Times change - Was it ever right to be a slaveowner?

[Nearly Sane]

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

[bluehillside Retd.]

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?

[Nearly Sane]

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

[Udayana]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Walter]

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?

[bluehillside Retd.]

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). 
 

[bluehillside Retd.]

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.     

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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. 

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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.   

[Udayana]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Robbie]

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!

[Udayana]

 "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

[Robbie]

Well said.

[Nearly Sane]

"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.

[Udayana]

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.

[Udayana]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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.

[Sassy]

-
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

[Sassy]

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?