It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Greggers
originally posted by: JoshuaCox
originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: JoshuaCox
I think it is all based on relative POV.. Take for example ; "Slavery and slave holders are evil." But everyone's ancestors were slave holders..everyone. So were everyone's ancestors evil?! Through the lenses of the better understanding of modern society, yes all our ancestors were evil. But from their own POV ..not so much.
I am not sure how you think this response shows morality to be relative nor am I sure you completely understand the concept of a moral fact. A moral fact is talking about a indicative moral proposition, or in other words a statement that is true or false independent of your perspective. If our ancestors thought is was morally good to own slaves, then they were mistaken. The very fact that the vast majority of people would call the abolishment of slavery moral progress, but how can something progress if there isn't some outside reference point to which it is progressing towards? I gave you an entire post about why morals are objective and I get maybe five simple assertions with no explanation ? Why quote the whole OP?
I'm on my phone it makes editing quotes unwieldy.
I think things like slavery, genocide , rape, cold blooded murder exc, would all be independent evils.
No matter how you dress it up in revisionist or "for the greater good" history.
What's the saying? "Even if you put a pig in a party dress, it's still a pig."
I don't think the sins of the past and our ancestors were ok just because they didn't know better.
I know you weren't directing this at me, but I wanted to give my take.
I don't disagree with you.
One thing to keep in mind is that our view of morality has been informed by conditions both unique to our era and fundamental to the human condition. Meaning that when we make statements like the above, we make them using our own relative morality. This cannot be helped.
The good news is that human beings throughout history have indeed shared much in common when it comes to morality, and where humans have committed atrocities, they have often known it, and there were often enough people present during that era who disagreed with what was happening to document it for posterity and perhaps, eventually, put an end to it.
originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Bluesma
Slavery is being possessed as an object to be bought and sold, to do work without being paid. Relative morality means that an action can be good or bad depending upon the context and the individuals involved.
Yea but you didn't describe that kind of slavery. You described a slavery in which someone was not bought but willingly chose to enter into, and they were not treated like property but were treated with kindness. That is not what relative morality means. Even people who believe in objective moral values believe that what action is considered good or bad is dependent upon the context in which it is preformed. For example, I may say "murder is wrong". I use the word murder because that implies a specific form of the action of killing, and not the action of killing in general as there are times in which killing is morally acceptable but there is no time in which murder is acceptable. Relative morality in the ontological sense means that what is good or bad is defined by the individual or some people say it is relative to society.
I understand what you're saying and I like that you're attempting to show a quasi-reality like a dream as something ephemeral like how physical reality is ephemeral (the big bang is evidence of the universe's early nonexistence), but somehow I feel you're missing a layer of abstraction here. Even in the dream the thing exists independent of any words you apply to it. The word that describes the thing is not the thing itself.
The key idea here is that words exist on multiple levels. There is word as category (chair meaning a device we sit on). The word as the identifier (my favorite chair I'm pointing to). The word as the actual thing itself independent an identifier (my favorite chair absent its essence because a chair is only describing a function - ex/ the chair could be in the fireplace as kindling). The bare thing (wood, metal, molecules, space). There are many more layers to this. An alien might look at a chair and think it's an abstract form of art or a type of table. Does that make sense? The word (chair) self-negates its current identity based simply on how we think about it.
∀X: (E∨X) = E
The ∀ means "for all". The ∨ means "logical disjunction" which can be thought of as an "or". Thus if we take a tautology (E) and "or" it with any mathematical or symbolic object we get the tautology back.
This should hopefully make sense because we're effectively saying: for all "X", the "X" OR what provides us its identity is the identity. This is saying the same thing twice which of course is the definition of a tautology.
∀X: (E∨X) = E
The ∀ means "for all". The ∨ means "logical disjunction" which can be thought of as an "or". Thus if we take a tautology (E) and "or" it with any mathematical or symbolic object we get the tautology back.
This should hopefully make sense because we're effectively saying: for all "X", the "X" OR what provides us its identity is the identity. This is saying the same thing twice which of course is the definition of a tautology.
