- Apr 5, 2007
- 144,404
- 27,057
- 57
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Reformed
- Marital Status
- Married
There are no unfavorable consequences to the owners. Who are you to tell them they are wrong?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
There are no unfavorable consequences to the owners. Who are you to tell them they are wrong?And the consequences for the slaves are unfavorable. See? We’re doing morality now. We’re weighing the consequences of a potential action for all who would be affected.
There were plenty of unfavorable consequences for the owners of slaves in the end. Why are you ignoring the consequences for the slaves themselves? Are they not real?There are no unfavorable consequences to the owners. Who are you to tell them they are wrong?
I don't intend for it to be understood as a mere intuition. Rather, it's only meant to be a basic rational cognition that results in a moral recognition, kind of like how the Categorical Imperative is a rational capacity withing Kant's Deontological Ethics.Once again I've taken some time to give this some thought, and my conclusion is that I still don't know what this "Unwritten Universal Moral Principle" is, other than perhaps that which everyone intuits to be right or wrong. Is that what it is? I presume not. Because not everyone intuits the same things to be right or wrong. So therein lies my dilemma. Without knowing what this "Unwritten Universal Moral Principle" is, your argument confuses me.
I think you have a loose idea as to what consitutes "intuition." It's probably best to look up the Intuitionist Ethics of G.E. Moore or of moral philosophers like him to get a firmer feel by what they mean by "moral intuition," because it's not the colloquial meaning of the same term. Moral Intuition isn't simply a feeling, and kind of like how the term 'theory' doesn't retain the same low level of meaning when it's used in conjunction with science, this is the case also when "intuition" is used in tandem with Ethics and Moral Philosophy.For example, I could ask whether it's immoral for a fifty year old man to marry and have relations with a ten year old girl. In certain times, and indeed even now in certain cultures, the answer to that question is no, it's not immoral, whereas most people in this day and age would say yes, it is immoral. So we have diverse groups of people intuiting and rationally concluding completely different answers.
Oddly enough, this still doesn't rule out the existence of objective morality, because it may simply be that people just don't understand the nature of morality. Slavery may be perfectly moral in one instance and completely immoral in another. These two things need not be contradictory, nor mutually exclusive.
How can that be?
I think you've misunderstood Survivial of the Fittest. You're description of it is too abstracted from the actual lived experiences that take place in expanded networks among populations; survival of the fittest doesn't necessarily apply at all times to single individuals. Even so-called "Chads" who are found amongs various species can get dumped, sometimes worse.Well, consider evolution with its own unwritten universal principle of "Survival of the Fittest". That principle holds true no matter what. It's never, ever violated. Yet that doesn't mean that what survives in one scenario will be the same thing that survives in another scenario. So while the underlying principle is never violated, the effect of that principle can and does change over time depending upon the prevailing conditions.
.......................that's because the principle is only one principle and isn't meant to work in isolation of all other aspects of an overall Ethical system or playing out of morality where moral complicated deliberations are at stake. Do you understand now what I mean? My claim that this UUMP exists is but one small aspect of an overall, more extensive ethics, not the whole ball of wax. It's kind of like how your nose isn't your whole face or your whole body. It's just one little part. It's not meant to address all moral problems or issues. It's not meant to serve as a complete code of conduct. It's not going to make a person realize that slavery isn't a good thing or just. It's a simple test that, when applied, will provide a moral recognition about an extreme instance, and it should do so easily enough and 'tell' a person that they're being inconsistent [irrational is the word I'm looking for] if they deny the principle.The question then is, is the same thing true with morality, i.e. its "Unwritten Universal Moral Principle" as you put it, never changes, but the way that that principle gets expressed in any given place and time can and does change. Hence slavery may be immoral in one instance, but not in another. In both instances the principle remains the same, but the circumstances don't.
I find this to be an interesting concept, but it also leaves me wondering, if evolution has the simple underlying principle of "Survival of the Fittest" then what's the "Unwritten Universal Moral Principle" behind morality?
So far you haven't explained it to me, and I really, really would like to know.
What was wrong with their consequences?There were plenty of unfavorable consequences for the owners of slaves in the end. Why are you ignoring the consequences for the slaves themselves? Are they not real?
And why is that wrong?They were undesired.
Morals are grounded in consequences.
