th century mechanised world view, the more possibilities there are, the more different models can be constructed - but they are "ideal" - we must use practical methods to choose between them.
-
Is this really a problem? You are trying to get to a rational foundation for morality but there is no reason to think there is one, it could be that the foundation is an arbitrary set of instincts. In the end there is nothing to fall back on except your own human/animal existence - which, in my mind, is also the source of religion.
At a practical level, BHS's best so far/best can do approach seems fine to me.
Even in science and maths, the further you drill down, contrary to the 19th century mechanised world view, the more possibilities there are, the more different models can be constructed - but they are "ideal" - we must use practical methods to choose between them.
But the best so far/best approach can be based on nothing and have no practical method to choose unless there is something more to morality then just instincts. The 'problem' as I see it is that you cannot use the Zeitgeist of morality at a time to tell you that it is the best so far/best, it's the thing that most people believe at any one time and any one culture.
Now is this a major issue day to day, no, but it's something that I and it appears blue are interested in.
-
It was always wrong,people in the past didnt realise how wrong it was because they were conditioned. Some were prepared to step out of the box and fight, not everyone is the stuff of martyrs made.
Now there isabsolutely no excuse!
-
"The 'what should be' never did exist, but people keep trying to live up to it. There is no 'what should be,' there is only what is."
Lenny Bruce
-
Well said.
-
"The 'what should be' never did exist, but people keep trying to live up to it. There is no 'what should be,' there is only what is."
Lenny Bruce
Which mean best so far/best is meaningless.
-
But the best so far/best approach can be based on nothing and have no practical method to choose unless there is something more to morality then just instincts. The 'problem' as I see it is that you cannot use the Zeitgeist of morality at a time to tell you that it is the best so far/best, it's the thing that most people believe at any one time and any one culture.
Now is this a major issue day to day, no, but it's something that I and it appears blue are interested in.
I think a practical base/method can be constructed based on empathy, inclusive of other species, and agreement with others. - Essentially the Sam Harris approach but without the pretence of a scientific foundation.
-
Which mean best so far/best is meaningless.
hmm. "what is" is the result of everything in the past including our own conciousness and, with our choices, determines everything in the future.
-
hmm. "what is" is the result of everything in the past including our own conciousness and, with our choices, determines everything in the future.
agree but that just means there is a chain of events, qualifying it as best so far/best implies a standard that doesn't exist.
-
NS,
But the best so far/best approach can be based on nothing and have no practical method to choose unless there is something more to morality then just instincts. The 'problem' as I see it is that you cannot use the Zeitgeist of morality at a time to tell you that it is the best so far/best, it's the thing that most people believe at any one time and any one culture.
Morality seems to me to be a mix of instinct (some things just feel “icky”/nice) and reason – the golden rule for example (“if I’m nice to people, chances are they’ll be nice to me in return”). The latter is falsification apt – if, say, I justified slave owning on the basis that my slaves were of a different species and so could be owned as other species are and that premise was then shown not to be true then the rationale for my moral position would have collapsed.
And that in practice is what happens. "On Liberty" for example directly informed the thinking of the abolitionists, and the change in attitudes to homosexuality over just one or two generations in response to more and more discussion about the nature of equality has been remarkable. Over time enough critical mass of reason builds up to change the Zeitgeist and so the prevailing morality changes.
It seems to me too that to a significant extent the instinctual response follows behind. Over time the sense of ickiness diminishes or increases, perhaps because it was culturally determined to start with.
Does that mean that morality is “based on nothing” as you suggest? I don’t think it does – it’s based (at least in part) on argument that’s cogent and unanswerable, underpinned by instincts that themselves can be fluid and adaptive.
Now is this a major issue day to day, no, but it's something that I and it appears blue are interested in.
Yes I am. My conclusion is that morality sits somewhere between “based on nothing” and the “objective morality” of some theists. It’s clearly based on something, albeit that that something is itself provisional.
-
-
Please provide substantiated evidence of proven witches burning their children, Sass.
Thanks.
The sacrifice was burned usually after their throats slit.
Read your history books instead of trying to defend the devil.
You got some nerve disrespecting God and his teachings ear ticklers they call you.
People pleaser and not God praiser. Typical mouth all mouth no heart. Your heart is far away from God hence you come out
with the above KNOWING you already know the proof and truth. That is if you have studied as you claim to have studied.
Christ would not give proof when asked to those who asked for the WRONG reason.
You want proof then go get it, it won't have changed that the Witches today or should we say Pagans have tried to separate themselves from their history.
It is something humans do. Look at the Germans the Nazis either the Germans deny the holocaust or they claim it has nothing to do with the Nazis today.
If you had any respect for God you would ask him to show you what you are doing wrong.
BUT you and pride are way ahead of anything God wants you to know. Sure in yourself and not the truth.
I would appreciate it, if you cannot put God first, that you do not reply to my post. Thank you
-
Does time mean owning people was OK?
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/king-no-president-owned-human-beings-honored-article-1.2998816
People would not have survived even whole families if slavery or service had not exist.
Not everyone is owned when a slave. But men did what was required to survive.
You cannot compare the Holocaust the murdering of 6 million Jews to the institution of slavery.
How does being made a president make you responsible for the countries decision to keep slaves?
Would slavery still be so big today if it had not come to bigger powerful countries of the world?
I feel that slavery was a world wide thing since time and memorial and that bringing it to America and other civilised
countries was what really brought an end to it in a big way.
Just a Britain and America brought the Holocaust to an end and freed those countries made/forced to be subservient to Germany.
Time had nothing to do with it. Mans choices had everything to do with it.
It is always more men than less men. No one man responsible. Abraham Lincoln got shot for his troubles.
What is it that they are still going on about slavery today?
-
The sacrifice was burned usually after their throats slit.
Read your history books instead of trying to defend the devil.
You got some nerve disrespecting God and his teachings ear ticklers they call you.
People pleaser and not God praiser. Typical mouth all mouth no heart. Your heart is far away from God hence you come out
with the above KNOWING you already know the proof and truth. That is if you have studied as you claim to have studied.
Christ would not give proof when asked to those who asked for the WRONG reason.
You want proof then go get it, it won't have changed that the Witches today or should we say Pagans have tried to separate themselves from their history.
It is something humans do. Look at the Germans the Nazis either the Germans deny the holocaust or they claim it has nothing to do with the Nazis today.
If you had any respect for God you would ask him to show you what you are doing wrong.
BUT you and pride are way ahead of anything God wants you to know. Sure in yourself and not the truth.
I would appreciate it, if you cannot put God first, that you do not reply to my post. Thank you
-
Nice rant.
However, there is far more evidence of the state burning and executing people on spurious grounds and putting 'witch' as a tag to justify it 0- and the evidence for THAT lies less than fifty yards from the Kirk I attend each Sunday morning.
Sadly, much of the 'witchcraft' allegations over the past thousand years has been the usual propaganda from over zealous buigots with an agenda, rather than those who accept Chrisyt's command to love - in all circumstances - and not set themselves up as ranting judges.