∀X: (E∧X) = X
The "∧" is a "logical conjunction" or an "and."
Here all we are saying is for any mathematical or symbolic object if we take the object and apply it to the identity we get the object back.
This means (E) or a tautology is like an "equality" operator. Thus when we apply (E) against "X" it gives us "X" back. The reason hopefully is straightforward enough, since all things are themselves.
This can of course be expressed as a simple function:
f(X)=(E∧X)
Thus f(X)→X.
So now to answer your question. When I said, "I think the idea of there being no tautological truth with regards to morality is effectively refuting the ability to define it in any meaningful way," what I meant was this:
Most objects on the surface level are easy to identify. A rock is an item composed of various minerals classified as igneous, sedimentary, or metamorphic.
So f(Rock)→Rock is fairly unambiguous as a classification tool though I am sure there are edge cases petrologists debate.
The problem is when we try f(Moral)→?
Many times we get an answer back that is inconsistent and instead is labeled "amoral".
That's what I meant when I said, "I believe moral relativism is more a statement that there is no tautological truth amongst the universal set, which comes across as ludicrous on the face of it when you consider a tautology is what gives us equality in the first place." Anyone who believes in moral relativism is saying that there is truth through conditionality, but no self evident truth about morality (in other words no universal or tautological truth about morality).
I find that interesting. Do you think the Christian God will stop human reproduction at some point? If not, assuming people continue to procreate, that's the equivalent of an infinite series.
34 And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: 35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: 36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.
The actual process in those verses is left unexplained. However, you can not multiply a value by nothing and get more. If I have two fishes, someone has to find other existent fishes to add up to 4000. If your conception of God is that he's not a trickster then somehow more fishes had to have been added that weren't there. 2 + 0 = 2; 2 + 3998 = 4000. 3998 macroscopic objects coming from nothing is logically impossible in our reality.
Tom knows David loves Manchester United. Presented with the opposite statement he correctly saw this was a contradiction. This is allowed though. David wasn't lying. It was a true contradiction, not a false contradiction like Tom suspected. The truth status was honestly assigned to a new category.
The change was a contradiction. The contradiction is what acted as a transitive tool to convert an object to something else.
To be very clear here, two doesn't and never becomes four thousand in a mathematical operation. Two is two. Two gets added to another number, 3998, to give a new value that equals 4000. The only way for 2 to literally become 4000 is if there's such a thing as a true contradiction.
It is for this exact reason why fish multiplying with nothing else present is nonsensical. It's a contradiction of what 2 is. Two fish are two fish.
Meaning if a contradiction being sometimes true doesn't make sense to you, then fishes multiplying without fish eggs or an advanced bio-genetic engineering plant on hand shouldn't make much sense either.
It becomes a problem of interpretation of language. If the person is sold from one to another..... we have no term that differenciates an inner desire to be sold or bought. We have no term to differenciate being a willing slave, or an unwilling slave. We have no terminology for a content slave and a discontent slave.
The will of the individual plays into this concept of right or wrong. To create such terms, a culture must value individual will.
originally posted by: Bluesma
originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Bluesma
Okay but you have totally changed actions, context, and intent in this scenario. That would not be a slave in the same sense of forced labor
Slavery is being possessed as an object to be bought and sold, to do work without being paid.
Relative morality means that an action can be good or bad depending upon the context and the individuals involved.
originally posted by: Bluesma
originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Bluesma
Slavery is being possessed as an object to be bought and sold, to do work without being paid. Relative morality means that an action can be good or bad depending upon the context and the individuals involved.
Yea but you didn't describe that kind of slavery. You described a slavery in which someone was not bought but willingly chose to enter into, and they were not treated like property but were treated with kindness. That is not what relative morality means. Even people who believe in objective moral values believe that what action is considered good or bad is dependent upon the context in which it is preformed. For example, I may say "murder is wrong". I use the word murder because that implies a specific form of the action of killing, and not the action of killing in general as there are times in which killing is morally acceptable but there is no time in which murder is acceptable. Relative morality in the ontological sense means that what is good or bad is defined by the individual or some people say it is relative to society.