Why don't you tell him that it's no more than people don't like getting smacked in the mouth?But even so, if it doesn't work for you or you don't understand what you read when I directed to those previous posts to see what the principle says, then don't worry yourself with it. It's not something that I insist is a mandatory principle everyone needs to learn.
That’s just what we call it when you do things to make bad things happen.And why is that wrong?
There’s nothing that’s necessarily the grounding of morality, but consequences provide something objective to appeal to and measure. Is there anything immoral that doesn’t carry negative consequences for an affected party? Is there anything virtuous that doesn’t carry desirable consequences?They could be, but whether or not this is actually the case, or at least to what extent it is the case, is defined differently among various types of Moral Philosophers and Ethicists.
Consequences aren't necessarily the grounding of morality. Let's keep this in mind as we go along.
Why don't you tell him that it's no more than people don't like getting smacked in the mouth?
There’s nothing that’s necessarily the grounding of morality, but consequences provide something objective to appeal to and measure. Is there anything immoral that doesn’t carry negative consequences for an affected party? Is there anything virtuous that doesn’t carry desirable consequences?
But that's your 'principle'. It's about as insightful as saying that people prefer to breathe in and out ocassionally.Some people are able to put up with getting smacked in the mouth well enough. We call them "contenders".
What makes it a bad thing?That’s just what we call it when you do things to make bad things happen.
True! Laws are negotiated in order that they be agreed upon by everyone; but not all laws are right.Right. You said laws don't have to be right.
Yes! That was an example of one of the many laws that were not right.And now you are saying that a law wasn’t right.
How did you reach that conclusion?According to you, that’s not relevant.
Atheists can use the same method Christians use, we only don't include God.Well, I’ve been asking for evidence of this since page one, and have yet to see it.
It was consistent. According to you, that makes it right. “I'm the one who said laws don't need to be right, they only need to be consistent; remember?”Yes! That was an example of one of the many laws that were not right.
Actually, you can’t. You can say that something is right or wrong. You just cannot explain why.Atheists can use the same method Christians use, we only don't include God.
I love having my ideas challenged. I love discussing with people who disagree with me, and are happy to articulate why they think I’m wrong; that is how I learn, this is how I grow. If I were to surround myself with people who agree with me, I will learn nothing about those who disagree with me so when I leave my echo chamber and is forced to deal with opposing views in the real world, my arguments will fall apart like a house of cards because I will not be prepared to defend my position.What kind of information are you looking for? Do you really want to understand what I think about the world? Why is that of interest to you anyway?
What is your first priority?Typically, I'm not looking for information from folks on a public, personal forum, personal or scientific. Learning how other people think about the world is secondary in priority for me.
What are your goals?I see. We're a little different on that count. I have specific goals and reasons for even being here on a public forum, especially if and when I'm having to engage those who think differently than I do.
Why would you call something the truth if you don’t completely understand it?Going back now to an earlier trope in a previous few posts, I'll say up front that I concpetually divide truth from Truth. One is an aspect of knowledge. The other is a term that no one of us can fully know.
For what I do know, it's provisional. I believe truth is provisional.For what I do know, it's provisional. I believe truth is provisional.
How is that different from the truth?Reality, by comparison, is what it is whether I know it or not or like it or not. Or even if other people like it or not.
fair by what standard?Justice is what actually 'is' fair rather than what any of us merely thinks it should be or what any leaders necessarily think it should be.
For what I do know, it's provisional. I believe truth is provisional.Knowing what justice is is the problem, one that I don't pretend exists in the human social realm without complexities and complications. And it's only something that a God would really know in full.
Why would you bring Epistemologists into this conversation, unless you agree with what they are saying?No, that's not what I said. Look again back up in post #542. See the qualifiable difference?
I said: Epistemologists will aver that Knowledge isn't simply information...
I’m sorry; but I don’t remember the context of which I said that. As sentient beings, we all react to our environment; I am no different in that regard.So, here we come to what for me is an important point of our conversation, where I ask: What does "reacting" to reality mean and/or entail for you in the processes of your daily life?
In the USA Christianity was used to justify slavery. It was said by purchasing people already doomed for a lifetime of slavery and introducing them to Christianity in the USA, they would at least have their souls saved; thus they were better off being brought to America than somewhere else.They would have to be ignoring the consequences that apply to the slaves. They’re not doing morality if they’re ignoring consequences.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?