Classic Facebook Debate on Objective Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-10-2015, 09:18 AM
RE: Classic Facebook Debate on Objective Morality
(15-10-2015 06:47 AM)epronovost Wrote:  
(14-10-2015 08:02 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  The only moral system is one which recognizes that individual rights are absolutes that must not be violated in any way. Individual rights are not handed down by a god or granted by society but are objective in nature, i.e, are right regardless of anyone's wishes, likes, dislikes, faith, preferences etc. They are based on man's identity as man, his nature as a rational being and can't be violated without doing an injustice. This is what inalienable means. Feudalism grants the chosen few the right to enslave others.

I don't want to get in a debate defending moral feudalism (mostly because it's so archaïc), but feudalism didn't grant the chosen few the right to enslave others or at least not in those terms. When we think about feudalism, we frequently think of knights and peasents and in that context, it's true that serfs were to all intend and purpose slaves to a noble. But, feudalism is much older than knights and serfs has we commonly imagine them. The first well known written legal system based on moral feudalism in western Europe was the Danelaw: the law of the vikings if you prefer. They are the people who invented the modern definition of individual rights and they were also one of the origin of the medieval feudal system. History can be a complicated mess.

I see. Would you like to see this system implemented today?

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-10-2015, 09:22 AM
RE: Classic Facebook Debate on Objective Morality
Quite so. American highschool history textbooks like to point to the Magna Carta as the eventual basis for our concept of personal civil rights, but like to leave out the fact that the term "jury of your peers" was not the broad sense of the modern word "peers", but actually means "fellow noblemen".

It was later, just before our own Constitution was written, that the Rights of Englishmen was published as a concept to which all persons were entitled.

Even in documents such as the Danelaw, the rights were distinctly divided into those of freemen and those of the enslaved (few if any). Early US conceptions of rights were also on this basis: women and slaves had few rights, while the white landowning men had all enumerated rights. The concept of true Equal Protection of Law, in which all persons are equally entitled to the same rights guaranteed to anyone, is a much newer concept than we like to admit, and even then it has many problems in terms of "existing where the rubber meets the road", so to speak. Many of our rights remain paper-rights, only, as any poor or minority person in the USA can attest.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
15-10-2015, 04:33 PM
RE: Classic Facebook Debate on Objective Morality
(15-10-2015 09:18 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  
(15-10-2015 06:47 AM)epronovost Wrote:  I don't want to get in a debate defending moral feudalism (mostly because it's so archaïc), but feudalism didn't grant the chosen few the right to enslave others or at least not in those terms. When we think about feudalism, we frequently think of knights and peasents and in that context, it's true that serfs were to all intend and purpose slaves to a noble. But, feudalism is much older than knights and serfs has we commonly imagine them. The first well known written legal system based on moral feudalism in western Europe was the Danelaw: the law of the vikings if you prefer. They are the people who invented the modern definition of individual rights and they were also one of the origin of the medieval feudal system. History can be a complicated mess.

I see. Would you like to see this system implemented today?

Over my cold dead body. When I said that this system was archaic it wasn't an understatement. To remain internally consistent, moral feudalism would require us to believe in racialism, sexism and the divine nature of our reality and human (three huge pile of bullshit). We still use today some concept born in and central to moral feudalism for exemple the concept of oaths, individual rights and honesty/loyalty as a marker for someone's virtue and strength of character, but that's pretty much it. Right now, it belongs to history not our present and even less our future.

Freedom is servitude to justice and intellectual honesty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like epronovost's post
15-10-2015, 04:52 PM
RE: Classic Facebook Debate on Objective Morality
(15-10-2015 04:33 PM)epronovost Wrote:  
(15-10-2015 09:18 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  I see. Would you like to see this system implemented today?

Over my cold dead body. When I said that this system was archaic it wasn't an understatement. To remain internally consistent, moral feudalism would require us to believe in racialism, sexism and the divine nature of our reality and human (three huge pile of bullshit). We still use today some concept born in and central to moral feudalism for exemple the concept of oaths, individual rights and honesty/loyalty as a marker for someone's virtue and strength of character, but that's pretty much it. Right now, it belongs to history not our present and even less our future.