It becomes a problem of interpretation of language. If the person is sold from one to another..... we have no term that differenciates an inner desire to be sold or bought.
We have no term to differenciate being a willing slave, or an unwilling slave.
We have no terminology for a content slave and a discontent slave.
The will of the individual plays into this concept of right or wrong. To create such terms, a culture must value individual will. But that complicates things. It makes it more difficult to make laws of ethic. Add to that the problematic of subconscious desires... you got a mess to sift through.
For my part, I have decided that the state, or religion, has it's obligation to go with the culture. But the individual has the right and ability to determine which culture is best adapted to their personal desires and will. Somewhere in there is indicated "Know thyself, and you shall know the world". (Eurythmics Sweet Dreams is playing behind this post).
originally posted by: JoshuaCox
originally posted by: Bluesma
originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Bluesma
Slavery is being possessed as an object to be bought and sold, to do work without being paid. Relative morality means that an action can be good or bad depending upon the context and the individuals involved.
Yea but you didn't describe that kind of slavery. You described a slavery in which someone was not bought but willingly chose to enter into, and they were not treated like property but were treated with kindness. That is not what relative morality means. Even people who believe in objective moral values believe that what action is considered good or bad is dependent upon the context in which it is preformed. For example, I may say "murder is wrong". I use the word murder because that implies a specific form of the action of killing, and not the action of killing in general as there are times in which killing is morally acceptable but there is no time in which murder is acceptable. Relative morality in the ontological sense means that what is good or bad is defined by the individual or some people say it is relative to society.
It becomes a problem of interpretation of language. If the person is sold from one to another..... we have no term that differenciates an inner desire to be sold or bought.
We have no term to differenciate being a willing slave, or an unwilling slave.
We have no terminology for a content slave and a discontent slave.
The will of the individual plays into this concept of right or wrong. To create such terms, a culture must value individual will. But that complicates things. It makes it more difficult to make laws of ethic. Add to that the problematic of subconscious desires... you got a mess to sift through.
For my part, I have decided that the state, or religion, has it's obligation to go with the culture. But the individual has the right and ability to determine which culture is best adapted to their personal desires and will. Somewhere in there is indicated "Know thyself, and you shall know the world". (Eurythmics Sweet Dreams is playing behind this post).
I would say there are no terms for willing slaves because there are none...
Or at least so few there was never a need for a word to describe it. It is so rare it has never come up.
Even those treated well wouldn't resign their children to the yoke of slavery.
originally posted by: Talorc
originally posted by: Bluesma
originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Bluesma
Okay but you have totally changed actions, context, and intent in this scenario. That would not be a slave in the same sense of forced labor
Slavery is being possessed as an object to be bought and sold, to do work without being paid.
Relative morality means that an action can be good or bad depending upon the context and the individuals involved.
No, it doesn't. How hard is this to grasp?
Relative morality means there is ultimately no good and no bad.
I guess some people just can't wrap their minds around the actual stuff that they preach.
originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Bluesma
Yet we do have the ability to recognize the distinction between "willing" and "unwilling, "content" and discontent", and "the desire to be property" and "the desire to be free."
The argument from inalienability does not refer to a moral objection to a man who wishes to dispossess himself of free will; it refers to the impossibility of his doing so. In your version of slavery, the persons free will is never violated as they freely choose to be property and the moment they don't want to be property but are forced to be it becomes a moral issue.
originally posted by: Bluesma
Marriage, for some people, can be entering into willing slavery. Call it willing or unwilling, it remains slavery (in their cases). But attaching willing and unwilling is a tricky thing for us to judge of another- claim to know what is going on in their head. Especially as subconscious desires (repressed...)come into play.
originally posted by: Bluesma
originally posted by: JoshuaCox
originally posted by: Bluesma
originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Bluesma
Slavery is being possessed as an object to be bought and sold, to do work without being paid. Relative morality means that an action can be good or bad depending upon the context and the individuals involved.
