Bad People Don't Exist

[ImpureHedonism]

The hell are you talking about? There are writings from all SORTS of people who understood slavery to be both immoral and wicked in their own times and ours. It was institutionalized and a required evil for many of the societies that used it. You seem to be going off on some tangent trying to equate truth/evil/good/bad with objective reality. You're wrong. Period. Its all subjective. You cannot PROVE morality.

You can, if your system of morality is based on reason and observation. I posted my Aristotle quote on the previous page for a reason! Plus Jack is arguing that morality will only ever be subjective, and you are too. Your subjective morality (by your own words) is that slavery is immoral. I'll say both of you guys are wrong. Concepts don't become "subjective" because they only exist "in the mind", nor does morality become subjective because many developed moral systems fail on many levels.

 

[Jack]

Well, then you run into issues with the idea that the definition of "slavery" as we understand it now didn't exist in the first century. As far as I know (and I'm no expert)--the idea of slavery as a means of forced labor for economic gain is the more recent incarnation. Slavery (or what might be considered slavery) was typically the capturing of hostiles and/or women/children of enemies and bringing them into the tribe. Many captives could gain acceptance and had rights of their own. The idea of just capturing people who were not hostiles or taking people because of force of arms and refusing to give people the right of control over their bodies began much later. There were decriers of Columbus during his era which IMO is where you see the more modernish version of "slavery" based on supposed moral high ground and/or race.

And this I suggest is one of the reasons it wasn't thought of a moral issue until more recently. On the other hand if you're trying to justify the institutional practice of slavery in any form... then you and I will have issues.

edit: I also believe you can prove morality exists though. Perhaps you can't prove 100% acceptance of morality or that people follow moral codes but morals do EXIST. We have a term called Norms which defines the prevalent accepted behavior of a given society. Norms are tempered by how rigid and conforming the society they exist in allows. For example, Catholics do not believe in divorce, yet Catholics divorce. The moral that divorce is wrong Exists but that doesn't mean it is followed.

Proof is a tricky thing to get... I would favor 'evidence beyond reasonable doubt' or something of that variety, but maybe that's a trifle.

 

[Jack]

You can, if your system of morality is based on reason and observation. I posted my Aristotle quote on the previous page for a reason! Plus Jack is arguing that morality will only ever be subjective, and you are too. Your subjective morality (by your own words) is that slavery is immoral. I'll say both of you guys are wrong. Concepts don't become "subjective" because they only exist "in the mind", nor does morality become subjective because many developed moral systems fail on many levels.

No I'm not.

 

[Nixie]

And this I suggest is one of the reasons it wasn't thought of a moral issue until more recently. On the other hand if you're trying to justify the institutional practice of slavery in any form... then you and I will have issues.

No I'm merely making the point that you cannot compare the idea of slavery in the first century with the idea of slavery in more modern times. I was agreeing with [MENTION=1451]Billy[/MENTION] that modern slavery has been almost universally decried as immoral.

 

[ImpureHedonism]

No I'm not.

Sorry, didn't read all your posts. =P I was mainly responding to Billy, but I'll look at your other posts later.

 

[this is only temporary]

No I'm merely making the point that you cannot compare the idea of slavery in the first century with the idea of slavery in more modern times. I was agreeing with [MENTION=1451]Billy[/MENTION] that modern slavery has been almost universally decried as immoral.

But... didn't people buy and sell slaves in the first century? As well as more recently? Buying and selling people for free labor is buying and selling people for free labor. It is what it is: Slavery. How much can that change over the millenia, isn't it a fairly consistent concept? And I don't know for sure but I'd imagine there were people protesting it in the first century too, they just died faster of the plague, or something, and their audience was mostly illiterate, and they had no mass media or internet with which to protest...

No offense intended at all or anything, but I don't see how modern slavery is essentially different, except for the race factor, which obviously makes people more recognizable as slaves or "different", but I'd imagine that sort of thing happened 1000 years ago, too. Didn't it?

I do remember hearing the Greeks had slaves that they treated better; I think they made them teach children. (?) Maybe that's what you meant?

 

[Jack]

No I'm merely making the point that you cannot compare the idea of slavery in the first century with the idea of slavery in more modern times. I was agreeing with @Billy that modern slavery has been almost universally decried as immoral.

I take no issue with that, but Billy was arguing as I understood him that slavery such as that in the first century was also universally decried as immoral:

There are writings from all SORTS of people who understood slavery to be both immoral and wicked in their own times and ours.

So your argument is refuting his point rather than supporting it.