That's good. Is this the same system that the Anglo Saxons Used and that the founders of United States, in part, based their system on? I've read that the Anglo Saxons and Jewish law were major influences.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-10-2015, 07:21 PM
RE: Classic Facebook Debate on Objective Morality
(15-10-2015 04:52 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  
(15-10-2015 04:33 PM)epronovost Wrote:  Over my cold dead body. When I said that this system was archaic it wasn't an understatement. To remain internally consistent, moral feudalism would require us to believe in racialism, sexism and the divine nature of our reality and human (three huge pile of bullshit). We still use today some concept born in and central to moral feudalism for exemple the concept of oaths, individual rights and honesty/loyalty as a marker for someone's virtue and strength of character, but that's pretty much it. Right now, it belongs to history not our present and even less our future.

That's good. Is this the same system that the Anglo Saxons Used and that the founders of United States, in part, based their system on? I've read that the Anglo Saxons and Jewish law were major influences.

I am not an expert in early and feudal medieval history, but I can tell you this. The Anglo-Saxons adopted a certain amount of principle of the Danelaw in the aftermath of the Viking invasions of the 8th to 10th century. Amongst them, their concept of tsink (or popular assembly), land ownership and concept of individual rights. In fact, the Danelaw was considered at the time a much better regime than the one used by the Saxons. The Breton inhabitant, who predate the Saxons, were closer in their legal customs to the Norse than the Saxons which help the adaptation. This merging of various cultural tradition and legal system: Breton, Roman, Norse, Saxon and French created over a few century what is now the base of the English system of justice and governance.

Freedom is servitude to justice and intellectual honesty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like epronovost's post
16-10-2015, 08:43 AM (This post was last modified: 16-10-2015 08:46 AM by Alla.)
RE: Classic Facebook Debate on Objective Morality
(12-10-2015 06:55 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Negative feedback is the only feedback worth having.
If it is fair, yes. If it is not fair, no.
(12-10-2015 06:55 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Are you disappointed with the quality of negative feedback you are receiving or simply (simplistically) not appreciating its value?
I don't care when people call me "stupid", "ignorant", delusional.
I would care if people say that I am not kind, I am not honest, I am not caring

English is my second language.
I AM DEPLORABLE AND IRREDEEMABLE
SHE PERSISTED WE RESISTED
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-10-2015, 07:43 PM
RE: Classic Facebook Debate on Objective Morality
(16-10-2015 08:43 AM)Alla Wrote:  
(12-10-2015 06:55 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Negative feedback is the only feedback worth having.
If it is fair, yes. If it is not fair, no.


When it's not fair it's even more useful.

(16-10-2015 08:43 AM)Alla Wrote:  
(12-10-2015 06:55 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Are you disappointed with the quality of negative feedback you are receiving or simply (simplistically) not appreciating its value?
I don't care when people call me "stupid", "ignorant", delusional.
I would care if people say that I am not kind, I am not honest, I am not caring

You are not stupid or ignorant. You might be a bit delusional but what the fuck who isn't. You are kind. You are honest. And you do care. You are a good person Alla.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
17-10-2015, 12:56 PM
RE: Classic Facebook Debate on Objective Morality
(16-10-2015 07:43 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  When it's not fair it's even more useful.
Hmm, you are right. Adversity(unfair feedback) is a blessing in disguise and certainly is the greatest character builder. Thumbsup
(16-10-2015 07:43 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  You are not stupid or ignorant. You might be a bit delusional but what the fuck who isn't. You are kind. You are honest. And you do care. You are a good person Alla.
Thank you so much, GirlyMan. By the way, I can say the same about you (from your posts).
Once, you said about me something not very positive but it was very fair and true. It helped me to be better person. Thank you, Girly. Kiss

English is my second language.
I AM DEPLORABLE AND IRREDEEMABLE
SHE PERSISTED WE RESISTED
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Alla's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: