Slavery and Abolitionist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-12-2014, 03:36 PM
RE: Slavery and Abolitionist
(22-12-2014 02:57 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(22-12-2014 01:04 PM)The Germans are coming Wrote:  I dont feel like posting a several sentences lon explaination, but I guess I cant avoid it.
...
If you want I will post a link to a documentary about this.

While all this is interesting, and I would be curious to watch the documentary on it, it doesn't really have much to do with the question being raised. I don't mean to simplify the abolitionist movement of course, and my post wasn't so much about the history of the movement, but rather solely used as an example, to discuss the wires and gears that hold up secular moral frameworks, particularly when expressed as a moral protest on the conducts and behaviors of a society.

I'm interested in the underlying beliefs, and presuppositions of moral language, particularly when adopted by non-believers, about what in essence holds it up.

I frequently hear about the dressing, but hardly ever do we talk about the body. In this case the body being explored, is our idea of empathy, and whether our inherited beliefs about it, are merely a product of religious indoctrination so sublime we hardly even notice, so entrenched in the fabrics of our society, that even atheists can't escape it, or something far deeper than this.

good

it`s 3 parts












[Image: RPYH95t.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like The Germans are coming's post
22-12-2014, 06:53 PM
RE: Slavery and Abolitionist
It can come from multiples ways, I would say you ought to pay attention more to what DLJ's post offers as that is some information on what these questions you've been repeatedly looking for offer. The issue I think you keep thinking there is a deep point on is because people generally talk in stupid manners not intellectually thinking out what their process is and from your point, you seem to think there is a stronger sense of something in the concept of morality being objective.

To kinda repeat things stated above, from the moral nihilistic view, it can be from a personal empathetic method, an understanding through thinking topics out from the Veil of ignorance, or through societal influence in a social contract system. Even if the majority deems it okay there may be a counter-culture understanding opposed to it.

I can think of some other systematic ideas that would break down why you could be opposed to slavery based on some moral claims. If you take a view based something such as Moral Foundations Theory http://moralfoundations.org/ and view the concept of slavery to be diametrically opposed to the moral quandary of fairness. It may have a traditional or economical benefit, but most people still value fairness to higher esteem than those claims. On that basis, people may see what moral issues exist with the allowance of human ownership of humans.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
22-12-2014, 07:14 PM
RE: Slavery and Abolitionist
I think a short answer, and perhaps the one you're looking for, is that we can't claim any action to be "objectively right or wrong". The universe doesn't care and as its products we aren't compelled by any external force to care either.

However, we do have an evolved morality shaped by both biology and culture that determines how our brains perceive the rightness of actions. Fortunately advances in science and education have resulted in what our brains now perceive as substantial improvement in norms in most civilized societies. Still, slavery is not objectively immoral.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes freetoreason's post
23-12-2014, 04:38 AM
RE: Slavery and Abolitionist
(22-12-2014 03:36 PM)The Germans are coming Wrote:  ...
good

it`s 3 parts
...

Thank you TGAC. That was excellent.

I do so very much miss the BBC since I moved to live amongst the savages. So very superior in so many ways.

Bravo.

Big Grin

Seriously, that was a really insightful documentary.

Thumbsup

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-12-2014, 07:34 AM (This post was last modified: 23-12-2014 09:55 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Slavery and Abolitionist
(22-12-2014 06:53 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  You seem to think there is a stronger sense of something in the concept of morality being objective.

I'm not arguing for objective morality, but rather exploring the underlying beliefs of secular moral frameworks. There seems to be some presuppositional beliefs, that are in essence taken as a given, and go by unmentioned when moral philosophies and frameworks are being offered, and I was interested in exploring what is normally left unsaid.

Quote:To kinda repeat things stated above, from the moral nihilistic view, it can be from a personal empathetic method, an understanding through thinking topics out from the Veil of ignorance, or through societal influence in a social contract system. Even if the majority deems it okay there may be a counter-culture understanding opposed to it.

I can think of some other systematic ideas that would break down why you could be opposed to slavery based on some moral claims. If you take a view based something such as Moral Foundations Theory http://moralfoundations.org/ and view the concept of slavery to be diametrically opposed to the moral quandary of fairness.

When you speak of fairness, or even the veil ignorance, or well-being, they all matter if we presuppose certain other beliefs already, they require a sense of moral obligations, like the golden rule, or love your neighbor as yourself, that we are to have empathy and compassion for others.

Protesting the unfairness of slavery to slave owners, to society, only matters if fairness towards others matter, if it's already held in such high esteem.

There's very little question, that these things matter to most of us here, that we desire to act in ways that are empathetic towards others, to treat people considerably, as we would like to be treated, to seek justice, to protest acts that are contrary to this sense of obligations that we feel quite deeply about.

The question I have, is if we think rationally and critically would this lead us to realize we are to live life in such a way, seeking fairness, seeking to be compassionate towards others, do we in essence conceive moral direction by such rational contemplation?

Or does this seeming sense of moral direction, that we all at same level believe in, arise from somewhere else. Did we just inherit it from religious traditions, that have engrained and indoctrinated these beliefs into our societies, as Jurgen Habermas suggests?