That said, I maintain the idea of 'owning people' is also immoral, and that existed in the first century as well, people just didn't think about it as a moral issue at that time. To blame them for doing something they knew was wrong them would be anachronism, but that doesn't mean that slavery itself is moral.

 

[Billy]

You can, if your system of morality is based on reason and observation. I posted my Aristotle quote on the previous page for a reason! Plus Jack is arguing that morality will only ever be subjective, and you are too. Your subjective morality (by your own words) is that slavery is immoral. I'll say both of you guys are wrong. Concepts don't become "subjective" because they only exist "in the mind", nor does morality become subjective because many developed moral systems fail on many levels.

All morality is subjective, you cannot objectively quantify it no matter how much you want to. There is no ultimate judge for morality, no bench mark with which to compare it to. Just because Aristotle said something doesn't make it so. All it takes is 1 person to disagree with you based on whatever in the hell they want to make your "objective" morality subjective. It isn't subjective because its "of the mind" its subjective because its not based on any actual observable laws of nature or reality, only on subjective things like culture and feelings, which differ from human to human. Who are you to say a serial killer is evil when he/she doesnt believe its so? How can you PROVE that person is evil with REAL evidence and not just some form of group consensus? Even on an evolutionary level morality is subjective since there are many variations manifest by genetics that do differnt things. There is no possible way to say which one is more right than another.

 

[Billy]

I take no issue with that, but Billy was arguing as I understood him that slavery such as that in the first century was also universally decried as immoral:



So your argument is refuting his point rather than supporting it.

That said, I maintain the idea of 'owning people' is also immoral, and that existed in the first century as well, people just didn't think about it as a moral issue at that time. To blame them for doing something they knew was wrong them would be anachronism, but that doesn't mean that slavery itself is moral.

You can argue it all you want, but whats right for you is not whats right for other people. Your opinions stop at the barrier of your head to the next persons. You can say "thats immoral" but what you mean to say is "I find that immoral based on my personal ethics" which is fine, but trying to apply those subjective morals outside of yourself is ridiculous since you have no right to dictate what is moral or not.

 

[Jack]

You can argue it all you want, but whats right for you is not whats right for other people. Your opinions stop at the barrier of your head to the next persons. You can say "thats immoral" but what you mean to say is "I find that immoral based on my personal ethics" which is fine, but trying to apply those subjective morals outside of yourself is ridiculous since you have no right to dictate what is moral or not.

Again, that's a convenient line for those with power, but universal experience is seen through the eyes of the oppressed.

 

[Billy]

If you think you can provide examples of people in earlier history, such as the first century (for example) who thought that slavery was systematically immoral, then give examples.

Also, it's all subjective? That's quite an assertion.

Can you prove that?

Really, I want to know, what makes you so certain morality is subjective? Do you have any evidence at all?

Objective- : expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations
Subjective -[TABLE="class: ts"]
[TR]
[TD][TABLE="class: ts"]
[TR]
[TD]Based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]




The definitions for starters.

Now if you want to go into inherited morality as a source of social evolution, then fine, but you will AGAIN be wrong because evolution does not a direct line make, it makes many branches, because genes manifest themselves in different ways, under different circumstances.

So obviously its all individualized.

You cannot say morality is objective, without looking like you dont understand any of the terms you are using.

 

[Billy]

Again, that's a convenient line for those with power, but universal experience is seen through the eyes of the oppressed.

WHat the hell does that even mean? A convenient line? What? really are you being serious right now? What does that have to do with what we are talking about? let me answer that for you - NOTHING.

 

[Jack]

WHat the hell does that even mean? A convenient line? What? really are you being serious right now? What does that have to do with what we are talking about? let me answer that for you - NOTHING.

Ok then I'll spell it out for you. If a person from culture A thinks rape is perfectly fine, and a person from culture B thinks rape is wrong, it makes absolutely no difference, because if either of them is raped, they will suffer.

 

[this is only temporary]

WHat the hell does that even mean? A convenient line? What? really are you being serious right now? What does that have to do with what we are talking about? let me answer that for you - NOTHING.

Probably he means that nobody enjoys being a slave. It is a universally unappealing state, as is the state of being murdered. (there are probably exceptions, and I should probably let him answer.) But not enjoying being a slave is subjective, however, it's easier for a slaveowner to say "Oh, well, slavery isn't that bad, really." than it is for the slave, so the subjective-ness is skewed in favor of the powerful. or something.

 

[Billy]

Ok then I'll spell it out for you. If a person from culture A thinks rape is perfectly fine, and a person from culture B thinks rape is wrong, it makes absolutely no difference, because if either of them is raped, they will suffer.