Yea but you didn't describe that kind of slavery. You described a slavery in which someone was not bought but willingly chose to enter into, and they were not treated like property but were treated with kindness. That is not what relative morality means. Even people who believe in objective moral values believe that what action is considered good or bad is dependent upon the context in which it is preformed. For example, I may say "murder is wrong". I use the word murder because that implies a specific form of the action of killing, and not the action of killing in general as there are times in which killing is morally acceptable but there is no time in which murder is acceptable. Relative morality in the ontological sense means that what is good or bad is defined by the individual or some people say it is relative to society.
It becomes a problem of interpretation of language. If the person is sold from one to another..... we have no term that differenciates an inner desire to be sold or bought.
We have no term to differenciate being a willing slave, or an unwilling slave.
We have no terminology for a content slave and a discontent slave.
The will of the individual plays into this concept of right or wrong. To create such terms, a culture must value individual will. But that complicates things. It makes it more difficult to make laws of ethic. Add to that the problematic of subconscious desires... you got a mess to sift through.
For my part, I have decided that the state, or religion, has it's obligation to go with the culture. But the individual has the right and ability to determine which culture is best adapted to their personal desires and will. Somewhere in there is indicated "Know thyself, and you shall know the world". (Eurythmics Sweet Dreams is playing behind this post).
I would say there are no terms for willing slaves because there are none...
Or at least so few there was never a need for a word to describe it. It is so rare it has never come up.
Even those treated well wouldn't resign their children to the yoke of slavery.
You are mistaken. I know many (women in particular) who have chosen this life (and encourage their children to also). Yet we don't call it slavery, because we don't want to screw up our moral judgement upon the concept. We want to feel we're in control and have everything figured out.
The ability is constantly hampered by personal bias. For example, a typical american bias is the idea that "all humans are obsessed with the desire to be free at all times".
This is a fallacy. This is what hampers their ability to recognize humans in a state of insecurity and desire for protection. (freedom and security being opposites). This can be a bias which even causes repression of ones own desires for protection. The extreme value attached to freedom is cultural, not inherent.
The biggest problem is that the word doesn't apply to a material object, then the whole thing is easier to discuss. We must agree upon a definition of the word before discussing the value we each attach to it.
This is the whole point of the OP, which he apparently hasn't gotten across to you. That the language we use implies an objective moral sense. Since good and bad are just make-believe concepts, why do you keep using those words? Just expunge them from your vocabulary entirely, it'll be far more consistent with what you believe.
Then if you want to expunge the vocabulary of morality and its shackles, you would need to live in an animalistic/naturalistic state. How do the animals live? That is true freedom from the constraints and obligations of morals and ethics and the perceptions of right and wrong. That is life by pure instinctual drive. Rape, murder, slavery, cannibalism, pedophilia ... all those other less than savory aspects of the human condition that are also found in nature (because they are) we can give full reign to and stop worrying about because we are now living by nature and our instincts alone. Those things no longer matter and they no longer have value or judgement attached. Right? I'm sure you wouldn't mind that society at all, but it's what you say you believe in.
originally posted by: Anaana
But surely marriage is a contractual agreement, as is indentured servitude, between two parties with clearly defined terms including how the contract can be severed. By nature it is a mutual exchange, even if historically one party had greater rights than the other. Marriage particularly does not imply ownership over either party and assuming that divorce and or annullment are available and socially acceptable, then the contract can be broken by either party and considered nil and void. A slave, by definition, has no legal rights and is property.
I understand that it is a standard feminist proposition to equate marriage with slavery, although indentured servitude would be a better comparison, but it rests upon a tenuous footing unless marriage/indentured servitude has been forced or if it is difficult to impossible for one or more parties to end the contract, otherwise it is an agreement between two (or more) signatories. Therefore to equate marriage with slavery rests upon a formal fallacy, surely?
originally posted by: Talorc
a reply to: Bluesma
Sorry.
That's not what you said, however. You said good and bad depend on context and the individuals involved. This is the whole point of the OP, which he apparently hasn't gotten across to you. That the language we use implies an objective moral sense.
Since good and bad are just make-believe concepts, why do you keep using those words? Just expunge them from your vocabulary entirely, it'll be far more consistent with what you believe.