Quote:It may have a traditional or economical benefit, but most people still value fairness to higher esteem than those claims.

But why do we hold these things, such as fairness, compassion, to such a high esteem? Is it because of social indoctrination? Does reason reveal that these thing are in fact to be held to such high esteem?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-12-2014, 03:50 PM
RE: Slavery and Abolitionist
(23-12-2014 07:34 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(22-12-2014 06:53 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  You seem to think there is a stronger sense of something in the concept of morality being objective.

I'm not arguing for objective morality, but rather exploring the underlying beliefs of secular moral frameworks. There seems to be some presuppositional beliefs, that are in essence taken as a given, and go by unmentioned when moral philosophies and frameworks are being offered, and I was interested in exploring what is normally left unsaid.

Quote:To kinda repeat things stated above, from the moral nihilistic view, it can be from a personal empathetic method, an understanding through thinking topics out from the Veil of ignorance, or through societal influence in a social contract system. Even if the majority deems it okay there may be a counter-culture understanding opposed to it.

I can think of some other systematic ideas that would break down why you could be opposed to slavery based on some moral claims. If you take a view based something such as Moral Foundations Theory http://moralfoundations.org/ and view the concept of slavery to be diametrically opposed to the moral quandary of fairness.

When you speak of fairness, or even the veil ignorance, or well-being, they all matter if we presuppose certain other beliefs already, they require a sense of moral obligations, like the golden rule, or love your neighbor as yourself, that we are to have empathy and compassion for others.

Protesting the unfairness of slavery to slave owners, to society, only matters if fairness towards others matter, if it's already held in such high esteem.

There's very little question, that these things matter to most of us here, that we desire to act in ways that are empathetic towards others, to treat people considerably, as we would like to be treated, to seek justice, to protest acts that are contrary to this sense of obligations that we feel quite deeply about.

The question I have, is if we think rationally and critically would this lead us to realize we are to live life in such a way, seeking fairness, seeking to be compassionate towards others, do we in essence conceive moral direction by such rational contemplation?

Or does this seeming sense of moral direction, that we all at same level believe in, arise from somewhere else. Did we just inherit it from religious traditions, that have engrained and indoctrinated these beliefs into our societies, as Jurgen Habermas suggests?

Quote:It may have a traditional or economical benefit, but most people still value fairness to higher esteem than those claims.

But why do we hold these things, such as fairness, compassion, to such a high esteem? Is it because of social indoctrination? Does reason reveal that these thing are in fact to be held to such high esteem?

It's biological.. I don't get how many times it has to be said to you but you always seem to want to assume it's something else. That's where empathy and fairness come from. I sent that link in there as trends show everyone(apart from those considered physiologically ill) has these basic concepts of empathy, etc. It's their social impact that effects How Much they care for these, but still almost everyone has these innate concepts.

And it's not a matter of needing empathy for others already granted to make those social concepts works. It's the exact opposite. It's only needed to care about YOURSELF. The Golden Rule is I care about what I get, so I implement what I want into my social actions in order to attempt to get that in return. It's like giving someone a Christmas gift you want because you know you'll get to use it when you hang out with them. Caring about them is irrelevant, it's about yourself firsthand and foremost. It's also the same in the veil of ignorance, it's wanting what is likely to benefit you in all situations to the most likely chance you'll get it.

There are some presumptions we make in these. Basically they only are simply nothing more than our biological desire: Keep life alive, reproduce, and maintain equal among our own to continue this process healthily. Nothing else is added into these concepts.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
24-12-2014, 07:54 AM
RE: Slavery and Abolitionist
(23-12-2014 03:50 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  It's biological.. I don't get how many times it has to be said to you but you always seem to want to assume it's something else. That's where empathy and fairness come from. I sent that link in there as trends show everyone(apart from those considered physiologically ill) has these basic concepts of empathy, etc. It's their social impact that effects How Much they care for these, but still almost everyone has these innate concepts.

I can understand the feeling of empathy is a biological sensation, but I'm not sure if you mean it's more than a biological sensation?

Would you say the desire for power, for wealth, for prestige, greed, selfishness, are all innate concepts that almost everyone has in the same way, as something like fairness?
Or are these concepts not innate to us in the same way, and arise from external forces or something? Is it our biology that places empathy as a higher value than these other desires? Or is it our beliefs about empathy that does that? Is the reason that I or someone else would hold empathy, caring for others as superior to being selfish, greedy the result of my biology, or the result of beliefs? Is it our biology that orders values in such a way, or it our beliefs systems that do that?

Quote:And it's not a matter of needing empathy for others already granted to make those social concepts works. It's the exact opposite. It's only needed to care about YOURSELF. The Golden Rule is I care about what I get, so I implement what I want into my social actions in order to attempt to get that in return. It's like giving someone a Christmas gift you want because you know you'll get to use it when you hang out with them. Caring about them is irrelevant, it's about yourself firsthand and foremost. It's also the same in the veil of ignorance, it's wanting what is likely to benefit you in all situations to the most likely chance you'll get it.