Suffering is an observable fact. Right, Wrong, Morality is not. You are using a fallacy to make an objective statement about a subjective opinion. Just because someone is suffering does not make it immoral. Look at the fucking psychos who are all pro death penalty, and pro punishment. There is suffering there too and yet we wouldnt say they were acting immoral, why because we subjective value 1 form of suffering over another? There is NOTHING objective aboout it.

Also - suffering is an unavoidable fact of nature. Why does your morality end with human beings? What about all the animals we cage, torture and eat? They suffer worse than any holocaust, any genocide ever committed against human beings. I notice most "moral" types morality ends at that threshold, after-all, who doesn't love a good burger.

- - - Updated - - -

Probably he means that nobody enjoys being a slave. It is a universally unappealing state, as is the state of being murdered. (there are probably exceptions, and I should probably let him answer.) But not enjoying being a slave is subjective, however, it's easier for a slaveowner to say "Oh, well, slavery isn't that bad, really." than it is for the slave, so the subjective-ness is skewed in favor of the powerful. or something.

I disagree completely. SOME people actually embrace slavery. SOME people actually ask their doctors to end their lives. Who is right? Which one is wrong? There is no ultimate judge, therefore that is subjective since we cannot prove it either way. Would I agree that MOST people think slavery is wrong and therefore currently its mostly seen as immoral? yes... but that is still a subjective viewpoint.

 

[Jack]

Suffering is an observable fact. Right, Wrong, Morality is not. You are using a fallacy to make an objective statement about a subjective opinion. Just because someone is suffering does not make it immoral. Look at the fucking psychos who are all pro death penalty, and pro punishment. There is suffering there too and yet we wouldnt say they were acting immoral, why because we subjective value 1 form of suffering over another? There is NOTHING objective aboout it.

Correction: I am using an observable fact of universal human experience to make an inductive argument in favor of morality, and as an appropriate response to your argument that different cultures have different enforced morals. Whether it is subjective opinion or not is the very issue in question.

The presence of debate in ethics is an important feature of discovering moral truth, as many of these like the issue of slavery eventually end up with resounding conclusions, I imagine you can see progress on some level.

 

[Jack]

I disagree completely. SOME people actually embrace slavery. SOME people actually ask their doctors to end their lives.​

​

People generally don't want to commit suicide, but when they do, they see it as the only way to end some other type of suffering. Similar points toward different motives can be made for the alleged 'embrace of slavery' as well (such as slaves loving their masters) nonetheless these things are regrettable.​

 

[Billy]

Correction: I am using an observable fact of universal human experience to make an inductive argument in favor of morality, and as an appropriate response to your argument that different cultures have different enforced morals. Whether it is subjective opinion or not is the very issue in question.

The presence of debate in ethics is an important feature of discovering moral truth, as many of these like the issue of slavery eventually end up with resounding conclusions, I imagine you can see progress on some level.

You are using an observable fact "human suffering" to make an objective claim that morality is not subjective. And you are completely wrong. That cultures have enforced different moralities through the eons, is not an opinion. It is a historic and observable fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashoka

Start your research there. The emperor of India was against slavery and abolished it when he rose to power. This was around 270 BCE.

There is no such thing as "moral truth" what a disgusting oxymoron, perverting both the concepts of truth and logic. 1 mans truth is another mans fantasy, 1 mans pain is another mans pleasure. Until you have a judge for all these things, they are subjective things. Thats the truth.

 

[Jack]

Also - suffering is an unavoidable fact of nature. Why does your morality end with human beings? What about all the animals we cage, torture and eat? They suffer worse than any holocaust, any genocide ever committed against human beings. I notice most "moral" types morality ends at that threshold, after-all, who doesn't love a good burger.

You do realize that an introductory ethics course in college will discuss this very issue right?

 

[Billy]

[/INDENT][/COLOR]

People generally don't want to commit suicide, but when they do, they see it as the only way to end some other type of suffering. Similar points toward different motives can be made for the alleged 'embrace of slavery' as well (such as slaves loving their masters) nonetheless these things are regrettable.​

And yet, it was the White masters who believed they were sparing the poor enslaved blacks and native americans, because they thought living in the stone age was suffering. AGAIN, subjective. Also, who are YOU to say what people generally do and dont do in the case of suicide? You are using (ONCE AGAIN) subjective opinions as objective facts. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

You do realize that an introductory ethics course in college will discuss this very issue right?

You do realize ethics are subjective right?