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: ServantOfTheLamb
This is all a non sequitur. Nothing about competing biases hampers the ability of one to recognize the distinction between a willing and unwilling action.
If "the word" is referring to free will, I think its pretty obvious that free will is not a word that applies to objects, but rather it is a word that can only apply to true agents.
You cannot say one man enslaved another man and expect to make sense of it, if a man is simply a bag of flesh fizzing to his DNA, then given the conditions at hand there could have been no other result. How can one blame Luis Garavito for murdering 138 people if Garavito never had a choice in the matter? Any type of justice system becomes absurd.
originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Bluesma
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: Bluesma
I know women here who were sold to be married at fourteen years of age. It might be a contractual agreement, but her agreement and consent was not asked for nor necessary. In most of their cases (except one) they cannot drive, and in fact only leave the home to do chores which are necessary for the work she must do for the husband, and children. (shopping for food, in particular).
originally posted by: Bluesma
They do not live in their country of origin, and here they have the right to divorce, they have available aid from a system that holds such situations as unethical, and yet.... why do they stay?
originally posted by: Bluesma
The complexities of a human mind are not so easy to catagorize. There are a whole lot of internal ambiguities and contrasting desires that come into play.
You can choose to call that "not slavery" if you will, because there is a possibility of escape which she has chosen to decline. Whatever. I think the focus upon the moral language is exaggerated.
Yes, it is a term which implicates a moral judgement upon the act.
originally posted by: Bluesma
But at any moment, one can choose to look at it's objective definition as well.
Just as I have brought up before, in terms like "manipulate". Which means to handle, control, move or influence.
One particular culture can associate negative judgement upon the word.... but at any moment you are free to remember that you manipulate your car as as well as your children, your dog, your keyboard, your employees ....
You are a manipulator. Is it constructive for you to consider that necessarily a bad thing?
Depends upon what you want to achieve.
People attach ethical meaning according to their intents.
A thing can be considered "good" or "bad" in relation to a certain goal or intent. To put water on a stove is a good thing if you intend to boil an egg, or it can be a bad thing if you intend to make ice cubes.
originally posted by: Bluesma
Ick.... that almost sounds like you accuse me of being a feminist. I can assure you I am not.
originally posted by: Bluesma
I don't know. You do as you wish. These women are in something I do consider as defined by "slavery"-
Just not with your added morality to it.
originally posted by: Bluesma
Isn't this what the Americans are trying to say when they repeat the currently popular "It is what it is" ?
I don't want to use such trendy phrases.....but yeah. I guess I relate to that.
I am not going to pull this thread so far off topic as to begin a schooling in psychology and the complexities of conscious, subconscious, and unconscious parts of mind and drives. I guess I feel too tired tonight to delve into that. Lots of times, people do things which are contradictory to the goals and intents they are aware of. In further analysis, they usually find they had drives, desires and intents which they were not wholly aware of, and yet influenced their actions. This makes the question of will quite vague.
The word I referred to is "slavery". It is not an object, like, say, "apple" or "chair". That makes it a bit more difficult to discuss it's definition. That's what I said.
In my view, justice systems serve the purpose of enforcing the intentions of the collective
The judgement of violence and murder as bad or unacceptable is often agreed upon in collectives with the intent of seeing their group grow and flourish, with cooperation and solidarity. It is the "correct" judgement in relation to that particular goal.
originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Bluesma
Confirmation bias is psychology 101, so I don't think a schooling is necessary, but my point remains. Want to explain how human biases change anything about the distinction between willing and unwilling?
Not really. Chattel Slavery, which is the slavery we have all been talking about is a word the references the treatment of a person as property against their will.
Okay but this is not a discussion about the pragmatic use of the justice system, but rather a discussion about truth.
I am not asking what we label "correct." I am asking what is actually correct. You seem to be implying that the Good should be defined according to the number of people who agree with whatever is in question. This again doesn't help you get anywhere. You still haven't gotten to some grounding for your ability to separate moral and amoral issues or societies ability to do so.
originally posted by: Anaana
Forced marriage may appear to be "wrong" in your culture, but is the culturally accepted norm in their's (presumably).
Slavery is still something different, even if you judge them to be like slaves.
slave
sleɪv/Valider
noun
1.a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.
1.work excessively hard.
Any number of reasons, but mainly because that way of life is culturally acceptable to them and because that culture may also restrict their access to education making it more difficult for them to make informed choices. It is not a matter of "why they stay" that's easy to understand, "how can we provide them with more opportunities" is the more problematic consideration.
I am sorry but I don't know how this is relevant.
What morality did I express? We are discussing people you know, I have no idea of their personal circumstances, but I respect that their culture is different to mine, it is you who is judging them to be like slaves, and that is your perception, but it does not make it slavery just because you are judging them to be so.
originally posted by: ketsuko
That was amoral with no intent of any kind that could be judged anywhere along the chain.
originally posted by: Bluesma
From what I understand, you mean, because slavery is immoral and bad- so if it is not bad, it cannot be slavery.
originally posted by: ketsuko
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: BluesmaI don't need a magical sacred law to tell me this- only rational thought and keen observation.
originally posted by: Talorc
Good and bad lies only in the sphere of will, judgement, and conscious choice. Things that are in your power.
According to the version of virtue ethics I'm using as my base, vice and evil is only the act of making false judgements and acting on them.
For example, a petulant child going to school even though they don't want to is not bad in any possible interpretation, it's not an evil. Someone accidentally running you over in their car is not bad, it's not an evil. These things happen, unfortunately, and it's outside your power.
originally posted by: Talorc
a reply to: Bluesma
Doesn't matter if something was the result of ignorance or not entirely "purposeful". The Socratic view is actually that all wrongdoing is the result of ignorance.
originally posted by: Bluesma
originally posted by: Talorc
a reply to: Bluesma
Doesn't matter if something was the result of ignorance or not entirely "purposeful". The Socratic view is actually that all wrongdoing is the result of ignorance.
If believing in good and bad as a law established by a God or something, and that works for you, then that's great! Carry on.
originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Bluesma
No.
I am merely pointing out that if society and life were as you claim -- completely absent of all morality and ethical judgment -- then this is where we would all be.