No, that's not the golden rule, it may be your revision of it. But the golden rule is not about what one gets in return from the person who one gives to. If I see a man hungry on a trip to some foreign country I likely will never return to, and I give him food, it wouldn't be because I imagine that at some point he might end up doing this for me, but rather as the result of empathy, that I feel for him in the sense that I might feel for my brother.

Now, people can do something that appears on the surface to be the same thing, such as giving their boss that they despise or don't care for an expensive gift, solely to manipulate him into offering them a promotion. Here it was a desire to acquire more money, and not any sort of empathy towards him that gave rise to me giving him a gift, unlike when I give a gift to my wife. In fact one can be a sociopath and behave in such ways. The man's actions are purely calculated by reason, no different in this sense than a man who offers a child candy to get them to get in their car.

The science of empathy actually shows, that it can be lost, in fact exists at a lesser extent among the upper class, than among the lower class. Our desire to accumulate power and wealth, and prestige, particularly when we're somewhat successful, often erodes our compassion for others.

But what orders compassion, empathy, fairness as a higher desire, something that should be valued more than the accumulation of wealth, and power for people? Is it our biology, or our beliefs systems?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-12-2014, 08:57 AM
RE: Slavery and Abolitionist
A Tomasia slavery thread? Countdown to Godwin in 3... 2... 1...

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-12-2014, 09:01 AM
RE: Slavery and Abolitionist
(24-12-2014 08:57 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  A Tomasia slavery thread? Countdown to Godwin in 3... 2... 1...

I got your back:



[/quote]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-12-2014, 02:16 PM
RE: Slavery and Abolitionist
(24-12-2014 07:54 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(23-12-2014 03:50 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  It's biological.. I don't get how many times it has to be said to you but you always seem to want to assume it's something else. That's where empathy and fairness come from. I sent that link in there as trends show everyone(apart from those considered physiologically ill) has these basic concepts of empathy, etc. It's their social impact that effects How Much they care for these, but still almost everyone has these innate concepts.

I can understand the feeling of empathy is a biological sensation, but I'm not sure if you mean it's more than a biological sensation?

Would you say the desire for power, for wealth, for prestige, greed, selfishness, are all innate concepts that almost everyone has in the same way, as something like fairness?
Or are these concepts not innate to us in the same way, and arise from external forces or something? Is it our biology that places empathy as a higher value than these other desires? Or is it our beliefs about empathy that does that? Is the reason that I or someone else would hold empathy, caring for others as superior to being selfish, greedy the result of my biology, or the result of beliefs? Is it our biology that orders values in such a way, or it our beliefs systems that do that?

Quote:And it's not a matter of needing empathy for others already granted to make those social concepts works. It's the exact opposite. It's only needed to care about YOURSELF. The Golden Rule is I care about what I get, so I implement what I want into my social actions in order to attempt to get that in return. It's like giving someone a Christmas gift you want because you know you'll get to use it when you hang out with them. Caring about them is irrelevant, it's about yourself firsthand and foremost. It's also the same in the veil of ignorance, it's wanting what is likely to benefit you in all situations to the most likely chance you'll get it.

No, that's not the golden rule, it may be your revision of it. But the golden rule is not about what one gets in return from the person who one gives to. If I see a man hungry on a trip to some foreign country I likely will never return to, and I give him food, it wouldn't be because I imagine that at some point he might end up doing this for me, but rather as the result of empathy, that I feel for him in the sense that I might feel for my brother.

Now, people can do something that appears on the surface to be the same thing, such as giving their boss that they despise or don't care for an expensive gift, solely to manipulate him into offering them a promotion. Here it was a desire to acquire more money, and not any sort of empathy towards him that gave rise to me giving him a gift, unlike when I give a gift to my wife. In fact one can be a sociopath and behave in such ways. The man's actions are purely calculated by reason, no different in this sense than a man who offers a child candy to get them to get in their car.

The science of empathy actually shows, that it can be lost, in fact exists at a lesser extent among the upper class, than among the lower class. Our desire to accumulate power and wealth, and prestige, particularly when we're somewhat successful, often erodes our compassion for others.

But what orders compassion, empathy, fairness as a higher desire, something that should be valued more than the accumulation of wealth, and power for people? Is it our biology, or our beliefs systems?

Do take it so seriously foolish like that. it's not a direct experience situation only, you give the man food because you in his situation (If you ever were, it doesn't matter if you think you wont be) would want the man walking down the road to give you food. It's an abstract return, you're not expecting a direct person to person return... and thinking of him as your brother is a bizarre thing to add. That's a connection you have from your biological connection tightly to that person.

What does Orders mean? You constantly use these terms as if there is some higher entity or power that is forcing things into a box. That's what I don't get about you. These terms and these ideas aren't relevant to any study or practical usage and kinda don't make sense. To say it frankly, there isn't one. There isn't order along the same lines for everyone clearly.

I would also say your speaking of greed/power/wealth are excessive reaches of the instincts to be comfy. All of these patterns get influenced by social standing but they start genetically. And instinctively people have a range of where they value social good acts higher than other moral quandaries.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: