Unconditional surrender...?

[jeremyp]

To those beyond the narrow group who accepted human sacrifice at a particular time and a particular place.

But to those who did the human sacrificing, it was acceptable.

[ProfessorDavey]

But to those who did the human sacrificing, it was acceptable.

It was accepted, but I doubt it was even universally acceptable then - I doubt those on the receiving end of the human sacrifice found it acceptable.

Acceptable is a more universal notion than merely accepted, which is about time and place (and perhaps even individuals).

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

It was accepted, but I doubt it was even universally acceptable then - I doubt those on the receiving end of the human sacrifice found it acceptable.

Acceptable is a more universal notion than merely accepted, which is about time and place (and perhaps even individuals).

There is no more universal notion - you just made that up - especially as you cannot predict the future. What is more acceptable during a particular time can be less acceptable during another time. What is more acceptable/ accepted now may not be more acceptable/accepted in the future. That is currently the acceptable way that the word "acceptable" is used. It may be used in a different way in the future.

[ProfessorDavey]

There is no more universal notion - you just made that up - especially as you cannot predict the future. What is more acceptable during a particular time can be less acceptable during another time. What is more acceptable/ accepted now may not be more acceptable/accepted in the future. That is currently the acceptable way that the word "acceptable" is used. It may be used in a different way in the future.

What is more accepted at a particular time and place may be less accepted at another time. Whether it is acceptable is a different matter.

So Gabriella - we can both agree that human sacrifice was accepted in certain cultures in the past. Do you think human sacrifice is acceptable?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

What is more accepted at a particular time and place may be less accepted at another time. Whether it is acceptable is a different matter.

So Gabriella - we can both agree that human sacrifice was accepted in certain cultures in the past. Do you think human sacrifice is acceptable?

I think human sacrifice was accepted/ acceptable to a certain group of people and now is no longer accepted/acceptable to a certain group of people - though there may still be a small group of people to whom it is still accepted/acceptable. I am currently part of the group of people that thinks human sacrifice is not acceptable/accepted through had I been alive in a different time and place I might have found it acceptable and accepted it.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/04/human-sacrifice-may-have-helped-societies-become-more-complex   

[ProfessorDavey]

I am currently part of the group of people that thinks human sacrifice is not acceptable/accepted through had I been alive in a different time and place I might have found it acceptable and accepted it.

But as the person you are now do you think that it was acceptable to sacrifice humans in Aztec Mexico simply because the people of that culture accepted it.

I (and I suspect you) may accept that human sacrifice happened in Aztec Mexico (how could I not) and recognise that it was accepted practice by those people at that time, but still consider that the practice was unacceptable.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Your argument in #199 was that "although it was accepted at the time it was never acceptable."

It was acceptable at one time amongst a lot of cultures so using the word "never" was incorrect . I certainly agree that I do not find it acceptable now.

I, along with many others, may have found it acceptable if I had lived in a different era.

[ProfessorDavey]

Your argument in #199 was that "although it was accepted at the time it was never acceptable."

It was acceptable at one time amongst a lot of cultures so using the word "never" was incorrect . I certainly agree that I do not find it acceptable now.

I, along with many others, may have found it acceptable if I had lived in a different era.

Just because something was accepted doesn't mean it was acceptable. I don't belief human sacrifice is acceptable now and I don't think it was acceptable hundreds of years ago.

Do you disagree with me Gabriella - not in some hypothetical 'what might I have thought had I been around in the Aztec times' - no the views of the real Gabriella in the 21stC - do you really think that human sacrifice was acceptable (rather than accepted) in Aztec Mexico?

Your view please - not the views of ancient Aztec, nor the hypothetical view of you had you existed hundreds of years ago. Your view please - are you really arguing that human sacrifice was acceptable in your view.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Just because something was accepted doesn't mean it was acceptable. I don't belief human sacrifice is acceptable now and I don't think it was acceptable hundreds of years ago.

Do you disagree with me Gabriella - not in some hypothetical 'what might I have thought had I been around in the Aztec times' - no the views of the real Gabriella in the 21stC - do you really think that human sacrifice was acceptable (rather than accepted) in Aztec Mexico?

Your view please - not the views of ancient Aztec, nor the hypothetical view of you had you existed hundreds of years ago. Your view please - are you really arguing that human sacrifice was acceptable in your view.

I have already answered your question. Human sacrifice was acceptable previously so saying it was never acceptable is an incorrect use of English.

[ProfessorDavey]

I have already answered your question.

Nope - you've answered a different question - I am asking whether you, Gabriella, in Dec 2019 think it was acceptable for humans to be sacrificed in Aztec Mexico.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Per my previous answer -  I am currently part of the group of people that thinks human sacrifice is not acceptable/accepted.

I was referring to the present and the past in the case of human sacrifice. But for the avoidance of doubt and to answer your current question, my opinion is that I, in 2019, do not find human sacrifice acceptable now or in the past.

That is a different statement from saying human sacrifice was never acceptable as that becomes more than  just my opinion in 2019.

[ProfessorDavey]

I was referring to the present and the past in the case of human sacrifice. But for the avoidance of doubt and to answer your current question, my opinion is that I, in 2019, do not find human sacrifice acceptable now or in the past.

Which mean that you, just like me, think that human sacrifice is not acceptable (i.e. now) and was never acceptable (i.e. in the past).

So we are in complete agreement. We would both recognise that human sacrifice was accepted by some cultures in the past - we might also think that those cultured considered it to be acceptable but that we would disagree with them. We would think they were wrong in thinking that human sacrifice was acceptable (i.e. morally right) and therefore consider that human sacrifice was never morally right (i.e. acceptable) regardless of their views at the time.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Nope as I explained in the post you quoted - saying I do not think it is or was acceptable "is a different statement from saying human sacrifice was never acceptable as that becomes more than just my opinion in 2019."

So I think your statement that human sacrifice was never acceptable is an incorrect statement.

[Outrider]

Nope as I explained in the post you quoted - saying I do not think it is or was acceptable "is a different statement from saying human sacrifice was never acceptable as that becomes more than just my opinion in 2019."

So I think your statement that human sacrifice was never acceptable is an incorrect statement.

Can I suggest a possible way out of this - would you both agree that, whilst it might have been acceptable at the time (that was the culture of the time) it shouldn't have been, and that an objective moral analysis brings back the conclusion that it should always have been unacceptable?

O.

[Nearly Sane]

Can I suggest a possible way out of this - would you both agree that, whilst it might have been acceptable at the time (that was the culture of the time) it shouldn't have been, and that an objective moral analysis brings back the conclusion that it should always have been unacceptable?

O.

Is there such a thing as an 'objective moral analysis'?

[Outrider]

Is there such a thing as an 'objective moral analysis'?

If there isn't, what's the point in discussing anything about morality?

O.

[Steve H]

Perhaps some or all of the confusion would disappear if we dropped the tiresome modern word "unacceptable", which is too subjective, and said "immoral", or "wrong".

[Nearly Sane]

If there isn't, what's the point in discussing anything about morality?

O.

Because we have subjective opinions. Your position apart from being an argumentum ad populum effectively means that you don't think anything that doesn't have an 'objective' method can be discussed which would though beauty, love, emotions, poetry in the range of not to be discussed as pointless. Which may be a valid position but doesn't seem to be your's.

[Nearly Sane]

Perhaps some or all of the confusion would disappear if we dropped the tiresome modern word "unacceptable", which is too subjective, and said "immoral", or "wrong".

Aren't they just words that we use to mean 'I really really really subjectively feel this is...'

[ProfessorDavey]

Nope as I explained in the post you quoted - saying I do not think it is or was acceptable "is a different statement from saying human sacrifice was never acceptable as that becomes more than just my opinion in 2019."

But all you and I are doing is providing our opinion on the moral acceptability of certain actions. Neither you nor I are in a position to go beyond that - neither of us are absolute arbiters of objective morality (even were that to exist).

So it seems to me that:

Your opinion in 2019 is that human sacrifice is not acceptable (i.e. now) and was never acceptable (i.e. in the past).

And,

My opinion in 2019 is that human sacrifice is not acceptable (i.e. now) and was never acceptable (i.e. in the past).

We are in agreement. And presumably we both think that people, who in the past, considered human sacrifice to be morally acceptable to be wrong.

So I think your statement that human sacrifice was never acceptable is an incorrect statement.

No, because it relates to my opinion (see above, which is the same as your opinion), the result of which is that I consider that people in the past who thought human sacrifice to be morally acceptable were wrong in that thinking.

[Outrider]

Because we have subjective opinions. Your position apart from being an argumentum ad populum effectively means that you don't think anything that doesn't have an 'objective' method can be discussed which would though beauty, love, emotions, poetry in the range of not to be discussed as pointless. Which may be a valid position but doesn't seem to be your's.

It's not that they can't be discussed, it's that there's no ultimate point to it (in the context of a forum like this, at least) as they are all aesthetic stances - it's not about whether something is right or wrong, it's about whether you or I prefer one or the other.

O.

[Steve H]

Aren't they just words that we use to mean 'I really really really subjectively feel this is...'

Not if you're a rule-utilitarian, as I am: then, any action or attitude which furthers happiness, or lessens misery, is right, and any act or attitude which does the opposite is wrong, irrespective of my personal tastes.

[Outrider]

Not if you're a rule-utilitarian, as I am: then, any action or attitude which furthers happiness, or lessens misery, is right, and any act or attitude which does the opposite is wrong, irrespective of my personal tastes.

My three issues with utilitarianism, in a complex world:
1 - intent counts for nothing
2 - what you feel increases happiness might feel to someone else to do no such thing
3 - how can you accurately determine how much happiness a given action brings about, given the near-infinite number of consequences that result over time from even the smallest intervention in a system

O.

[Nearly Sane]

It's not that they can't be discussed, it's that there's no ultimate point to it (in the context of a forum like this, at least) as they are all aesthetic stances - it's not about whether something is right or wrong, it's about whether you or I prefer one or the other.

O.

What's an 'ultimate' point? We can still have cogent discussions about why we might think things, indeed that's what we do. Ideas of ultimates are for something that is not humanity.

[Nearly Sane]

Not if you're a rule-utilitarian, as I am: then, any action or attitude which furthers happiness, or lessens misery, is right, and any act or attitude which does the opposite is wrong, irrespective of my personal tastes.

No, that's just you codifying a principle you like, it's still subjective.